PROJECT PERIODIC REPORT

Grant Agreement number: 628170

Project acronym: USHP

Project title: Unity of Structured HyperPropositions

Funding Scheme: FP7-PEOPLE-2013-IEF

Date of latest version of Annex I against which the assessment will be made:

Periodic report: 1st X 2

nd □ 3

rd □ 4

th □

Period covered: from 01 SEPTEMBER 2014 to 31 AUGUST 2016

Name, title and organisation of the scientific representative of the project's coordinator1:

Professor Manuel García-Carpintero, LOGOS, Faculty of Philosophy, University of

Barcelona, Spain

Tel:

Fax:

E-mail: mgcarpintero@gmail.com

Project website2 address: http://www.ub.edu/grc_logos/bj,

http://www.ub.edu/grc_logos/project_card.php?idProj=55

1 Usually the contact person of the coordinator as specified in Art. 8.1. of the Grant Agreement. 2 The home page of the website should contain the generic European flag and the FP7 logo which are available in electronic format

at the Europa website (logo of the European flag: http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/emblem/index_en.htm logo of the 7th

FP: http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm?pg=logos). The area of activity of the project should also be mentioned.

2

Declaration by the scientific representative of the project coordinator

I, as scientific representative of the coordinator of this project and in line with the obligations as

stated in Article II.2.3 of the Grant Agreement declare that:

The attached periodic report represents an accurate description of the work carried out in this

project for this reporting period;

The project (tick as appropriate) 3

:

has fully achieved its objectives and technical goals for the period;

X has achieved most of its objectives and technical goals for the period with

relatively minor deviations.

has failed to achieve critical objectives and/or is not at all on schedule.

The public website, if applicable

is up to date

X is not entirely up to date

To my best knowledge, the financial statements which are being submitted as part of this report

are in line with the actual work carried out and are consistent with the report on the resources

used for the project (section 3.4) and if applicable with the certificate on financial statement.

All beneficiaries, in particular non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education

establishments, research organisations and SMEs, have declared to have verified their legal

status. Any changes have been reported under section 3.2.3 (Project Management) in

accordance with Article II.3.f of the Grant Agreement.

3 If either of these boxes below is ticked, the report should reflect these and any remedial actions taken.

3

Name of scientific representative of the Coordinator: ....................................................................

Date: ...19........./ ....10......../ ....2016........

For most of the projects, the signature of this declaration could be done directly via the IT reporting

tool through an adapted IT mechanism and in that case, no signed paper form needs to be sent

4

3.1 Publishable summary

A summary description of project context and objectives.

This project is a two-year Marie Curie Fellowship that is part of the Horizon 2020 framework. It is being carried out at LOGOS, University of

Barcelona, which is one of the foremost research institutions in analytic philosophy, including philosophical logic and philosophy of language, in

the European Research Area. The LOGOS counterpart is Professor Manuel García-Carpintero.

The topic is the unity of the proposition. One version of the unity problem is the mereological, hence metaphysical question how multiple

entities of different categories work together so as to form one unit, a proposition, which has properties that none of its constituents has. This is a

common part/whole problem. Another version of the unity problem is the semantic question of how propositions succeed in being or having or

yielding truth-conditions. Some theories dismiss one version at the expense of the other, while others see them as two sides of the same coin. I

am all for the latter approach. The mereological unity problem arises as soon as propositions are claimed to be structures.

There are various reasons for advocating structured propositions, but one of the prevalent reasons is that the notion of structure may help

one to a notion of fine-grained (so-called hyperintensional) propositions. Only recently has contemporary research into fine-grained propositions

been brought explicitly in contact with research into the mereology of structured propositions. This involves reopening old debates concerning

constituency, degrees of complexity, composition and decomposition, abstract versus concrete parts, etc. It also involves reopening the debate

concerning what the unifiers of structured propositions are. Two standard constraints on any viable answer are that a structured proposition must

be more than an enumeration or list of entities and that regress must be avoided.

