eunbil · GT0N1597 · 2006-07-14 00:00:00 — Identifying cases specifically linked to FD may be problematic Financial and economic crime Council Framework Decision (FD ) of 22 2003 criminalising corruption in private sector Criminalise and passive corruption Implementation of FD Application of FD provisions. New crimes detected as a result of FD Number of detentions resulting from FD Source: MS) Successful prosecutions resulting from FD (Source: MS) Reduced corruption in private sector. (Source: surveys) FD on money laundering and counterfeiting of non-cash payments Criminalise fraud involving any form of non-cash means of payment in all Application of FD provisions. New crimes detected as a result of FD Number of detentions resulting from FD Source: MS) Successful prosecutions resulting from FD (Source: MS) Reduced money laundering and counterfeiting of non-cash payments (Source: national criminal statistics) Illicit trafficking in goods Proposal for a regulation on import/export licensing system for firearms Reduce firearms trafficking. Harmonize the regime for import and export of firearms. of the system Application of the regulation Measured by: Numbers of arms licensed (Source: MS) Increased control over imports and exports of firearms perceptions of law enforcement agencies (Source: MS) Reduced firearms trafficking Reduced use of illicit firearms Clear intervention logic (forthcoming) The instrument is relevant to borders policy area. Organised crime Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA of 26 2001 relating to money laundering, identification, tracing, freezing or seizing and confiscation of the instrumentalities and proceeds from crime Approximate definitions, incriminations and sanctions Improve mutual legal assistance in the investigation and prosecution of this type of crime Implementation of FD Application of rules and provisions contained in FD Instances of suspicious transactions reported to entities subject to reporting obligations Penalties resulting from FD Prosecutions resulting from FD Reduction of the differences in maximum penalties among MS (Source: MS, Commission) Assets frozen and confiscated. Amounts frozen and confiscated (Source: MS) Reduced money laundering Perceptions of law enforcement agencies. Regular monitoring reports from the Commission Identifying cases specifically linked to the FD may be problematic (This instrument might fit better under financial crime although it is about enacting penalties and might better fit under criminal matters. Evaluation need to be done in combination with the third money laundering directive). Proposal for a FD on fight against organised crime (2005) Harmonise the definition of offences and penalties Facilitate cooperation between judicial authorities and coordinate their activities. Implementation of FD Application of rules and provisions contained in FD. Better harmonised definition of offences and penalties. Instances of judicial cooperation (Source: MS, Commission) Increased judicial co-operation Trials and successful prosecutions resulting from FD (Source: MS) Reduced organised crime Measured by: Perceptions of law enforcement agencies. Difficult to measure impacts Identifying cases specifically linked to the FD may be problematic (This too might better fit under criminal matters policy area) Directive on the permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities. () Reduce organised crime participation in illegal migration and human trafficking Facilitate victims giving evidence against suspected criminals Implementation of Directive Application of rules and provisions contained in Directive Instances of permits issued (Source: MS) victims testifying against suspected criminals Successful prosecution of suspected criminals (Source: MS) Reduced organised crime participation in illegal migration and human trafficking Perceptions of migration and law enforcement agencies. This instrument is relevant to borders policy area. (It does not fit easily in this sub category.) Policy sub area 2: Cooperation and exchange of information to enforce the law. (The architecture of the instruments in this sub policy area is such that the instruments should be reinforcing. Capturing these synergies in evaluation work would be of value) Objectives: To increase cooperation between and customs authorities of MS To increase cooperation of MS and customs authorities with Europol To develop and improve use of intelligence led law enforcement and Joint Investigation Teams To encourage exchange of experiences on best practice on investigative techniques To improve the quality of Member States law enforcement data with the assistance of Europol Policy sub-area level indicators: Number of formal joint investigations Number of informal joint investigations Number of successful prosecutions resulting from joint investigations (formal and informal) Number of successful prosecutions resulting from the adoption of best practice investigative techniques Extent of mutual confidence: proportion of officials in national administrations/law enforcement authorities who have confidence in other MS systems (measured by surveys of national authorities) Periods of time (person days) on (trans-national) exchanges of staff Source: instrument Objectives Implementation at national level Indicators/evaluation questions Specific issues /comments Immediate results () II Sharing of information among MS in order to refuse entry on the basis of uniform practices Consistent input and further use of information among and a Availability of SIS II information for competent national authorities Number of records per category (Source: MS and Commission) Success in using SIS information. Number of correctly identified persons who should be refused entry and wanted goods discovered (Source: MS) Reduced permeability of the external border. Increased confidence to promote free movement policies. Clear intervention logic. Evaluation