{
  "url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-regulation-2006-1737/annex-III",
  "json_url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-regulation-2006-1737/annex-III.json",
  "legislation": "eur/2006/1737",
  "legislation_title": "Commission Regulation (EC) No 1737/2006 of 7 November 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community",
  "legislation_url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-regulation-2006-1737",
  "path": "annex/III",
  "kind": "annex",
  "number": "III",
  "heading": "Evaluation criteria concerning studies, experiments",
  "text": "The following seven criteria listed in the table below shall be applied by the Commission for the purpose of evaluating proposals for studies, experiments and demonstration projects and testing on the basis of a pilot phase included in the national programmes.\nThe range of points available for each question specifying the seven criteria and the elimination scores fore each questions are provided by the table below. If a proposal does not reach the minimum score for a question it shall be eliminated from the process.\nCriteria\nAssessment range\nEliminatory score\nAssessment points\nAward CRITERIA\n1. Coherence of the project\n0 to 20\nLess than 9\nAre the project objectives fully explained?\nDoes the purpose of the project correspond with the monitoring issues addressed by Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003?\nAre the expected results explained?\nIs a clear and fully detailed explanation given of the action required?\n2. Planning\n0 to 10\nLess than 4\nIs the planning realistic?\n3. Financial feasibility\n0 to 10\nLess than 4\nIs the budgetary estimate realistic?\n4. Durability\n0 to 20\nLess than 15\nMay the action taken and the results have a lasting impact after the project is completed?\n5. General quality of presentation\n0 to 10\n/\nIs the project presented in a logical and well-argued manner? Is the proposal document well structured, clear and complete?\n6. Quality of the proposal\n0 to 20\nLess than 9\nEvaluation of methodology and project set-up\n7. Community interest\n0-20\n/\nDoes this project provide directly or indirectly provided added value at Community level?",
  "extent": "E+W+S+N.I.",
  "status": null,
  "version": "current",
  "annotations": [],
  "outstanding_effects": [],
  "provenance": {
    "source": "legislation.gov.uk",
    "source_url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2006/1737/annex/III",
    "retrieved_at": "2026-11-01T14:53:19.930195+00:00"
  },
  "licence": "Open Government Licence v3.0",
  "licence_url": "https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/",
  "attribution": "Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives."
}