The Marie Curie project in question pursues the twin idea that the procedure of predication holds the key to the unity of at least atomic

propositions and that certain logical procedures can serve as propositional unifiers. The theory will be worked out within the framework of

Transparent Intensional Logic. Predication, unlike instantiation, does not require that an object that has a property assigned to it actually does

have that property. So predication, unlike instantiation, can handle the fail cases the same way it handles the success cases. Nor do I think of

predication as a relation. It is common in the literature, including the most recent, to simply assume that a relation must obtain between the

designated constituents of a proposition. This is far from being an innocuous assumption, for it saddles us with addressing Bradley’s old problem

of how to relate a relation to the entities it relates. A regress is looming on the horizon. Therefore, I construe predication not as a relation, but as

an instance of the logical operation of applying a function to an argument. Predication is an instance of this operation. I suggest that the

backbone of atomic propositions is predication. This is not an unusual view in itself, but what is novel is the idea that a proposition is to be

identified with a procedure that embodies instructions to apply such-and-such operations to such-and-such entities in order to obtain such-and-

such results, e.g. truth-conditions. The overall objective of the project is to investigate how satisfactory an account of structure, unity and

individuation of propositions can be extracted from a procedural semantics, i.e. a theory of meaning that identifies meanings with procedures.

Hence the title of the talk (in its various versions) that I have been giving at various universities as part of my visits as a Marie Curie

Ambassador: “What can procedural semantics do for the unity of structured propositions? (A lot!)”.

5

A description of the work performed since the beginning of the project and the main results achieved so far.

Six papers (as well as an Introduction) have so far been accepted for publication, four of which have already appeared in print.

(Furthermore some of the key papers of this project are currently being written up: see below.)

The special issue of Synthese on the unity of structured propositions that I am co-editing together with Manuel García-Carpintero is in

full progress. So far papers by S. Soames, P. Hanks, J. Speaks, R. Gaskin, M. Eklund, G. Ostertag, F. Recanati, and P. Pagin have been

accepted for publication. We expect to soon accept papers by J. King and B. Pickel. Four other papers, by M. Duží, Lorraine Keller,

John Keller, and myself, have been promised by the authors and will soon be received and reviewed. The final issue will in al l

likelihood run to a dozen papers or more. García-Carpintero and I will co-author a lengthy Introduction to the issue.

Professor Manuel García-Carpintero and I co-organized a three-day conference, 22-24 June 2015, which involved twelve speakers (eight

invited, four solicited) and which was held in Barcelona. The topic was the unity of structured propositions, and the conference was

arranged as the Barcelona Workshop on Reference 9 (BW9). The speakers were J. King, S. Soames, P. Hanks, P. Pagin, L. Keller, G.

Ostertag, M. Duží, J. Keller, G. Georgi, I. Reiland, and myself.

I have given the following tutorials:

4 Department of Philosophy, National University of Singapore, 18 September 2015: Introduction to the unity of structured

propositions.

3 Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University, 22 April 2014: On the unity of the proposition that a is an F.

2 Department of Philosophy, UNAM, Mexico City, 10 March 2015: On the unity of the proposition that a is an F.

1 Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, UC Irvine, C-ALPHA, 4 March 2015: On the unity of the proposition that a is an

F.

I have given the following invited lectures as a Marie Curie Ambassador:

11 A critique of act theories of propositions and predication (joint work with M. García-Carpintero), Department of Philosophy,

Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, 22 May 2016.

10 What can procedural semantics do for the unity of structured propositions? (A lot!), ILLC/University of Amsterdam, 18 May

2016.

9 A critique of act theories of propositions and predication (joint work with M. García-Carpintero), ILLC/University of Amsterdam,

Discourse and Philosophy Seminar, 13 May 2016.

6

8 What can procedural semantics do for the unity of structured propositions? (A lot!), Department of Philosophy, Groningen

University, GroLog, 12 May 2016.

7 A critique of act theories of propositions and predication (joint work with M. García-Carpintero), Yonsei University, Underwood

Inernational College, Seoul, 29 April 2016.

6 What can procedural semantics do for the unity of structured propositions? (A lot!), Department of Philosophy, Lingnan

University, Hong Kong, 30 September 2015.

5 What can procedural semantics do for the unity of structured propositions? (A lot!), Department of Philosophy, National

University of Singapore, 23 September 2015.

