of the GA Sample Clauses

of the GA. Only costs generated during the lifetime of the project can be eligible; as a result the period during which the project starts determines the period of eligibility of the corresponding costs (Article 2 of the GA – Duration and start date of the project). The GA foresees an exception for costs incurred in relation to final reports and reports corresponding to the last period as well as certificates on the financial statements when requested at the last period and final reviews if applicable. These costs may be incurred during the period of up to 60 days after the end of the project or the date of termination, whichever is earlier. It may be that some costs have not been paid when the request for the final payment is sent, in particular because the beneficiary is waiting for the final payment of the grant in order to be able to pay this expenditure. This situation is acceptable if it is certain that a debt exists (invoice or equivalent) for services or goods actually supplied during the lifetime of the project and the final cost is known; the Commission is entitled to check whether payment was actually made by asking for supporting documents to be produced when the payment has been made or during an ex post audit carried out later. If the equipment has not yet been fully depreciated according to the usual accounting practices of principles of the beneficiary, then the remaining depreciation (according to the amount of use, in percentage and time) can be eligible under the project. Costs related to preparing and submitting the proposal can never be charged to the project.

of the GA. Costs must be determined according to the applicable accounting rules of the country where the beneficiary is established and "according to the usual accounting and management principles and practices of the beneficiary". This also means that they do not have the possibility to create specific accounting principles for FP7 projects. If in their usual accounting principles a particular cost is always considered as an indirect cost they have to consider it also as an indirect cost in an FP7 indirect action. Costs which cannot be justified are, as a matter of principle, to be considered not eligible. The grant agreement states that "the beneficiary's internal accounting and auditing procedures must permit direct reconciliation of the costs and revenue declared in respect of the action with the corresponding accounting statements and supporting documents". The purpose of this provision is to give some assurance about the source of the costs and receipts declared, which must come directly from the beneficiary’s accounts and be backed up by appropriate supporting documents. However, when the beneficiary opts to charge indirect costs using a flat rate, by definition these indirect costs do not need to be backed up by accounting documents (see Article II.15.b and c of GA). More explanations on the justification and recording of costs are given in Article II.15 of GA.

of the GA. Costs of third parties – Costs of resources made available and costs of third parties carrying out part of the work What is a third party? A) making available its resources to a beneficiary (in order for the beneficiary to be able to carry our part of the work) B) by carrying out part of the work itself

of the GA. − For public bodies, the costs of public officials paid directly from central government or local government budgets may also be considered as eligible costs if the other provisions of Article IV.7 of GA are fulfilled. For more explanations concerning the case of personnel (resources) made available by third parties to a beneficiary, please see "special cases" under Article IV.7.2 of the GA. − The particular case of consultants: Consultants are natural (physical) persons, working for one or more beneficiaries in a JU project. They may be either self-employed or working for a third party. There are three possible ways of classifying the costs of consultants (in any event costs will ONLY be eligible if they fulfil the conditions listed in Article IV.7 of GA): 1) They can be considered as personnel costs; regardless of whether the intra-muros consultants are self-employed or employed by a third party, if the following cumulative criteria are fulfilled: • The beneficiary has a contract to engage a physical person to work for it and some of that work involves tasks to be carried out under the JU project, • The physical person must work under the instructions of the beneficiary (i.e. the work is decided, designed and supervised by the beneficiary), • The physical person must work in the premises of the beneficiary (except in the case of teleworking agreed between both parties), • The result of the work belongs to the beneficiary, • The costs of employing the consultant are not significantly different from the personnel costs of employees of the same category working under labour law contract for the beneficiary, • Travel and subsistence costs related to such consultants' participation in project meetings or other travel relating to the project would have to be paid directly by the beneficiary in order to be eligible. 2) Costs related to consultants can be considered as subcontracting costs if the beneficiary has to enter into a subcontract to hire these consultants to perform part of the work to be carried out under the project and the conditions set out in the Grant Agreement, in particular if the provisions of Article IV.6 of GA relating to subcontracting are fulfilled. In these cases, the beneficiary's control over the work to be performed by the subcontractor is determined by the nature of the subcontract. The subcontractor does not usually work on the premises of the beneficiary and the terms of the work are not so closely carried out under the direct instr...