methods - analysis of trends and process changes. Commission responsible for evaluation co-ordination and analysis, MS for information analysis. Most of the analysis will depend upon information from MS. Evaluation will be very difficult. Common position on the exchange of data with on passports To prevent and combat serious and organised crime including terrorism through improved cooperation between MS law enforcement authorities and between them and such authorities in third Countries by exchanging passport data with of data with through database on stolen documents Number of data records forwarded to Enhanced cooperation between law enforcement authorities Task Force of Chiefs Create conditions for cooperation Participation of chiefs (or alternates) Cooperation activities. (Source: MS) Mutual cooperation (Source: MS) Sustained cooperation Instances of cooperation arising indirectly and at lower levels. Decrease in criminal activities Number of arrests, prosecutions, and convictions By its nature a difficult instrument to evaluate in its own right. Europol Promote cooperation between MS law enforcement agencies Provision of information, application and use of information received from Europol or via bilateral cooperation initiated by Europol Cooperation activities Strategic analyses undertaken, Instances of exchange of intelligence. Use of formal joint investigation teams Use of informal joint investigation teams Number of investigations informed. (Source: Europol and perceptions of participating MS and law enforcement agencies). Trials resulting from exchanges of intelligence and cooperation. Successful prosecutions resulting from exchanges of intelligence and cooperation. (Source: MS and Europol) Reduced cross border crime (Sources: UN crime and crime trends surveys, European sourcebook of criminal statistics, UK Home Office international criminal statistics) Evaluation needs to acknowledge the real constraints on multilateral cooperation (issues of confidentiality and credit for solving cases) and the potentially weak links between cooperation and reductions in crime. Evaluation work has included peer reviews CEPOL Improve likelihood of (transnational) cooperation. Improve competences of trainees. Commitment to EU level training EU level Training activities Number of officers trained Number of courses offered (Source: CEPOL, including potential follow up survey of trainees.) Resulting instances of cooperation between individual officers. Resulting instances of cooperation between agencies Resulting improved investigations. Resulting detentions and prosecutions (Sources: enforcement agency records, judicial records) Increased competence in cross border level practice Reduced cross border crime (Sources: UN crime and crime trends surveys, European sourcebook of criminal statistics, UK Home Office international criminal statistics) Identifying causal links with impacts will be especially difficult. An report on the operation and future of CEPOL was published in January 2006. Framework programme on and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (AGIS) Help legal practitioners, law enforcement officials and representatives of victim assistance services from the EU Member States and Candidate Countries set up Europe-wide networks, exchange information and best practices. Encourage Member States to step-up co-operation with the applicant countries and other third countries Commitments to AGIS projects Participation Number of activities promoting training and expert mobility Number of dissemination activities Number of conferences and seminars Number of studies, research and evaluations (Source: Commission) Development of instruments, strategies and activities for cooperation Development of methods, techniques and instruments for operational and training use Exchange and dissemination of information, experience and best practices Source: Commission) Improved operational procedures and approaches Cross-border use of good practices Mutual understanding of respective , legal and administrative systems Common perception of criminality Transnational cooperation activities normally require qualitative approaches to evaluation taking account of varying contexts. Policy sub area 3: Crime Prevention Objectives: To reduce instances of (cross border organised) crime To establish European instruments for collecting, analysing and comparing information on crime and victimisation. To provide better information on trends in crime in Member States Policy sub-area level indicators: Numbers of successful prosecutions of cross border organised crime The frequency with which EU level statistics are collected (benchmark: annually) The level of reliability of data (for example, number of definition changes), also indicated by the levels of confidence in data by key actors (source: regular surveys) Consistency of data between Members States (for example, numbers of definition variations), indicated the levels of confidence in data by key actors (source: regular surveys) Source: Commission, instrument Objectives Implementation at national level Indicators/evaluation questions Specific issues /comments Immediate results on organised crime prevention Better exchange of information Creation of a Platform of expertise participation from and cooperation of activities Meetings and seminars held (Source: Commission) Better and increased information base Better legal and other instruments Application and dissemination of information and best practices exchanged (Source: MS) Reduced crime Difficult to measure causal links European crime prevention network Provide expertise and knowledge in developing effective crime prevention measures participation from Identification and propagation of good practice. Copies/hits on good practice and recommendations. (Source: Commission) Application of Network Knowledge Improved policy making processes (Source: MS via Consultations) Improved policies and practices with respect to crime prevention Difficult to measure causal links EU action plan on EU statistics on crime and criminal better information base on EU crime trends, levels and on victimisation as well as on criminal . participation from of information on crime and criminal covering EU Availability, coverage and comparability o data. (Source: Commission) Application of improved information Dissemination of information to EU and MS policy makers Citation of statistics in policy documents (Source: Commission and MS) Better informed policy making at EU level. Better informed policy making at MS level. Difficult to measure causal links Statistical information is not available Instrument underpins evaluation of other instruments as it should improve statistics available at the EU level Action plan on public-private partnerships Establish public-private partnerships at EU level to tackle multinational organised crime and terrorism participation from plan Creation of a EU level Platform for public-private partnership against organised crime and terrorism Reports from old and new partnership structures to the platform Effective participation in the work of the Platform and new partnerships Composition of partnerships established (Source: Commission) Increased co-operation between public and private sector Number of co-operation activities Source: Commission: Follow up studies of specific partnerships) Reduced level of damage from organised crime and terrorism Process evaluation could be appropriate Policy sub area 4: Management of crises with cross border effects Objectives: Reduce detrimental cross border impacts of crises Policy sub-area level indicators: Number of cross border crises reported in press/media Number of cross border crises involving EU crisis management instrument Objectives Implementation at national level Indicators/evaluation questions Specific issues /comments Immediate results Outcomes Impacts Setting up of integrated and co-ordinated EU crisis-management arrangements in the Commission and the Council Increase the level of preparedness to tackle cross-border crises within the EU participation from MS in the structures to be established of integrated and co-ordinated structures at the EU level Assessments of MS capacities Training and joint exercises conducted (Source: MS administrative records) Increased level of preparedness for cross border crises Actual responses to crises Results of Exercises undertaken. (Source: stakeholder surveys) Reduced impacts of such crises There are likely to be particular difficulties in establishing the counter factual with respect to this instrument. Impacts may only be assessed sometime following emergencies. Some scope for peer review 2 Current practice for monitoring and evaluating EU policies on freedom, security and in 1999 invited the Commission to compile a scoreboard to keep implementation of policies on freedom, security and under continuous review. The scoreboard would specifically keep track of progress made with implementation of the measures and compliance with the deadlines set in the , the Action Plan and the programme. In response, the Commission produced its first scoreboard in 2000, followed by regular updates every six months taking into account the objectives set by Councils in Laeken (2001), (2002) and (2003). The last scoreboard was presented in 2004, marking the end of the first five-year period (1999-2004). The scoreboards indicated the objectives and deadlines set at and in each case the responsibilities assigned to launch, advance and complete the process. To provide a clear view of the progress made in each area, the scoreboard showed the outstanding proposals and initiatives presented, progress in Council and European Parliament proceedings and the work planned. A specific section of the scoreboard focused on transposition of the instruments adopted. Reviewing implementation of EU legislation Instruments adopted under the Implementation by the Member States of Community legislation concerning free movement of persons, visas, asylum, immigration, judicial cooperation in civil matters and citizens rights adopted under is monitored by the Commission. If a fails to comply with its legislative obligations, the Commission can then initiate infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the and may bring the matter before the Court of . Apart from normal application of the monitoring mechanism under Articles 226 of the , monitoring implementation of the instruments adopted under Title IV of the is not systematic, although it is usual practice. For example, none of the four directives adopted on illegal migration provides for a monitoring report by the Commission. Some reports, such as the evaluation of the derogation for issuing visas to members of the Olympic family , go beyond mere analysis of implementation and contain information on results. There are other examples concerning instruments adopted under Title II of the Treaty, such as reports relating to free movement of Union citizens or reports on their electoral rights in municipal and European Parliament elections. Instruments adopted under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union In the case of instruments adopted under Title VI of the concerning and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, there is no equivalent compliance mechanism allowing the Commission to exercise its institutional powers as guardian of the Treaties. For all Framework Decisions adopted by the Council, it is compulsory for Member States to transmit a detailed set of national implementing measures to the Commission and to the Council. Based on this information, the Commission then issues a report (e.g. 2002 Framework Decision on combating terrorism ). allowing the Council to debate the need for further measures in the field concerned. generally expresses its position in a final report. For some Framework Decisions, the Commission repeats or updates its monitoring exercise (e.g. "Victims" Framework Decision ). Similarly, the Commission systematically monitors common positions and issues a monitoring report on national implementing measures. The Commission has also taken the initiative to issue specific reports on certain Council Decisions imposing no monitoring obligation such as those relating to Eurojust This monitoring exercise deals only with the legal transposition aspect and rarely includes details on the practical implementation of instruments. Such assessments of legal transposition answer the following questions: are the implementing measures effective, correct and in line with the Framework Decision? Are they clear and do they provide legal certainty? Do they fully apply the instrument and comply with the time limit for transposition? In some cases this exercise has been backed up by an initial assessment of practical implementation in the Member States and of the tangible results of the national legislation. For example, in the case of the Framework Decision on Arrest Warrant , some of the practical results of the implementing measures were included in the monitoring report, such as the question of effectiveness and rapidity of surrender. The Commissions report also included some preliminary figures, such as the number of warrants issued or the average time taken to execute a warrant, which mainly illustrated the difficulty of obtaining adequate statistics in this field. Information-gathering mechanisms on policy implementation Following the call by the 2001 to set up an enhanced exchange of information in the field of immigration and asylum, the Commission launched an information and consultation procedure with a "" (CIA) at its heart. The CIA is made up of experts from the Member States but also frequently provides a forum for representatives of civil society, such as European social partners and the UNHCR, to present their views on pertinent immigration and asylum issues. In the field of integration, the "National Contact Points on Integration" (NCP) play an important role in monitoring progress across policy fields and in ensuring that integration efforts at national and EU level support each other. They convey key results to the CIA. A () was set up in 2002 as a preparatory measure in response to the need to improve exchanges of information on all aspects of migration and asylum. Its primary objective is to provide the Community and the Member States with objective, reliable and comparable information in these fields by systematically collecting and storing existing data and information from Member States and carrying out national and European level analysis. At present, the EMN consists of national contact points designated by the Member States. In the field of asylum, a Communication on strengthened practical cooperation proposed bringing into operation a system for sharing expertise, resources and knowledge between key stakeholders, as a tool for strengthening common approaches to implementation of the first-stage legislative instruments of asylum system, - amongst others - on existing mechanisms, such as the EURASIL group. In the Commission tabled a proposal for a Regulation on Community statistics on migration and international protection. The Regulation will improve statistical knowledge of migration-related phenomena by specifying the data to be collected, the timetables to be applied, the definitions and the quality standards. In October 2005 the Commission tabled a proposal for a Council Decision on the of a mutual information procedure on national measures taken in the areas of asylum and immigration which could affect other Member States. The proposal is based on the recognition that the absence of border checks in the Schengen area and the gradual development of common EU immigration and asylum policies require timely exchanges of information and discussion of national measures taken on asylum and immigration. Monitoring implementation of The Hague Programme The Hague Multi-Annual Programme (2005-2009) and the Action Plan implementing it invited the Commission to present an annual report on implementation of these two instruments to the Council (the "Scoreboard plus"). The "Scoreboard plus" will aim predominantly at assessing proper and adequate transposition of the legislative acts adopted and effective implementation of the measures agreed. In concrete terms, "Scoreboard plus" will assess the outcome of both (a) the significant political progress achieved at the point of adoption at EU level and (b) implementation at national level of measures related to freedom, security and . This structure will bring visibility to monitoring and provide a comprehensive overview of implementation of the Action Plan, meeting the requirements of Council in The Hague Programme. It will increase transparency and visibility and improve and facilitate implementation. The first "Scoreboard plus" is presented in parallel to this Communication, one year after adoption of the Action Plan implementing The Hague Programme. This section briefly describes the state of play with evaluation in the field of freedom, security and , depending on the subject-matter: (1) programmes, (2) legislation or (3) policies . Evaluations on freedom, security and mainly focus on individual policy instruments, be they legislative or financial. As in other areas, evaluation of policies (defined as a coherent set of instruments serving the same coherent objective) is still developing. As a consequence, evaluation activities are currently very diverse (internal or external evaluations, annual progress reports, peer reviews, etc.) and very different in scope. This results in a lack of comparable evaluation results across policies and of a true overview of the results achieved in establishing an Area of Freedom, Security and . The evaluation mechanism put forward in this Communication aims at tackling this issue.