4 What can procedural semantics do for the unity of structured propositions? (A lot!), Department of Philosophy, Stockholm

University, Logic, Language and Mind Colloquium, 24 April 2015.

3 Property conjunction for complex predicates, Department of Philosophy, Uppsala

University, 23 April 2015.

2 What can procedural semantics do for the unity of structured propositions? (A lot!), Department of Philosophy, UNAM, Mexico

City, 11 March 2015.

1 What can procedural semantics do for the unity of structured propositions? (A lot!), Department of Logic and Philosophy of

Science, UC Irvine, LPS Colloquium, 6 March 2015.

I have given the following invited talks:

4 Iterated privation, How to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’: Logical Approaches to Modes of Assertion and Denial, Università del Salento, Lecce,

21-22 January 2016.

3 The unity of the proposition that a is an F, Research Seminar, LOGOS, Barcelona, 18 February 2015.

2 Property conjunction for complex predicates, Logic Café, Department of Computer Science, TU Ostrava, 29-30 January 2015.

1 Modal fatigue and hyperintensional knowledge: variations on themes from Nolan and

Needham, Modal Epistemology and Metaphysics, University of Belgrade, 18-20

September 2014.

I have given the following solicited talks (both reviewed):

2 Towards a mereology of structured propositions, Fifth Italian Conference in Analytic Ontology, University of Padua, 27-29 June

2016.

1 Ode to the proliferation of propositions, ENFA VI, Ponta Delgada, 10-12 September 2015.

7

I have taught the following seminars:

2 Autumn Term 2015: Philosophical Logic: Propositions, MA/postgrad students, Department of Logic, History and Philosophy of

Science, University of Barcelona.

1 Spring Term 2015: The Nature of Language, MA/postgrad students, Department of Logic, History and Philosophy of Science,

University of Barcelona (co-taught with M. García-Carpintero)

I have carried out the following services to the profession:

8 Joining the Advisory Board of the ERC Consolidator project, The Logic of Conceivability: Modelling Rational Imagination with

Non-Normal Modal Logics, F. Berto (PI), ILLC/University of Amsterdam.

7Joining the search committee for the postdoc of the above ERC project together with F. Berto, H. Wansing, G. Priest.

6 Becoming a judge on the Philosophy Panel of Undergraduate Awards 2016.

5 Acting twice as an evaluator for SASPRO, the mobility program of the Slovak Academy of Sciences as part of FP7-Marie-Curie-

Actions-COFUND.

4 Reviewer for SLMFCE VIII, 7-10 July 2015, Barcelona.

3 Joining the scientific committee of XVII Taller d'Investigació en Filosofia (XVII Research Workshop in Philosophy), Universitát

Autónoma, Barcelona, January 2015.

2 Member of the scientific committee of Modal Epistemology and Metaphysics, University of Belgrade, 18-20 September 2014.

1 Refereeing for Mind, Cambridge University Press (book proposal), dialectica, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, Logica

Universalis, Grazer Philosophische Studien, Disputatio, Theoria (Stockholm).

The expected final results and their potential impact and use (including the socio-economic impact and the wider societal implications of the

project so far).

What is emerging is a worked-out theory (rather than a program or project) that accounts for the unity and structure of hyperpropositions by

means of a theory based on procedural semantics. This makes for a major contribution to current philosophical logic and philosophy of

language. Furthermore, my procedural theory provides the formal-semantic and logical underpinnings of the notion of unity and structure

(and derivatively also of individuation or granularity) that is part and parcel of the theory Transparent Intensional Logic, which has been

developed into a code language for computers, known as TIL-Script, at the Department of Computer Science, TU Ostrava, Czech Republic,

headed by Professor Duží.

8

The address of the project public website, if applicable.

http://www.ub.edu/logosbw/bw9/program.html

3.2 Core of the report for the period: Project objectives, work progress and achievements, project management

3.2.1 Project objectives for the period

As stated in the grant agreement, the objectives were to train myself in those portions of contemporary analytic philosophy of language and

metaphysics that treat of semantic content and structured meaning. I have been particularly interested in how different theories view the

relationship between sentential and propositional structure. The objectives were to become proficient in various formal theories of propositional

structure and to modify Transparent Intensional Logic in the light of my insights.

