Ettevalmistustoetuse taotlemine - ELDA

5868670 428625 0 0 -3810 9839325 Ehitajate tee 5 19086 Tallinn Rg-kood 74000323 Tel 620 2002 E-post [email protected] www.taltech.ee 0 0 Ehitajate tee 5 19086 Tallinn Rg-kood 74000323 Tel 620 2002 E-post [email protected] www.taltech.ee -3810 428625 0 0 SA Eesti Teadusagentuur Soola 8 08 .0 7. 2025 nr 11-10/351-8 5 1004 Tartu Ettevalmistustoetuse taotlemine Käesolevaga taotleb Tallinna Tehnikaülikool ( reg nr 74000323, ak EE201010052037382001 ) ettevalmistustoetust COST p rojekti le European Legal Design Action – ELDA ( OC-2024-1-27221 ) , vastutav täitja Ebru Metin, ärikorralduse instituut. Lugupidamisega (allkirjastatud digitaalselt) Marika Lunden Teadusosakond Lisa: hindamisleht left 284480 Riina Vilgats 620 3536 [email protected] 0 0 Riina Vilgats 620 3536 [email protected] CONSENSUS EVALUATION REPORT GENERAL OVERVIEW Open Call Collection OC-2024-1 Proposal Reference OC-2024-1-27221 Proposal Title European Legal Design Action Proposal Acronym ELDA Evaluation Status Final EVALUATION SUMMARY TABLE S&T EXCELLENCE NETWORKING EXCELLENCE IMPACT IMPLEM Marks ENTATIO N Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Total 4 4 4 3 4 2 2 5 5 5 38 COMMENTS S&T EXCELLENCE Soundness of the Challenge Q1 - Does the proposal demonstrate a comprehensive command of the state of the art in the field and Mark present a relevant and timely challenge? The proposal addresses this question in a very good manner. 4 Main strengths: The state of the art has been clearly described. The challenge is very relevant for European society and economy. Overcoming the complexity and obscurity of laws and contracts can contribute to better understanding and compliance by citizens and businesses and reducing the burden on governments and policy makers. The challenge is timely as it has indeed been widely discussed for decades, but at the same time it has not yet been solved, and current technologies can contribute to better addressing it. Besides, solving this challenge can have long-time benefits. The proposal demonstrates familiarity with existing questions around regulation and contracts in the EU, namely its complexity and problematic comprehensibility. The Commission has identified some of these problems in the Better Regulation Agenda, the Better Regulation Guidelines and the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme, as it is pointed out by the proposal. The proposal would benefit from certain improvements: The scientific discussion of this challenge, in particular among legal scholars, has been elaborated in limited detail, and shows some flaw. For example, the proposal mentions that the integration of AI and machine learning into the legal domain is still at an early stage, but does not substantiate this assertion with relevant evidence. Progress beyond the state-of-the-art Q2 - Does the proposal describe an innovative approach to the challenge that advances the state of the Mark art in the field? The proposal addresses this question in a very good manner. 4 Main strengths: The innovative approach is well described and it is based on the Digital Thinking and to the Problem solving methods. It is an innovative approach to analyse the legal concepts, legal documents, legal processes using interdisciplinary instruments but in meantime to maintain the focus on the theory of law. The action intends to overcome isolated projects and propose a systemic approach. Further positive aspects include the scalability of legal design, based on interdisciplinary collaboration and the integration of AI and digital tools. The proposal would benefit from certain improvements: As legal design traditionally focuses on communicating legal norms rather than drafting them, the action could better explain how legal design principles apply to legislative drafting, potentially at the expense of technical precision. Furthermore, the proposal could have better clarified the role and value of artificial intelligence in achieving the proposal's objectives. Q3 - Are the objectives presented relevant to the challenge, clear and ambitious? Mark The proposal addresses this question in a very good manner. 4 Main strengths: The proposal has identified both research coordination objectives and capacity-building objectives, which are relevant and consistent with the action. The objectives have been clearly described. Among the four objectives, two are very challenging and ambitious: 1. Clarification of Legal and Regulatory Communication using Legal Design. 2. Ethical Integration of AI and Digital Tools in Legal Design. The proposal would benefit from certain improvements: Only some objectives are S.M.A.R.T. and provide measurable targets. One capacity-building objective includes activities to be performed, such as organising workshops, seminars and conferences, which cannot be regarded as an objective. NETWORKING EXCELLENCE Added value of networking in S&T Excellence Q4 - Does networking bring added value in tackling the challenge in relation to existing efforts at the Mark European and/or international level? The proposal addresses this question in a good manner. 3 Main strengths: The proposal has highlighted the added value of the Action in general. Its intended approach and actions are appropriate to tackle the challenge. ELDA aims to apply human-centered design and plain language principles to legal information and communication, ensuring that they are presented so that key information is easy to find, understand and use. The normative principles of the legal message should be included in the simplification process. The communication goal should be integrated by the capacity to generate legal behaviour compliant with the norms. 2 The proposal has some weaknesses and the following improvements are necessary: The added value of networking has been insufficiently detailed. Existing efforts at European and/or international level have not been adequately identified and analysed. The proposal provides general comments on the limits of existing projects and initiatives, however it does not show adequate awareness and command of existing efforts in the field. Added value of networking in Impact Q5 - Does the proposed network contain, or present a credible plan for securing, the critical mass and Mark expertise for achieving the objectives and thus addressing the challenge? The proposal addresses this question in a very good manner. 