Please include a summary of the recommendations from the previous reviews (if any) and indicate how these have been taken into

account.

Not applicable.

3.2.2 Work progress and achievements during the period

A summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task.

The work packages concern my growth as a thinker during the course of the Fellowship. Two insights stand out. One concerns the bifurcation

of the unity problem into a mereological (hence metaphysical) and a truth-conditional (hence semantic) problem. Traditionally, it seems, the

unity problem was exclusively or predominantly taken to be the former. Currently, it is rather the other way around. I have seen convincing

arguments to the effect that the semantic and the mereological problem are intertwined and demand one common solution. The one common

problem, then, is how structured propositions are united (i.e. how their constituents are unified into a whole) in such a way that they represent

truth-conditions. This will be my approach, anyway. The other insight is that the current act-theoretic approaches take themselves to be

consistent with semantic realism while being vehemently opposed to Platonism. I seem to detect, however, an unintended idealist undercurrent

(in that language-using agents must perform various acts that underpin the unity of propositions) which is liable to challenge the assumed

objectivity of propositions.

9

Highlight clearly significant results.

My published output so far as part of this Marie Curie Fellowship is the following:

7‘Left subsectivity: how to infer that a round peg is round’, dialectica, accepted for

publication (refereed).

6 ‘Is predication an act or an operation?’, in: Topics in Predication Theory, vol. 2:

Philosophy of Language and Logic, P. Stalmaszczyk (ed.), Studies in Philosophy of

Language and Linguistics, Peter Lang GmbH (commissioned), forthcoming.

5 ‘Should propositions proliferate?’, Thought, vol. 4 (2015), 243-51.

DOI: 10.1002/tht3.184 (refereed).

4 ‘Qualifying quantifying-in’, in: Quantifiers, Quantifiers, and Quantifiers, A. Torza

(ed.), Synthese Library, vol. 373 (2015), 241-69. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-18362-6

(commissioned).

3 ‘Introduction’ (with M. Duží), Synthese, vol. 192 (2015), 525-34. DOI

10.1007/s11229-015-0665-9 (commissioned).

2 ‘Transparent quantification into hyperintensional objectual attitudes’ (with M. Duží),

Synthese, vol. 192 (2015), 635-77. DOI 10.1007/s11229-014-0578-z (refereed).

1 ‘Structured lexical concepts, property modifiers, and Transparent Intensional Logic’,

Philosophical Studies, vol. 172 (2015), 321-45. DOI 10.1007/s11098-014-0305-0 (refereed).

The following manuscripts are currently being written up for submission and will, when published, be attributed to the project:

6 ‘Anatomy of a proposition (previously: ‘Unities of the proposition’), 18,000 words,

version read at BW9, ready for submission to the special issue on unity.

5‘A critique of act-theoretic theories of predication and propositions’, with M. García-

Carpintero, 10,000 words currently, version read at Edinburgh.

4‘Non-extensional, yet well-founded mereology for structured propositions’, 5,200 words

currently, versions read at Padova and Ostrava.

3‘Property conjunction for complex predicates’, 11,700 words currently, version read at

Uppsala.

10

2 ‘Transparent quantification into hyperpropositional contexts de dicto’, with M.Duží,

revise and resubmit, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, revisions in progress,

submission before the end of 2016.

1 ‘Iterated privation and positive predication’, with M. Duží and M. Carrara, version read

at Lecce, for a special issue of Journal of Applied Logic on negation and denial, near

completion, deadline November 2016.

3.2.3 Project management during the period

Please use this section to summarise management of the consortium activities during the period. Management tasks are indicated in Articles II.2.3

and Article II.16.5 of the Grant Agreement.

Amongst others, this section should include the following:

Consortium management tasks and achievements;

Problems which have occurred and how they were solved or envisaged solutions;

Not applicable.

Changes in the consortium, if any; Not applicable.

List of project meetings, dates and venues;

For organized conference, tutorials and presentations, see above.

• Justification of real costs (management costs);

• Other

3.3 Deliverables and milestones tables

Deliverables

The deliverables due in this reporting period, as indicated in Annex I to the Grant Agreement have to be uploaded by the responsible participants

(as indicated in Annex I), and then approved and submitted by the Coordinator. Deliverables are of a nature other than periodic or final

11

reports (ex: "prototypes", "demonstrators" or "others"). The periodic reports and the final report have NOT to be considered as deliverables.

If the deliverables are not well explained in the periodic and/or final reports, then, a short descriptive report should be submitted, so that the

Commission has a record of their existence.

If a deliverable has been cancelled or regrouped with another one, please indicate this in the column "Comments".

If a new deliverable is proposed, please indicate this in the column "Comments".

The number of persons/month for each deliverable has been defined in Annex I of the Grant Agreement and cannot be changed. In SESAM, this

number is automatically transferred from NEF and is not editable. If there is a deviation from the Annex I, then this should be clearly explained

in the comments column.

This table is cumulative, that is, it should always show all deliverables from the beginning of the project

TABLE 1. DELIVERABLES

Del.

No

.

‘Left

subsectivity: how

to infer that a

round peg is

round’,

dialectica,

Versi

on

WP

no.

Lead

beneficiar

y

Nature Dissemination

level4

Delivery

date from

Annex I

(proj

month)

Actual

/

Forec

ast

delive

ry

date

Dd/m

m/yyy

y

Status

Accepte

d for

publicati

on

Comments still no DOI

assigned;

awaiting

galley proofs.

12

‘Is predication an

act or an

operation?’,

Studies in

Philosophy of

Language and

Linguistics

Accepte

d for

publicati

on

Still no DOI

assigned;

awaiting

galley proofs

‘Should

propositions

proliferate?’,

Thought

publishe

d DOI

10.1007/s112

29-015-0665-

9

‘Qualifying

quantifying-in’,

in: Quantifiers,

Quantifiers, and

Quantifiers, A.

Torza (ed.),

Synthese Library

publishe

d DOI

10.1007/s112

29-014-0578-

z

13

‘Introduction’

(with M. Duží),

Synthese

publishe

d

DOI

10.1007/s112

29-015-0665-

9

‘Transparent

quantification

into

hyperintensional

objectual

attitudes’ (with

M. Duží),

Synthese.

DOI

10.1007/s112

29-014-0578-

z

14

‘Structured

lexical concepts,

property

modifiers, and

Transparent

Intensional

Logic’,

Philosophical

Studies

publishe

d DOI

10.1007/s110

98-014-0305-

0

Milestones

Please complete this table if milestones are specified in Annex I to the Grant Agreement. Milestones will be assessed against the specific criteria

and performance indicators as defined in Annex I.

This table is cumulative, which means that it should always show all milestones from the beginning of the project.

What still needs to be achieved in order to complete the project is to convert the manuscripts 6 ‘Anatomy of a proposition , 5‘A critique of

act-theoretic theories of predication and propositions’, 4‘Non-extensional, yet well-founded mereology for structured propositions’ into

publications. 6 is the exposition and justification of my own theory. 5 is a critical assessment of the currently most popular theory of

structure and unity, which happens to share some of my own points of departure, in particular that propositions have a procedural character, but

which also have fundamental shortcomings, especially as regards the balance between semantics and pragmatics, content and force. 4 is the

paper on mereology I have promised. The idea of the paper is to make explicit the implicit mereology of Transparent Intensional Logic and

compare it against a couple of other mereological theories that also reject extensionality (as any theory of fine-grained compounds must), but also

reject the standard notions of parthood and proper parthood and thus become non-well-founded.

15

TABLE 2. MILESTONES

Milestone

no.

Milestone

name

Work

package no

Lead beneficiary

Delivery date

from Annex I

dd/mm/yyyy

Achieved

Yes/No

Actual /

Forecast

achievement

date

dd/mm/yyyy

Comments

1 In progress Within the

following 12

months

2 In progress Within the

following 12

months

3.4 Explanation of the use of the resources and financial statements

The financial statements have to be provided within the Forms C for each beneficiary (if Special Clause 10 applies to your Grant Agreement, a

separate financial statement is provided for each third party as well) together with a summary financial report which consolidates the claimed

Community contribution of all the beneficiaries in an aggregate form, based on the information provided in Form C (Annex VI of the Grant

Agreement) by each beneficiary.