4 Main strengths: The network already involves an extensive number of proposers from many countries specializing in law, design, computer science, linguistics and other fields. The network includes a strong interdisciplinary composition and a convincing set of competencies. The proposal would benefit from certain improvements: The interdisciplinary span of the network participants would have been stronger if its distribution was more balanced (e.g. 60.7% of proposers has a background in law). Q6 - Does the proposal identify the most relevant stakeholders and present a clear plan to involve them Mark as Action’s participants? The proposal addresses this question in a fair manner. 2 Positive aspects: The composition of the network guarantees to have a multicultural approach, taking into consideration the different characteristics of the languages, legal traditions. The action intends to adopt an iterative, participatory design and research process, intended to generate continuous feedback loops between stakeholders; this can contribute to their active involvement. The proposal has significant weaknesses: On the one hand, the proposal does not give a comprehensive analysis of the significance of the involvement of each category of stakeholders, their potential contributions and specific interests in the Action's outcomes. On the other hand, the engagement strategy, whilst checking some important boxes in regard to its key characterizing aspects, falls a bit short in outlining clear mechanisms for ensuring meaningful engagement rather than superficial involvement, especially taking into account the magnitude of the network. IMPACT Impact to science, society and competitiveness, and potential for innovation/break-throughs Q7 - Does the proposal clearly identify relevant and realistic impacts for science, society and/or Mark competitiveness (including potential innovations and/or breakthroughs)? The proposal addresses this question in a fair manner. 2 Positive aspects: The proposal articulates clear and relevant impacts across scientific and socioeconomic 3 dimensions. In terms of scientific impact, the proposal identifies significant potential for advancing communication of legal information to non-experts by employing human-centered design principles from an interdisciplinary approach. The socioeconomic impacts are especially well-defined. The proposal has significant weaknesses: The technological impact of the Action is centered around the integration of artificial intelligence. Although there can be some agreement on the usefulness of generative artificial intelligence for generation, summarization, analysis and use of complex legal information, the proposal does not demonstrate unequivocally how it will pave the way for significant technological breakthroughs. It also fails to identify important problems with using generative AI in a complex area such as law (e.g. variety of national legal systems; underrepresentation of languages in foundational models; etc). The massive use of generative AI can create distortion of the legal concepts with the impression to reach an illusory simplification. Measures to maximise impact Q8 - Does the proposed networking clearly contribute to knowledge creation, transfer of knowledge and Mark career development? The proposal addresses this question in an excellent manner. 5 Main strengths: The proposal shows strength in its approach to knowledge creation, knowledge transfer, and career development through its networking activities. The knowledge creation revolves around the development of a knowledge hub enabling exchange of information. The proposal's outputs should facilitate collaborative research that combines diverse expertise. Regarding knowledge transfer, the proposal presents a sound strategy that ensures effective dissemination across different stakeholder groups (e.g. peer-reviewed open-access publications, white papers, workshops, webinars and open educational resources). The career development aspect is carefully considered. The network aims to provide opportunities for early-career researchers and young researchers by offering them critical roles in interdisciplinary projects and leadership opportunities in working groups. Q9 - Is the plan for dissemination and/or exploitation of results clear and attainable and does it Mark contribute to the dialogue between science and the general public or policy? The proposal addresses this question in an excellent manner. 5 Main strengths: The proposal presents a clear, comprehensive and achievable plan for dissemination and exploitation of results that effectively bridges the gap between scientific research and broader societal stakeholders. The dissemination strategy demonstrates excellent planning through its multimodal approach that targets different audiences with appropriate content and formats. The proposal balances traditional academic dissemination methods such as workshops, conferences, webinars, and papers, with engagement with policymakers and outreach to the general public and policymakers. This ensures scientific dissemination, policy advocacy and public awareness. As a suggestion, the proposal could further identify specific conferences or workshops and provide quantitative details concerning the number of intended initiatives. 4  IMPLEMENTATION Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan Q10 - Is the work plan (WGs, tasks, activities, timeframe, deliverables and risk analysis) appropriate to Mark ensure the achievement of the objectives? The proposal addresses this question in an excellent manner. 5 Main strengths: The work plan presented in the proposal is well-structured and appropriate for achieving the stated objectives. The organization into five Working Groups (foundations, Better regulation - Better communication - Better outcomes, Better Contracts - Better Communication - Better Outcomes, AI and Digital Tools and Dissemination, Exploitation and Capacity Building) demonstrates careful consideration of how different components will work together effectively to deliver results. The proposed tasks show clear alignment with the objectives. The timeframe demonstrates realistic planning. The deliverables are clearly specified and directly contribute to the achievement of objectives. The risk analysis is detailed, identifies potential challenges and, for each identified risk, the proposal presents practical mitigation strategies and contingency plans. As a suggestion, the timing of some actions in the GANTT could be improved. For example, no dissemination action has been foreseen for the first three quarters of year 1. Only 1 WG meeting per year is foreseen, while a more frequent interaction, also online, would be beneficial for the action. 5 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)