16

The "Explanation of use of resources" requested in the Grant Agreement for personnel costs, subcontracting, any major costs (ex: purchase of

important equipment, travel costs, large consumable items) and indirect costs, have now to be done within the Forms (user guides are accessible

within the Participant Portal)5.

When applicable, certificates on financial statements shall be submitted by the concerned beneficiaries according to Article II.4.4 of the Grant

Agreement.

Besides the electronic submission, Forms C as well as certificates (if applicable), have to be signed and sent in parallel by post.

The following table is required only for the funding schemes for Research for the benefit of SMEs

THE TRANSACTION Please provide a list of the actual cost incurred by the RTD performers during the performance of the work subcontracted to them. These costs

refer only to the agreed 'Transaction'.

Name of

RTD

Performer

Number of

person months

Personnel

Costs (€)

Durable

equipment Consumables Computing

Overhead

Costs (€)

Other

Costs

(€)

Total by

RTD

performer

TOTAL

5 In the past, the explanation of use of resources requested in the Grant Agreement was done within a table in this section. The merge of this table within the Forms C was a

measure of simplification aimed at avoiding duplication and/or potential discrepancies between the data provided in the table 'Explanation of use of resources' and the data

provided in the Forms C.

17

IMPORTANT:

Form C varies with the funding scheme used. Please make sure that you use the correct form

corresponding to your project (Templates for Forms C are provided in Annex VI to the Grant

Agreement). An example for collaborative projects is enclosed hereafter.

A Web-based online tool for completing and submitting forms C is accessible via the Participant

Portal: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal, (except for projects managed by DG MOVE

and ENER).

If some beneficiaries in security research have two different rates of funding (part of the funding

may reach 75%6) then two separate financial statements should be filled by the concerned

beneficiaries and two lines should be entered for these beneficiaries in the summary financial

report.

6 Article 33.1 of the EC FP7 rules for participation - REGULATION (EC) No 1906/2006.

18

Project nr Funding scheme

Project Acronym

Period from dd/mm/aa Yes/No

To dd/mm/aa

Legal Name nn

Organisation short Name nn

%

RTD

(A)

Demonstration

(B)

Management

(C)

Other

(D)TOTAL

(A+B+C+D)

Personnel costs

Subcontracting

Other direct costs

Indirect costs

Lump sums/flat-rate/scale of

unit declared

Total

Maximum EC contribution

Requested EC contribution

Yes/No

If yes, please mention the amount (in €)

Did the pre-financing you received generate any interest according to Art. II.19 ? Yes/No

If yes, please mention the amount (in €)

4. Certificate on the methodology

Yes/No

Yes/No

Name of the auditor

5- Certificate on the financial statements

Yes/No

Name of the auditor

Beneficiary’s Stamp

Funding % for RTD activities (A)

Do you declare average personnel costs according to Art. II.14.1 ?

If flat rate for indirect costs, specify %

3- Declaration of interest yielded by the pre-financing (to be completed only by the coordinator )

1- Declaration of eligible costs/lump sum/flate-rate/scale of unit (in €)

Type of Activity

2- Declaration of receipts

Did you receive any financial transfers or contributions in kind, free of charge from third parties or did the project

generate any income which could be considered a receipt according to Art.II.17 of the grant agreement ?

Is there a certificate on the financial statements provided by an independent auditor attached to this financial statement

according to Art.II.4.4 ?

Is there a certificate on the methodology provided by an independent auditor and accepted by the Commission according

to Art. II.4.4 ?

Cost of the certificate (in €), if charged

under this project

Date & signature

Name of the Person(s) Authorised to sign this Financial Statement

6- Beneficiary’s declaration on its honour

We declare on our honour that:

- the costs declared above are directly related to the resources used to attain the objectives of the project and fall within the definition of eligible

costs specified in Articles II.14 and II.15 of the grant agreement, and, if relevant, Annex III and Article 7 (special clauses) of the grant agreement;

- the receipts declared above are the only financial transfers or contributions in kind, free of charge, from third parties and the only income

generated by the project which could be considered as receipts according to Art. II.17 of the grant agreement;

- the interest declared above is the only interest yielded by the pre-financing which falls within the definition of Art. II.19 of the grant agreement ;

- there is full supporting documentation to justify the information hereby declared. It will be made available at the request of the Commission and in

the event of an audit by the Commission and/or by the Court of Auditors and/or their authorised representatives.

Cost of the certificate (in €)

FP7 - Grant Agreement - Annex VI - Collaborative Project

nnnnnn

Beneficiary nr

Is this an adjustment to a previous statement ?

Form C - Financial Statement (to be filled in by each beneficiary )

Collaborative Project

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Participant Identity Code

19

Project nr Funding scheme

Project Acronym

Period from dd/mm/aa Yes/No

To dd/mm/aa

3rd party legal Name

3rd party Organisation short Name nn

%

RTD

(A)

Demonstration

(B)

Management

(C)

Other

(D)TOTAL

(A+B+C+D)

Personnel costs

Subcontracting

Other direct costs

Indirect costs

Lump sums/flat-rate/scale of

unit declared

Total

Maximum EC contribution

Requested EC contribution

Yes/No

If yes, please mention the amount (in €)

Did the pre-financing you received generate any interest according to Art. II.19 ? Yes/No

If yes, please mention the amount (in €)

4. Certificate on the methodology

Yes/No

Yes/No

Name of the auditor

5- Certificate on the financial statements

Yes/No

Name of the auditor

Beneficiary’s Stamp

FP7 - Grant Agreement - Annex VI - Collaborative Project

nnnnnn

Working for beneficiary nr

Is this an adjustment to a previous statement ?

Form C - Financial Statement (to be filled in by Third Party ) Only applicable if special clause nr 10 is used

Collaborative Project

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Date & signature

Name of the Person(s) Authorised to sign this Financial Statement

6- Beneficiary’s declaration on its honour

We declare on our honour that:

- the costs declared above are directly related to the resources used to attain the objectives of the project and fall within the definition of eligible

costs specified in Articles II.14 and II.15 of the grant agreement, and, if relevant, Annex III and Article 7 (special clauses) of the grant agreement;

- the receipts declared above are the only financial transfers or contributions in kind, free of charge, from third parties and the only income

generated by the project which could be considered as receipts according to Art. II.17 of the grant agreement;

- the interest declared above is the only interest yielded by the pre-financing which falls within the definition of Art. II.19 of the grant agreement ;

- there is full supporting documentation to justify the information hereby declared. It will be made available at the request of the Commission and in

the event of an audit by the Commission and/or by the Court of Auditors and/or their authorised representatives.

Cost of the certificate (in €)

Is there a certificate on the financial statements provided by an independent auditor attached to this financial statement

according to Art.II.4.4 ?

Is there a certificate on the methodology provided by an independent auditor and accepted by the Commission according

to Art. II.4.4 ?

Cost of the certificate (in €), if charged

under this project

Funding % for RTD activities (A)

Do you declare average personnel costs according to Art. II.14.1 ?

If flat rate for indirect costs, specify %

3- Declaration of interest yielded by the pre-financing (to be completed only by the coordinator )

1- Declaration of eligible costs/lump sum/flate-rate/scale of unit (in €)

Type of Activity

2- Declaration of receipts

Did you receive any financial transfers or contributions in kind, free of charge from third parties or did the project generate

any income which could be considered a receipt according to Art.II.17 of the grant agreement ?

20

nnnnnnReporting

period fromdd/mm/aa dd/mm/aa Page 1/1

CP

TotalMax EC

ContributionTotal

Max EC

ContributionTotal

Max EC

ContributionTotal

Max EC

Contribution

Total Max EC

ContributionReceipts Interest

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Requested EC contribution for the reporting period (in €)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxProject acronym

TOTAL

Type of activityTotal

(A)+(B)+(C)+(D)RTD (A)Demonstration

(B)

Management

(C)Other (D)

FP7 - Grant Agreement - Annex VI - Collaborative Project

If 3rd Party, linked

to beneficiary

Summary Financial Report - Collaborative Project- to be filled in by the coordinator

Adjustment

(Yes/No)

Funding scheme

Project nr

Beneficiar

y n°

Organisation

Short Name

to: