DA

Bruxelles, den 28.6.2006

KOM(2006) 332 endelig

MEDDELELSE FRA KOMMISSIONEN TIL RÅDET OG

EUROPA-PARLAMENTET

Evaluering af EU's politik vedrørende frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed

{SEK(2006) 815}

1. Indledning

1. Det fremgår af Haag-programmet [1] fra 2004, at Det Europæiske Råd mener, at en evaluering af gennemførelsen af alle foranstaltninger og deres virkninger er af afgørende betydning for effektiviteten af EU's indsats. Handlingsplanen for gennemførelsen af Haag-programmet (2005) [2], som indeholder de politiske rammer for EU's foranstaltninger vedrørende frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed i de næste fem år, indeholder en bestemmelse om, at Kommissionen i 2006 skal forelægge en generel meddelelse om, hvordan der kan opstilles en EU-evalueringsordning på dette område [3].

2. Stats- og regeringscheferne har fastslået, at en evaluering af gennemførelsen er det vigtigste redskab i arbejdet på at sikre, at de store resultater, som EU og medlemsstaterne har opnået i bestræbelserne på at skabe et område med frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed, udnyttes korrekt, og at de i det fornødne omfang revideres, således at EU-befolkningens forventninger imødekommes.

3. Haag-programmet tager således sigte på 1) at opnå en yderligere forbedring af den måde, hvorpå politik, programmer og ordninger tilrettelægges, gennem en bedre indkredsning af de problemer og hindringer, som gør sig gældende i denne forbindelse, 2) at fastlægge mere systematiske regler for finansiel ansvarlighed og overvågning af foranstaltningerne, 3) at tilskynde til uddannelse samt formidling af god praksis, og 4) at deltage i udviklingen af en evalueringskultur i hele EU.

På baggrund af 1) det mandat, som Kommissionen har fået i Haag-programmet og handlingsplanen, 2) de meget forskelligartede overvågnings- og evalueringsordninger, der findes i dag, 3) nødvendigheden af, at alle interessenter informeres grundigt om politikken og resultaterne heraf, mener Kommissionen, at tiden nu er inde til at arbejde på indførelse af en samlet detaljeret ordning for evaluering af EU's politik vedrørende frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed i partnerskab med medlemsstaterne og EU's institutioner.

Denne ordning kommer også til at omfatte overvågning af planernes gennemførelse (som beskrevet i meddelelsen om styrkelse af frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed i Den Europæiske Union: rapport om gennemførelsen af Haag-programmet i 2005 - i det følgende benævnt Haag-resultattavlen) og evaluering af resultaterne af foranstaltningerne [4].

2. Evalueringsbegrebet

4. Der må skelnes mellem gennemførelseskontrol og evaluering:

· Gennemførelseskontrol vil sige, at man undersøger, hvordan gennemførelsen af en foranstaltning forløber.

· I den meddelelse om evaluering, som Kommissionen forelagde i 2000, defineres evaluering som en bedømmelse af foranstaltningerne (offentlige aktioner) på grundlag af resultaterne og virkningerne heraf og de behov, de skal opfylde [5]. Hovedformålet med evaluering er at give de politiske beslutningstagere adgang til oplysninger om de planlagte og gennemførte foranstaltningers virkninger og gennemslagskraft.

5. Kommissionen forstår den i handlingsplanen beskrevne ordning som et middel til at kontrollere gennemførelsen og evaluere de konkrete resultater af EU's politik vedrørende frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed. I denne forbindelse får evaluering en udvidet betydning og supplerer kontrollen af gennemførelsen af foranstaltningerne med en undersøgelse af, hvilke virkninger gennemførelsen har, som beskrevet nedenfor. Dette falder i god tråd med Haag-programmet, hvori begrebet 'evaluering af gennemførelsen og af virkningerne af samtlige foranstaltninger' omfatter både gennemførelseskontrol og evaluering af resultaterne af de iværksatte foranstaltninger.

6. Dette er baggrunden for, at Kommissionen foreslår en sammenfattende og detaljeret løsning baseret på to elementer: Haag-resultattavlen (Scoreboard Plus) for gennemførelseskontrol og den i denne meddelelse foreslåede evalueringsordning.

7. Den i denne meddelelse foreslåede ordning bygger på denne detaljerede definition, som efter Kommissionens opfattelse giver mulighed for at opnå en fuld forståelse af omfanget og kvaliteten af de resultater, der er opnået inden for frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed. Ordningen kommer til at fungere i overensstemmelse med de principper, der er fastsat i Haag-programmet. Det forventes, at man herved i sidste ende kan opnå en bedre udformning af politikken, takket være den systematiske tilbagemelding om evalueringsresultaterne i beslutningsprocessen.

Fig. 1: Evaluering gennem hele beslutningsprocessen

(...PICT...)

3. Evaluering af EU's politik vedrørende frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed - Udfordringer

3.1. Komplekse og ambitiøse politiske mål og ordninger

8. Frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed er et af de mest omfattende områder i EU's politik. De mål, man søger at realisere, omfatter nogle af de mest aktuelle problemstillinger: fri bevægelighed for personer, terrorisme og organiseret kriminalitet, politi- og retsvæsenssamarbejde, asyl- og migrationspolitik, beskyttelse af de grundlæggende rettigheder og fremme af EU-befolkningens rettigheder. Hensynet til de enkelte medlemsstaters overhøjhed nødvendiggør kompromisløsninger på EU-plan eller vanskeliggør gennemførelsen. En ny evalueringsordning må derfor tage hensyn til denne politiske baggrund.

9. De komplekse og ambitiøse politiske mål, der søges realiseret, kompliceres yderligere af en undertiden forvirrende lovgivning og et virvar af beslutnings- og overholdelsesprocedurer.

Hvis der skal tages højde for disse komplekse forhold, må den foreslåede evalueringsordning være progressiv og åbne mulighed for en yderligere udvikling og konsolidering.

3.2. Den tidsmæssige planlægning

10. Som et resultat af Kommissionens specifikke rolle og beslutningsprocessen vedrørende frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed kan politikken på de forskellige områder ofte kræve forskellige frister, inden den kan tilrettelægges og træde i kraft. Det er derfor nødvendigt, at der i hvert enkelt tilfælde tages stilling til, hvor indgående en analyse af politikken der kræves på hvert enkelt område. Det gælder for samtlige områder, at der tages hensyn til resultaterne på kort og mellemlangt sigt, men en analyse af de praktiske virkninger af en politik kan indebære vanskeligheder på bestemte områder (f.eks. inden for narkotika og migration).

Den foreslåede evalueringsordning bør være så fleksibel, at der tages højde for en differentieret dybtgående evaluering af politikken på specifikke områder, således at der på disse tages passende hensyn til politikkens udvikling og konsolidering.

Det vil derfor være formålstjenligt, i hvert fald i første fase, at koncentrere sig om resultaterne på kort og mellemlangt sigt. Det endelige mål med evalueringsordningen må på længere sigt være at give et billede af, hvilke generelle virkninger politikken på de forskellige områder har haft.

3.3. Medinddragelse af institutioner og interessenter

11. Et andet specifikt aspekt af politikken for frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed er, hvilken virkning den har på interessenterne. Uanset hvilken evalueringsordning der vælges, må der tages hensyn til interessenternes forventninger og ønsker og navnlig behovet for fortrolighed på visse politiske områder såsom terrorisme og organiseret kriminalitet.

12. I partnerskabets ånd vil Kommissionen høre og indlede en debat med medlemsstaterne og EU's institutioner som led i udarbejdelsen af evalueringsrapporten og efter denne. Med henblik herpå vil medlemsstaterne og EU's institutioner blive anmodet om at udpege kontaktpersoner med henblik på dialogen med Kommissionen. Evalueringsrapporten bliver offentlig og tilsendes alle medlemsstater og EU's institutioner [6].

13. Rådet og medlemsstaterne er sammen med Kommissionen de vigtigste deltagere i den foreslåede evalueringsordning. Europa-Parlamentet vil blive nært knyttet til dette arbejde i overensstemmelse med institutionernes rettigheder og forpligtelser. Medlemsstaternes parlamenter inddrages også i evalueringen af de periodiske rapporter.

14. På områder, som henhører under EF-traktaten, vil Regionsudvalget og Det Europæiske Økonomiske og Sociale Udvalg blive inddraget i tilrettelæggelsen og den konkrete gennemførelse af evalueringsordningen. Udvalgene får rutinemæssigt tilsendt evalueringsrapporterne efter vedtagelse.

15. Institutioner såsom Agenturet for Grundlæggende Rettigheder, Det Europæiske Overvågningscenter for Narkotika og Narkotikamisbrug, Europol, Eurojust og Det Europæiske Agentur for Forvaltning af Det Operative Samarbejde ved de Ydre Grænser kommer til at spille en vigtig rolle i ordningen. Gennem disse institutioner kanaliseres der oplysninger samt analyser til ordningen. Derudover vil de blive hørt af Kommissionen vedrørende evalueringsrapporterne.

16. Civilsamfundsorganisationerne kan yde et værdifuldt bidrag i denne forbindelse. Kommissionen vil sørge for, at der tages hensyn til civilsamfundsorganisationernes synspunkter, og vil etablere passende ordninger til sikring af, at de deltager i evalueringen af de politiske foranstaltninger vedrørende frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed.

Den foreslåede evalueringsordning bør omfatte klart gennemskuelige konsultationsordninger, som også kan tjene til at indsamle og kontrollere oplysninger.

3.4. Statistikker

17. Et kerneelement i forbindelse med tilrettelæggelsen af en evalueringsordning er, at der er adgang til statistikker [7], og at den fornødne analysekapacitet er til stede. På visse områder findes der gode statistikker (f.eks. vedrørende narkotikapolitikken), medens der på andre felter, såsom inden for kriminalitet og den strafferetlige behandling heraf, står en del arbejde tilbage [8]. Der må udarbejdes statistikker over, hvordan de behov, som politikken vedrørende frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed tager sigte på, udvikler sig; de skal tjene som udgangsdata ved vurderingen af, om politikken gør de eksisterende behov større eller mindre, således at der til sidst kan drages konklusioner om, hvor godt politikken fungerer. Forbedring er fornøden på tre felter: kvalitet, disponibilitet og analyse. Forskellige instanser, såsom Det Europæiske Overvågningscenter for Narkotika og Narkotikamisbrug, Europol, Eurojust, Agenturet for Grundlæggende Rettigheder kommer til at spille en særlig rolle i denne forbindelse. Målsætningen søges også realiseret gennem forskellige forskningsprojekter og -net.

Som led i den foreslåede evalueringsordning bør statistikkerne om frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed forbedres med hensyn til kvalitet, disponibilitet og analyse.

4. Evaluering af EU's politik vedrørende frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed - Forslag til en strategisk evalueringsordning

4.1. Beskrivelse af evalueringsordningen

18. Den foreslåede strategiske evalueringsordning for frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed tager udgangspunkt i de samlede resultater af det arbejde, der gennemføres på andre felter af EU's politik. Ordningen bygger på den aktuelle praksis, som beskrevet i bilag 2, og specifikt hvad angår programfinansiering, tager den udgangspunkt i information afledt af eksisterende evalueringskrav. På felter, hvor der allerede findes oplysninger, vil man være særlig opmærksom på at udnytte eksisterende data for at undgå dobbeltarbejde.

19. Der foreslås en tretrinsordning:

1) for det første oprettes der en ordning for indsamling og udveksling af information

2) for det andet etableres der en indberetningsordning, med konsolidering, udnyttelse og analyse af disse oplysninger

3) for det tredje iværksættes der indgående strategiske evalueringer.

Fig. 2: Ordningens tre trin

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

20. Ordningen omfatter en detaljeret behandling af alle politiske foranstaltninger inden for området frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed [9].

21. Rådet, Europa-Parlamentet og Det Europæiske Økonomiske og Sociale Udvalg samt Regionsudvalget vil få tilsendt evalueringsrapporter; disse bringes også ud til en større offentlighed, eventuelt via særlige offentlige arrangementer [10].

22. Det forventes, at ordningen i kraft af bedre rapporter og større udbredelse af evalueringsresultater vil kunne sikre, at resultaterne udnyttes bedre på beslutningsniveau.

23. Ordningen er i overensstemmelse med Kommissionens gældende retningslinjer for evaluering og kommer til at fungere i overensstemmelse med de generelle principper heri.

4.1.1. Informationsindsamling og -udveksling

24. Ordningen for informationsindsamling og -udveksling baseres på datablade (et hvert for hvert politisk område) som udfyldes af de herfor ansvarlige myndigheder i medlemsstaterne. På områder, hvor der allerede står oplysninger til rådighed i et passende format, vil Kommissionen sørge for, at databladene forhåndsudfyldes i det omfang, det er muligt. Sideløbende hermed sendes databladene ud til de relevante interessenter og civilsamfundsorganisationer med henblik på konsultation [11]. Konsultationen bliver specifik for de enkelte politiske områder og baseres på de eksisterende kontaktnet og konsultationsordninger, naturligvis under overholdelse af de fortrolighedskrav, der gælder på visse felter.

25. Databladene kommer til at indeholde en overordnet politisk målsætning for de enkelte områder og en liste over de vigtigste foranstaltninger (lovgivningsmæssige, finansielle og andre), som bidrager til formålet. Det forventes, at ordningen vil give et klart billede af de opnåede resultater.

26. Databladene kommer også til at indeholde en række indikatorer for politikken på de enkelte områder. Indikatorerne etablerer en klar forbindelse til den overordnede målsætning på det pågældende politiske område. Databladene bliver en integrerende del af den konsultationsproces, der iværksættes efter offentliggørelsen af dette dokument, og vil få deres endelige udformning i partnerskab med medlemsstaterne. Bilag 1 til denne meddelelse indeholder eksempler på datablade.

27. Kommissionen vil bede de enkelte medlemsstater om at udpege kontaktpersoner i medlemslandet. De kommer til at spille en vigtig rolle i koordinationen af besvarelsen på nationalt plan, idet de samarbejder med Kommissionens departementer.

28. Hvad angår EU's lovgivning, kommer indikatorerne og pointsystemet i databladene til at fokusere på de konkrete resultater af lovgivningens gennemførelse i praksis, ikke på hvor godt bestemmelserne er omsat i national lovgivning, eller hvor meget EU-lovgivningen influerer på medlemsstaternes retssystemer. Sidstnævnte punkter belyses af resultattavlen, som i højere grad vedrører bestemmelsernes omsætning i national lovgivning og deres gennemførelse af spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt målsætningerne er realiseret.

29. Hvad angår EU's finansieringsprogrammer, baseres databladene på de eksisterende gennemførelses- og evalueringsrapporter, der udarbejdes som fastsat i bestemmelserne i finansforordningen og det herfor gældende retsgrundlag. Det forventes, at de oplysninger, der skal opgives i databladene vedrørende finansieringsprogrammer, vil stå til umiddelbar rådighed, og at der kun kræves minimale yderligere oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne.

4.1.2. Indberetningsordningen

30. Når Kommissionen har modtaget databladene og haft konsultationer med interessenterne, vil den behandle de indløbne oplysninger og udarbejde en evalueringsrapport, hvori den konsoliderer og analyserer den indkomne information. Denne evalueringsrapport munder bl.a. ud i politiske anbefalinger vedrørende de forskellige behandlede politiske områder.

31. Formålet med behandlingen er at evaluere EU's politik vedrørende frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed og at undersøge, hvilke områder har behov for en dybtgående strategisk evaluering.

4.1.3. Strategisk evaluering af politikken

32. Efter evalueringsrapporten og den videre konsultation kan der iværksættes en indgående strategiske evaluering af politikken på nærmere udvalgte områder. Formålet hermed er at indkredse nyttig og aktuel information, der kan tjene som grundlag for politiske beslutninger på de forskellige politiske områder.

33. Det er tanken, at man med disse strategiske evalueringer vil kunne forbedre den aktuelle praksis, jf. bilag 2, bl.a. ved:

a) at fokusere på politikken (eller komponenter heraf) snarere end på de enkelte ordninger (såsom evaluering af den fælles immigrationspolitik)

b) at analysere den indbyrdes sammenhæng mellem de forskellige ordninger inden for en given politik (f.eks. hvordan finansielle programmer støtter og fremmer gennemførelsen af EU's lovgivning inden for et givet område)

c) at undersøge, hvordan en bestemt politik bidrager til det overordnede mål, dvs. etablering af et område med frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed

d) at undersøge, hvor godt realiseringen af dette generelle mål forløber

e) at vurdere realiseringen af et overordnet mål inden for frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed (f.eks. beskyttelsen af de fundamentale rettigheder).

4.2. Hyppighed og opfølgning

34. Med en fast evalueringshyppighed vil man kunne måle fremskridtet med regelmæssige intervaller og at foretage sammenligninger. Det foreslås, at evalueringen (dvs. datablade + evalueringsrapport) gennemføres to gange hvert femte år. Kommissionen vil i videst muligt omfang gøre brug af disponibel information.

35. Med dette forslag tages der hensyn til, at ordningen:

a) bør iværksættes med regelmæssige mellemrum

b) ikke bør være for tung at administrere

c) ikke behøver iværksættes hvert år, idet den fokuserer på resultater, der realiseres forholdsvis langsomt, og oplysninger, der indløber over en mellemlang periode

d) skal samordnes med de allerede eksisterende strategiplaner og flerårige planer.

36. Med denne tidsplan vil Rådet og Kommissionen også kunne udnytte resultaterne af evalueringsrapporterne som grundlag for en vurdering af, om der er behov for at iværksætte et nyt strategiprogram i 2009, når Haag-programmet udløber.

37. Evalueringsrapporterne offentliggøres hvert andet eller hvert tredje år, synkroniseret med den planlagte femårscyklus. Herigennem tilskynder man til en bedre og mere strategisk udnyttelse af evalueringsresultaterne i beslutningsprocessen. Tidsrummet 2006-2007 bliver overgangsperiode (se nedenstående skema).

38. Af hensyn til koordineringen med resultattavlen agter man at sende databladene til medlemsstaterne ved udgangen af 2006, således at der midt i 2007 kan offentliggøres en evalueringsrapport og en resultattavle.

Frist | Resultattavle (SB) | Tilsynsordning | Handlingsplan |

2005 | | | Vedtagelse af Haag-handlingsplanen |

2006 | SB+ 1 | | Mellemliggende vurdering af gennemførelsen (udgangen af 2006) |

2007 | SB+ 2 | Evalueringsrapport 1 | Første gennemgang af politikken |

2008 | SB+ 3 | | |

2009 | SB+ 4 | Evalueringsrapport 2 | |

2010 | SB+ 5 | | Haag-programmet slutter |

2011 | SB+ 6 | | |

2012 | SB+ 7 | Evalueringsrapport 3 | |

2013 | SB+ 8 | | |

2014 | SB+ 9 | Evalueringsrapport 4 | |

(overgangsperiode med gråt)

39. Resultatvurderingen i bilaget indeholder en vurdering af medlemsstaternes ekstraomkostninger. Medlemsstaterne tilskyndes til i samarbejde med Kommissionen at sikre, at oplysningerne får en høj grad af sammenlignelighed og pålidelighed. De seneste erfaringer med en evaluering af en række lovgivningstekster har vist, at det hænder, at grundoplysninger om politikken hverken er harmoniserede eller pålidelige. Yderligere oplysninger vil kunne hentes i Rådets og Kommissionens ad-hoc evalueringer af politikken for frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed.

40. Denne meddelelse markerer starten på en proces af mellemlang varighed. Denne redegørelse for ordningen og databladene forelægges med henblik på at indhente kommentarer og forslag til forbedringer i forbindelse med opfølgningen af nærværende meddelelse. Med denne formål for øje lanceres der en konsultationsproces, hvori der afholdes en høring til efteråret.

41. Ordningen tages op til nyvurdering om fem år, således at det kan undersøges, om den bør tilpasses/forbedres. I denne forbindelse tages der hensyn til resultaterne i fig. 2. Vurderingen sker på grundlag af målsætningerne i pkt. 3.

5. Konklusioner

42. Kommissionen mener, at der er nødvendigt, at der etableres en kohærent og gennemgribende ordning til evaluering af EU's politik vedrørende frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed, med udgangspunkt i den aktuelle situation og Haag-programmets mandat. En sådan ordning må kunne tilpasses og tage hensyn til udviklingen inden for institutioner og lovgivning, således at det sikres, at EU's politik for frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed forbedres yderligere og bliver endnu mere effektiv.

43. Ordningen kommer til at fungere som redskab i arbejdet på at samle de individuelle evalueringsresultater inden for en overordnet ramme, således at der tilvejebringes et grundlag for den politiske beslutningstagning på det relevante niveau. Det skal i denne forbindelse nævnes, at de politiske beslutningstagere takket være ordningen får adgang til den relevante information, således at de får tid til at overveje, hvordan Haag-programmet skal opfølges, når det udløber i 2009.

44. Kommissionen og Rådet iværksætter den foreslåede ordning i fuld overensstemmelse med deres institutionelle rettigheder og i nært samarbejde med Europa-Parlamentet. En effektiv lancering og forvaltning af evalueringsordningen forudsætter, at EU-institutionerne og medlemsstaterne - idet de nationale myndigheder og administrationer spiller en vigtig rolle - samordner denne foranstaltning og giver deres fulde opbakning hertil.

45. Evalueringsordningens sigte er at gøre EU's foranstaltninger mere effektive, og den bidrager herved til to strategiske målsætninger: at forbedre lovgivningen og at skabe større klarhed om EU's aktiviteter.

ANNEX 1

Factsheet of JLS policies

POLICY AREA: EXTERNAL BORDERS, VISA POLICY AND FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: well established policy area, 1st pillar activities, there is a strong consensus amongst stakeholders for EU level action; there is a mix of instruments (legislative activities, co-operation activities, programme funding, functioning Community Agency, IT systems); possible to construct evaluation indicators, but might be hard to measure outcomes and results and causal links in practice. Methods to evaluate controls at borders are improving, including available administrative information and statistics. Some constraints on fully independent evaluation. There are strong interlinkages between the instruments within the ABB activity and strong potential for ‘thematic’ evaluation examining instruments in parallel. |

Policy sub-area 1: External borders |

Objectives: Develop an integrated external border management system Ensure uniform high standards of border checks and border surveillance at EU external borders Reduce number of illegal cross border movements of peopleFurther ‘burden sharing’ in management of external borders |

Policy sub-area level indicators:The numbers of illegal migrants apprehended that are known to have crossed the EU external border illegally as a proportion of all third country national border crossings into EU (Source: Commission - Eurostat statistics on asylum and migration) The difference between the numbers of illegal migrants apprehended that are known to have crossed the EU external border illegally as a proportion of all third country national border crossings into EU through the most permeable and least permeable border. Note that this indicator would require to define the most and least permeable EU border. The numbers of illegal migrants apprehended that are known to have crossed the EU external border illegally (Source: Commission - Eurostat statistics on asylum and migration) The proportion of all resource commitments to external border management originating in countries without EU external borders (Source: MS) |

Main instruments | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

| | | Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts | |

Schengen Information System (SIS) 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 MS | Quality and a Availability of SIS II information for competent national authoritiesMeasured by:Number of records per category(Source: MS and Commission) | Success in using SIS information.Measured by: 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. |

European Agency for the Management of Operational Co-operation at the External Borders (FRONTEX) | Improvement of operational cooperation between Member State authoritiesIncreased competences of border guards | Co-operation with Agency and responses to good practice, training and other advice. | Operational cooperationMeasured by:Number of joint operations and pilot projects carried out(Source: Agency)Development of risk analysisMeasured by:Number of risk analyses carried out(Source: Agency)Increased trainingMeasured by:Number of border guards trained Number of training courses and seminars offered(Source: Agency) | Improvement of border controlMeasured by:Effective joint operations(Source: Agency)Increased intelligence Measured by:Use of risk analyses by national services(Source: MS)Better trained border guards Measured by:Use of newly acquired skills(Source: MS) | Improved resource deployment at external borders (due to better intelligence)Reduced permeability of external borders (due to better trained staff) | Difficult to assess causality of intervention. Evaluation methods – case studies, follow up surveys. EU leading the evaluation.(Other EU Agency evaluations have tended to be process rather than impact oriented) |

Action Programme for administrative cooperation in the fields of external borders, visas, asylum and immigration (ARGO) | To promote cooperation between national administrations responsible for implementing Community rules and to ensure that proper account is taken of the Community dimension in their actions To promote the uniform application of Community law To encourage transparency of actions taken by the national authoritiesTo improve the overall efficiency of national administrations in their tasks | Disbursement rate/amount spent per year | Successful implementation of programme measured by:Number of projects implemented per activity areaNumber of training actions implementedNumber of staff exchanges implementedNumber of actions promoting data exchange implementedNumber of studies, conferences and seminars conducted (Source: Commission) | Increased cooperation between national administrations and with third countries Measured by:Number of common operative centres and joint teams set upNumber of cooperation activities in third countries set up(Source: Commission) | Uniform application of Community lawImproved transparency of actions taken by national authorities Improved efficiency of national administrations | Mid-term evaluation to be completed by July 2006. |

Teams of national experts | Further objectives of FRONTEX agency: Better deployment of resources in circumstances requiring special assistanceIncreased competences of border guards | Secondment of experts to teams. | Provision of technical and operational assistance. Measured by: number of assignments carried out by teams (Source: Agency) | Improved practice in border surveillance. Measured by: use of results of teams’ work in border surveillance and efficiency of teams work (Source: Agency and MS) | Reduced permeability of external borders (due to assistance to staff)Facilitated legitimate travel | Evaluation methods – case studies, qualitative analysis. |

Policy sub-area 2: Visa policy and free movement of persons |

Objectives: Prevent illegal immigration and threats to public orderReduce time taken and costs of acquiring visas for legitimate travellers.Reciprocation with third countries on visa waivers. Reduce number of visas given to travellers who become overstayers and illegal migrantsAbolish controls at internal EU borders |

Policy sub-area level indicators:The average time taken from application to receipt of (a particular class of) visa (Source: MS, VIS) The average costs (fees) for (a particular class of) visa (Source: MS, VIS)The number of third countries where the visa requirements of nationals to enter the EU match those EU citizens visiting the country in question (Source: Commission) The total population of third countries where the visa requirements of nationals to enter the EU match those EU citizens visiting the country in question (Source: Commission) The number of EU internal border crossings that are subject to controls (Source: MS) |

Main instruments | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

| | | Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts | |

Common application centres(for Schengen countries) | Render the reception of visa applications more efficient through a better allocation of resources.Reduce costs in relation to capturing of biometrics.Harmonisation of reciprocal procedures by MS | Commitment to the centres. Participation in setting up the centres. | Number of centres established and MS involved (Source: MS).Number of visas issued through the centres (Source: MS). | Increased efficiency of providing visa services.Measured by: time taken to issue visas (Source: MS) (Source: MS).Improved use of visa related information (Source: MS). | Reduced costs to visa applicants.Reduced costs to administrations.Increased bone fide travel. | Evaluation method – efficiency analysis. Potential evaluation leadership from the MS and use of peer review process. |

Visa Information System | Improve the implementation of the common visa policy by the exchange of visa data between Member States, in order to prevent visa shopping, to facilitate the fight against fraud, checks on visas, to assist in the identification of illegal immigrants, to facilitate the application of the Dublin II Regulation and to contribute to the prevention of threats to internal security. | Implementation at the national level, including the development/adaptation of national systems. | Number of number of visas refused, annulled, revoked, processing times (Source: Commission).Availability rate(Source: Commission) | Retention and sharing of data from visa applications and related decisions.Measured by: number of entries in VIS (Source: Commission).Measured: number of analyses conducted using VIS data (Source: Commission). | Improvement of application procedures, of checks at the external borders and within the Schengen territory, of the application of the Dublin II Regulation, of the identification of illegal immigrants and of the detection of fraud. Facilitated legitimate travel. | Monitoring and evaluation, by the Commission at EU level. |

The reciprocity mechanism (Council Regulation 851/2005) | To ensure EU citizens can travel without a visa to all third countries whose nationals don’t need a visa to travel to the EU. | Co-operation with the Commission, information sharing on bilateral dialogue with third countries | Number of third countries who have waived visa requirements for EU nationals (Source: Commission) | Improved reciprocity measured by percentage of decrease of non-reciprocity casesImproved dialogue and diplomatic contacts with third countries | Facilitated legitimate travel for EU travelers | Diplomatic efforts on EU level vis-à-vis third countries concerned. The first Report of the Commission on reciprocity in visa waivers was adopted on 10 January 2006 |

Council Regulation on a Border code | To implement common rules governing the movement of persons across borders, to include both rules on checks at external borders and rules on the removal of checks on persons at internal borders and the reintroduction of such checks in certain circumstances.To improve integrated border management | Application in MS that apply the Schengen acquis | Harmonisation of rules governing the movement of persons at internal and external borders(Source: Commission) | Improved border management and control | Improved control of external bordersFacilitated travel within the Schengen acquis | This regulation was adopted recently – February 2006. |

POLICY AREA: CITIZENSHIP AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: Relatively new policy area in JLS (although the citizenship policy as such is an established area in the EC/Commission activities), 1st pillar activities, a combination of instruments (legislation, funding programmes, new Community Agency). The nature of the instruments and their objectives leads to reliance on qualitative evaluation methods. However, there is scope for further improvements to the information base through surveys and the development of statistics. The objectives within the policy area are wide ranging and the sub policy areas as defined below are not distinct. There is some scope for evaluating sub sets of instruments in parallel. |

Policy sub-area 1: Citizenship of the Union |

Global objectives: Increase awareness of Union citizens of their rights and of the ways these can be enforcedDecrease any obstacles for the enjoyment of their rights by Union citizens, in particular of the right to free movement and residenceIncrease participation of EU citizens in democratic life in the Union Facilitate the diplomatic and consular protection offered to the Union citizens in third countries |

Policy sub-area level indicators:Levels of citizens’ awareness of their rights and mechanisms of redress (Source: Surveys and Eurobarometer reports)Instances of right to free movement and residence hindered (Source: complaints made to Commission)Rates of voting registration and participation – percentage of increase/decrease (Source: Member States)Number of citizens standing for election to public office – percentage of increase/decrease (Source: Member States)Instances of use and complaints from EU citizens over levels of consular protection (Source: Member States) |

Main instruments | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

| | | Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts | |

Directive 2004/38/EC on free movement and residence | Clarify and simplify existing Community law in field | Transposition into national legal systems | Relevant national laws adopted in line with Directive provisions and notified the Commission by 30.4.2006 together with a table of conformity. (Source: Commission) | Correct application of rules and provisions contained in the law Measured by: number of court cases/complaints resulting from the Directive (Source: Commission) | Facilitated free movement and residence | Evaluation leadership by the EU. Would benefit from strong involvement of MS in evaluation |

Community legislation on the EP elections and on the right of non-national Union citizens’ electoral rights in their country of residence | Ensure that the EP elections are conducted according to the basic principles of democratic electionsEnsure the participation of non-national Union citizens to the EP elections and to the municipal elections | Transposition into national legal systems | Relevant national laws adopted in line with provisions of Community law and notified to the Commission (Source: Commission) | Correct application of rules and provisions contained in the lawMeasured by: number of court cases/complaints resulting from the legislation (Source: Commission) | EP elections carried out democratically. Non-national Union citizens participate in the elections on the same conditions as nationals in EP elections and in municipal elections. | |

Fundamental Rights and Citizenship programme (part Citizenship) | Improve awareness of citizenship of the Union and related rightsEncourage citizens to participate to actively to democratic life | Implementation of measures and projects. | Number of projects supported (studies conducted, activities undertaken) (Source: programme monitoring system)Number of ‘beneficiaries’ reached (Source: programme monitoring system) | Improved intelligence baseMeasured by: use of analytical results by policy makers (Source: Commission and MS) Dissemination of good practice in voter education and activation. Measured by:level of awareness of Programme’s outputs (Source: MS) | Improved awareness of Union citizenship and related rights amongst EU citizens.Increased participation in democratic life. | Clear intervention logic. Evaluation would benefit from systematic surveys of public awareness. |

Policy sub-area 2: Fundamental Rights |

Global objectives: Increase the awareness of fundamental rights amongst citizens. (This concerns the rights as protected on European Union and national level including the relevant regional and international instruments.)Decrease instances of breaches of fundamental rights (including breaches of privacy, personal data protection and protection from violence against children, women and youth)Reduce the instances of racism, anti-semitism and xenophobiaEstablish a Fundamental Rights Agency (from EUMC)Increase number of participants in and their commitments to civil society |

Policy sub-area level indicators:Levels of citizens’ awareness of fundamental rights (Source: Surveys and Eurobarometer reports)Instances of breaches of fundamental rights, especially as a result of EU interventions (including breaches of privacy, personal data protection and protection from violence against children, women and youth) (Source: Commission and FR Agency)Instances of racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia (Source: FR Agency)Time commitments of population to participation in civil society (Source: MS)Number of civil society organisations in NMS since accession (Source: MS) |

Main instruments | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

| | | Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts | |

Relevant provisions of the Treaties on European Union and on European Community | Ensure that the EU institutions and the Member States fully respect fundamental rights | Compliance of the national legislation and practices with the fundamental rights | Community legislation as well as implementing national laws adopted in compliance with the Treaty | Correct application of rights and principles contained in the Treaty Measured by: number of court cases/complaints resulting from the legislation (Source: Commission | Decreased level of breaches of FRIncreased protection of rights of citizens | |

Fundamental Rights and Citizenship programme (part Fundamental Rights) | Improve awareness of FRas protected on European and national levelImprove research baseImprove intensity and quality of interfaith and intercultural dialogue in MSImprove tolerance in the EUImprove quality of civil society organisations Improve rule of lawDecrease breaches of FR in MS | Implementation of measures and projects. | Number of projects supported (studies conducted, activities undertaken) (Source: programme monitoring system)Number of ‘beneficiaries’ reached (Source: programme monitoring system) | Improved intelligence baseMeasured by: use of analytical results by policy makers (Source: Commission and MS) Increased awareness of issues in focus under the action (Source: public opinion surveys, Commission) | Improved awareness of FR amongst EU citizens Stronger civil society in the MS | Clear intervention logic. Evaluation would benefit from systematic surveys of public awareness. |

Preparatory action to support civil society in the NMS in areas of rule of law, democracy, FR, media pluralism, fight against corruption. | Improve quality of civil society organisations in NMSImproved rule of law in NMSImprove democracy in NMSDecrease breaches of FR in NMS | Implementation of measures and projects. | Number of projects supported (studies conducted, activities undertaken) (Source: programme monitoring system)Number of beneficiaries reached (Source: programme monitoring system) | Increased awareness of issues in focus under the action (Source: public opinion surveys, Commission) | Stronger civil society in the NMS | Clear intervention logic but difficult to measure outcomes and impacts, in part because of the scale and scope of the underlying objectives. Strong involvement of MS in evaluation |

Daphne II programme | Reduce violence against children, adolescents and women | Implementation of measures and projects. | Number of projects supported (studies conducted, activities undertaken) (Source: programme monitoring system)Number of good practices identified (Source: programme monitoring system)Number of ‘beneficiaries’ and victims reached(Source: programme monitoring system) | Increased awareness of the issues in wider society (Source: public opinion surveys, Commission)Adoption of good practice in tackling violence (Source: MS). Better intelligence base. Measured by: use of analytical results by policy makers (Source: Commission and MS) Number of knowledge and practitioner communities created (Source: Commission). Number of improved facilities for victims (Source: programme monitoring system) | Reduced violence against children, adolescents and women | Evaluation leadership by the EU. Major problems of data reliability at the level of impacts. |

Fundamental Rights Agency | Improve the availability, quality, and comparability of information on respect and promotion of FR.Improve co-ordination between stakeholders Improve public awareness of their FR | Participation in Agency’s activities | Provision of data and analyses of FR. Measured by: number of analytical outputs (Source: Agency) Number of reporting activities (Source: Agency). Number of networks of stakeholders supported (Source: Agency). | Better intelligence base. Measured by: use of analytical results by policy makers (Source: Agency and Commission) Better co-ordination of activities. Increased public awareness (Source: public opinion surveys, Agency and Commission). | Decreased level of breaches of FR | Evaluations of EU agencies have tended to focus on process issues.Whilst objectives are clear it will be difficult to assess causality and measure the impacts of the agency. |

Data Protection Directive | Facilitate the free movement of personal information within the EUProtect rights of individualsConclude agreements with third countries | Transposition of Directive into national legal systems Establishment of National Data Protection Supervisory authorities | Relevant national laws adopted pursuant to the Directive provisions (Source: MS and Commission) | Application of rules and provisions contained in the law. Measured by: - Appropriate enforcement mechanisms and remedies available to ensure respect for the law and assistance to individuals through:a) Judicial remediesb) Intervention of data protection supervisory authority (ex officio or following complaints)(Source: MS) | Facilitated movement of personal information within the EUHarmonised protection of individuals at a high level (both inside the EU and in third countries for personal data transferred from the EU) | Evaluation leadership by the EU but in partnership with MS |

POLICY AREA: COORDINATION IN THE FIELD OF DRUGS |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: Activities in this policy area are cross pillar and cover a variety of areas, including health, police cooperation, information, evaluation and coordination.The EU Drug Action Plan and EU Drug Strategy are very important documents endorsed by the Council as the basic policy framework for all drugs issues within the EU and within the context of the EU's external relations. They cover all activities in this policy area and provide the guidelines for all Member States to implement the objectives and actions they contain into national policy. The Action Plan takes its lead from the objectives of the EU Drug Strategy and translates these objectives into 80 concrete actions. It concentrates on the two major aspects of drug policy, demand reduction and supply reduction, and also covers a number of cross-cutting themes: international cooperation, research, information and evaluation. It includes actions within EU competence (public health, precursor control, money laundering and development aid) as well as close cooperation between Member States and partnerships with international organisations. The Action Plan furthermore covers monitoring and evaluation and includes assessment tools and indicators for each action. The actions covered by the Action Plan are subject to an annual progress review by the Commission's services. Evaluation in this area is already well-established through the methods and indicators developed during the evaluation of the previous EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan. Reliable data is available from the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction, Europol and the Commission. As with other policies relating to complex, global socio-political issues, the evaluation of the impacts of EU drug policy is a problematical and sensitive matter due to the multiple factors that have to be taken into account and for which there may not be reliable data by their very nature (e.g. figures for trafficking in illicit drugs are always rough estimates; corruption caused by trade in drugs is hidden, etc.). |

Objectives: To significantly reduce the prevalence of drug use among the population and to reduce the social harm and health damage caused by the use of and trade in illicit drugs, and to strengthen international cooperation (EU Action Plan on Drugs 2005-2008) |

Policy-level indicators: The EU Action Plan contains the major legal instruments such as the Council Decision on the information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances, or the Framework Decision on penalties for drug trafficking. It also contains the assessment tools and indicators required for the evaluation process of these instruments and all other actions. These have been drawn up in cooperation with the EMCDDA and Europol, who will help the Commission to keep track of implementation.On this basis the Commission will publish an Annual Progress Review and if necessary propose adjustments. Responsibility for implementation of actions and deadlines are clearly indicated in the Plan. To keep implementation on track, targets whose deadlines have passed or are unlikely to be met will be subject to recommendations for their implementation or identification of failure to implement. The Commission will carry out an impact assessment in 2008 in view of proposing a second Action Plan for 2009-2012. A final evaluation of the Strategy and the Action Plans will be carried out by the Commission in 2012. These evaluations will go beyond the strict confines of the Action Plan and will include, on the basis of the work of the EMCDDA and Europol, a general view of the evolution of the drugs situation in Europe. |

POLICY AREA: COMMON IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICIES |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: New policy area. 1st pillar activities. Interventions include legislation, programmes and cooperation activities. Good, comparable data is required and is planned. MS consensus about broad aims but not at individual instrument level. Impacts of these instruments on third-countries, and in particular development countries, to be considered. |

Policy sub-area 1: Common European Asylum System |

Objectives: To establish a common asylum procedure and uniform status, To facilitate practical and collaborative cooperation, To address pressures on asylum systems and reception capacities. |

Policy sub-area level indicators:Number of asylum seekers applying for asylum in Member States other than the country of first entry (Source: Eurodac)Instances of MS breaching minimum defined standards (Source: Commission)Differences in standards of reception between Member States (Source: Commission)Differences between Member States with regard to the average time taken to determine the outcome of an application for asylum (Source: MS and Commission)Comparison of asylum acceptance rates among Member States [12] (Source: Commission - Eurostat)Differences in the level of capacity per Member State (asylum systems and reception facilities) relative to needs (Source: Member States) |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

| | | Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts | |

Dublin Regulation(Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national) | To reduce 'asylum shopping'To increase responsibility sharing among MS. To increase efficiency by granting MS a realistic period in which to implement decisions on transfers. | Adoption of measures implementing the Regulation at national level | Number of take back requests (Source: Commission – Eurostat)Number of applicants sent to another Member State (Source: Commission – Eurostat)Number of multiple claims (Source: Commission – Eurostat)Number of registered irregular entrants (Source: Commission – Eurostat )Proportion of cases dealt within country of entry (Source: Commission – Eurostat) | Decreased delay in the examination of claims and attribution of responsibility Measured by: average delay of examination before and after implementation of the Regulation (Source: MS)Decreased delay to implement decisions on transfers Measured by:average delay of transfer before and after(Source: MS) | Increased sharing of responsibilityGreater efficiency and effectiveness in implementing decisions on transfersReduction of persons making multiple claims | Numbers are available through Eurodac which allows for an assessment of trends. Evaluation of the ‘Dublin System’ will be ready in June 2006. |

Eurodac | To facilitate application of the Dublin Regulation by identifying asylum seekers and persons who have entered the EU irregularly. To determine whether a foreign national has previously claimed asylum in another MS. | Member States to send required data to central unit. | Efficiency of the system Measured by:Number of records per Member State (Source: Eurodac)Number of successful and rejected transactions recorded in the system (Source: Eurodac) | Increased number of asylum applications being examined in the first country of asylum/entryMeasured by:Percentage rate of change before and after introduction of the system (Source: MS)Reduction of persons making multiple claims Measured by:Percentage rate of change before and after (Source: MS) | Improved efficiency in applying the Dublin Regulation | Difficult to judge whether MS use system correctly and systematically. Some scope for peer review but there could be constraints on independent evaluation. Evaluation is underway of the ‘Dublin system’ which considers both the Regulation and Eurodac. |

Qualification Directive(Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted) | To ensure a minimum level of protection in all Member States for those in need of protection. To guarantee the rights of persons qualifying for refugee status or subsidiary protection statusTo reduce disparities between MS' legislation and practice. To limit secondary movements.To prevent false claims. | Transposition into national legal systems. | Reduction of disparities among Member StatesMeasured by:Changes made to national legislation (Source: MS and Commission)Numbers of Member States achieving minimum standards or above (Source: Commission) | Reduction of false claimsMeasured by:Number of unfounded cases (Source: MS)Improved protectionMeasured by:Numbers granted refugee and subsidiary protection status (Source: MS)Improved access to rightsMeasured by:Increased numbers of refugees accessing education, services, employment, appropriate accommodation, integration programmes (Source: MS) | Guarantee of a minimum level of protection across the EUApproximation of rights granted to refugeesReduction in disparities between legislation and practiceReduction of secondary movementsFewer false claimsImproved integration | Common standards difficult to achieve as Directive allows scope for interpretation |

Reception Directive(Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers) | Ensure a dignified standard of living to asylum seekers across the EU. Address applicants special needs.Ensure equal standards across the EU. Limit secondary movements. | Transposition into national legal systems | Improved facilitiesMeasured by:Expenditure on the improvement of reception facilities (Source: MS)Improvement of equal standards across the EUMeasured by:Numbers of MS achieving minimum standards or above (Source: Commission) | Improved standard of living for asylum seekersMeasured by:Number of asylum seekers living in appropriate accommodation (Source: MS)Number of asylum seekers accessing services (Source: MS)Number of asylum seekers accessing employment and vocational activities (Source: MS)Number of specific provisions for applicants with special needs (Source: MS) | Approximation of standards of living for asylum seekers across the EUImproved facilities and services for asylum seekersImproved socio-vocational integration of asylum seekersReduction of secondary movements | Common standards difficult to achieve as Directive allows scope for interpretation. Evaluation due at the end of 2006. |

ERF II | Support and encourage efforts in receiving refugees and displaced personsFoster solidarity among MSPromote balance in the efforts to receive asylum seekersPromote the social, economic and cultural integration of target groupsPromote voluntary return | Disbursement rate/amount spent per year | Increased reception capacity Measured by:Numbers of projects implemented per type of action (Source: MS)Number of beneficiaries (per country of origin and target group) per type of action (Source: MS)Number of reception places (Source: MS)Increased capacity of services to asylum seekers Measured by: Number and type of services available(Source: MS)Number of beneficiaries receiving education and training (Source: MS)Increased voluntary returnsMeasured by:Number of voluntary returns (Source: MS) | Increased balance of effort among MS Measured by:The proportion of all resource commitments (Source: MS)Increased social, economic and cultural integration of target groups Measured by:Percentage of persons per target group and activity able to apply new skills (i.e. percentage of persons who benefited from vocational training in employment) | Improved reception standards and conditions Increased access of asylum seekers to health, housing, education, services and labour marketFairer and more effective asylum procedures (including return)An improved balance in effort to receive asylum seekers | Indicators have been developed in the context of the final evaluation. |

Policy sub-area 2: Legal and illegal migration |

Objectives: To establish admission procedures capable of responding to fluctuating demands for migrant labour |

Policy sub-area level indicators:Skill shortages in vocations and professions (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS Labour Force Surveys, EEO)Employment rates amongst migrant groups (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS Labour Force Surveys)Estimation of the numbers of migrants overstaying the duration of their work permits (Source: MS) |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

| | | Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts | |

Family reunification Directive(Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification) | Determine conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification by TCNs. | Transposition into national legal systems. | Reduction of disparities among Member StatesMeasured by:Changes made to national legislation (Source: MS and Commission)Numbers of MS achieving minimum standards or above (Source: Commission) | Improved efficiency of proceduresMeasured by:Number of family members reunited (Source: MS)Reduced length of process: average delay before and after (Source: MS) | Facilitated procedures for family reunification Protection of right to family life | Common standards difficult to achieve as Directive allows scope for interpretation. |

Directive on status of TCNs as long-term residents | Approximate national laws by creating a single status. Ensure equal treatment of TCNs throughout the EU. | Transposition into national legal systems. | Reduction of disparities among Member StatesMeasured by:Changes made to national legislation (Source: MS and Commission)Numbers of MS achieving minimum standards or above (Source: Commission) | Equal treatment of TCNsMeasured by:Numbers granted/refused status (Source: MS)Increased number of TCNs accessing employment, education and training (rate of increase) (Source: MS)Increased mobility of TCNsMeasured by:Number of TCNs moving from one MS to another (Source: Commission) | Approximation of national lawsEqual treatment and application of uniform rights for TCNs across the EU Improved mobility of TCNsImproved integration of TCNs | Common standards difficult to achieve as Directive allows for scope for interpretation |

Directive on the admission of TCNs for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service | To promote Europe as a world centre of excellence for studies and vocational training by promoting the mobility of TCNs to the Community for the purpose of studiesThe approximation of the Member States' national legislation on conditions of entry and residence | Transposition into national legal systems. | Approximation of national legislationMeasured by:Changes made to national legislation (Source: MS and Commission)Numbers of MS achieving minimum standards or above (Source: Commission) | Increased mobility of TCNs to the Community for the purposes of study/vocational trainingMeasured by:Numbers granted entry for study/vocational training/voluntary service (Source: MS) | Approximation of national lawsImproved mobility of TCNs for study, vocational and volunteer purposes | Common standards difficult to achieve as Directive allows for scope for interpretation |

Policy sub-area 3: Integration of third-country nationals |

Objectives: To prevent the isolation of certain groups and achieve successful integration of Third Country Nationals and their descendentsTo fight discrimination against legally residing Third Country NationalsTo promote the exchange of experience and information |

Policy sub-area level indicators:Instances of discrimination (Source: FR Agency, MS)Employment rates of third country nationals (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS)Employment rates of second generation migrants (Source: SOPEMI Report, MS)Relative income levels of third country nationals (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS)Proportion of third country nationals living in poverty (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS) |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

| | | Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts | |

INTI preparatory actions (integration of TCNs) | Promote new and innovative ways of integrating immigrants. To encourage co-operation between MS and the creation of transnational partnerships and networks. Enhance empowerment of migrants.Promote dialogue with civil society. | Disbursement rate/amount spent per year | Successful implementation REFINEMeasured by:Numbers of projects and activities implemented and average sums of money involved (Source: MS + Commission)Number of TCNs benefiting from projectsIncreased cooperationMeasured by:Number of transnational networks set up (Source: MS + Commission)Number of new integration models identified and exchanged among MS | Identification of new and innovative practicesExchange of information and best practices promoted among EU MSTransnational networks and dialogue between stakeholders supported among MS | Increased cooperation among MS through networks and cooperation activitiesIncreased dialogue with civil societyEnhanced integration of TCNsDevelopment and promotion of a European framework approach on integration of TCNs | Integration policies are implemented mainly at regional and local levels in MS.Differences exist among MS in terms of numbers of migrants and integration experience. Potential impacts may not be significant considering that this is a small fund with very diverse projects.Final evaluation is planned for 2007. |

Policy sub-area 4: External dimension of asylum and migration |

Objectives: Assist third countries in migration management, intensify MS cooperation to manage migration flows and prevent humanitarian crises, integrate migration into third country relations, develop policies that link migration, development cooperation and humanitarian assistance, intensify cooperation with third countries on southern and eastern border of EU |

Policy sub-area level indicators:Increase/decrease over a 5-year period of:Numbers of legal migrants by third country (Source: Commission - Eurostat)Numbers of illegal migrants by third country intercepted crossing an external border (Source: Commission – Eurostat)Numbers of visa overstayers by third country intercepted (Source: MS)Numbers of asylum applications by third country (Source: Commission - Eurostat)Numbers of failed asylum applications by third country (Source: Commission - Eurostat)Numbers of failed asylum seekers returning to country of origin /other third country (Source: MS)Number of victims of trafficking from third countries (Source: MS) |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

| | | Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts | |

Programme for financial and technical assistance to third countries (AENEAS) | Give specific and complementary financial and technical aid to third countries in order to support their efforts to improve the management of migratory flows Develop legislation in third countries on legal immigration and international protectionRaise public awareness in third countries on advantages of legal migration and consequences of illegal migrationEstablishment in third countries of preventive policy in the fight against illegal migrationReadmission and durable reintegration of returnees | Not applicable (action is at Community level) | Successful implementationMeasured by;Number of information campaigns organised on advantages of legal migration/consequences of illegal migration in third countries (Source: Commission)Number of returnees benefiting from reintegration programmes (Source: Commission) | Development of legislation in third countriesMeasured by:New legislation passed in third countries on legal and illegal migration (Source: Commission)Decreased number of illegal migrants entering the EU Measured by:rate of decrease (Source: Commission) | Improved management of migration flowsDecrease in illegal migration and traffickingIncreased awareness in third countries on advantages of legal migration/consequences of illegal migrationSuccessful reintegration of returnees | High number of external factors to the programme influence impact indicators. Causality links difficult to establish.As action is at Community level, MS will not contribute to evaluation.May be difficult to evaluate as this is a new area which is also highly political. A Communication on the future of the AENEAS fund was adopted in January 2006. |

Policy sub-area 5: Return and re-admission |

Objectives: To establish an effective removal and repatriation policy based on common standards for persons to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their human rights and dignity. |

Policy sub-area level indicators:Increase/decrease over a 5-year period of:Proportion of failed asylum seekers (and illegal migrants) who are repatriated (Source: MS)Numbers returned to countries subsequently deemed unsafe within a period of two years (Source: MS)Numbers (of labour market age) in employment in country of origin 12 months after being subject to return |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

| | | Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts | |

Preparatory actions for Return Management | To support efforts made by MS to improve the organisation and implementation of integrated return management and specific measures in the area of return managementTo increase knowledge and capabilities in the area of return managementTo develop co-operation between MS with respect to return management as well as co-operation with countries of return To promote sustainable return, thereby avoiding secondary movements | Disbursement rate/amount spent per year | Number of actions implemented relating to the introduction and improvement of the organisation and implementation of integrated return management (Source: Commission)Number of actions implemented relating to the introduction and improvement of specific measures in the area of return management (Source: Commission)Number of actions implemented relating to the increase of knowledge and capabilities in the area of return management (Source: Commission) | Increased number of returnees Measured by: rate of increase (Source: MS and Commission)Reduction in cost of detaining illegal migrants Measured by: rate of reduction (Source: MS and Commission) | The strengthening of efforts made by Member States at improving the organisation and implementation of integrated return managementImproved organisation and implementation of integrated return managementIncreased knowledge and capabilities in return managementIncreased cooperation between MS and countries of return with respect to return managementReduction in illegal migrants living in the Member States (overstayers)Increased removal of illegal third country nationalsDecrease secondary movementsImproved return conditions | |

Re-admission agreements | To facilitate the readmission to their own country of persons residing without authorisation in a Member State.To combat illegal immigrationTo improve the effectiveness of return procedures | (These are reciprocal agreements between the EU and third countries.) | Successful implementation of the agreementsMeasured by:Number of persons readmitted to third countries covered by the agreements | Increased number of returnees Measured by: rate of increase (Source: Commission and MS)Reduction in cost for detaining illegal migrants Measured by: rate of reduction (Source: MS) | Decrease in illegal immigrationImproved effectiveness of return procedures | Agreements have been signed with Hong Kong, Macao, Albania, Sri Lanka and Russia. Others are currently being negotiated. |

Policy sub-area 6: Horizontal issues |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

| | | Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts | |

Proposed mutual information procedure on planned national asylum and immigration measures | Enhance mutual information of national immigration and asylum policies between MS policy-makers | Cooperation by MS | Successful implementation of procedureMeasured by:Number of national measures submitted through the systemNumber of responses generated to requests for information (Source: MS + Commission)Meetings organised (Source: MS + Commission) | Increased knowledge of other Member State policies and measures | Anticipation of effects of changes to other national policiesBetter understanding of other national contexts could lead to an enhancement of the possibilities for harmonisation | Procedure yet to be implemented. Implementation could start in 2007. |

European Migration Network | Provide the Community and MS with objective, reliable and comparable information on migration and asylum. | Organisation of activities at national level by national contact points | Successful implementation of networkMeasured by:Number of products produced (Source: MS + Commission)Number of meetings and conferences held (Source: MS + Commission)Number of networks set up at national level (Source: MS) | Better and faster access to information on migration and asylumIncreased knowledge of issues at national levelIncreased information sharing between actors | Increased knowledge and understanding of the migration phenomenon at Member State and EU levelIncreased capacity to “anticipate” migratory developments | Proposal and impact assessment due by September 2006 for a Council Decision on the future EMN. |

Proposed Regulation on Community statistics on migration and international protection | Improve the statistical knowledge of migration-related phenomena by specifying the data to be collected, the timetables to be applied, the definitions and the quality standards. | Adoption of measures at national level | Successful implementation of RegulationMeasured by:Increased proportion of statistical data items supplied according to the harmonised definitions as opposed to national definitions (Source: MS)Increased proportion of statistical data items directly based on appropriate data sources as opposed to statistical estimations (Source: Commission - Eurostat)) | Increased availability of dataImprovement to quality and comparability of data between Member StatesMeasured by: Improvements in the completeness, timeliness and degree of harmonization of migration and asylum data supplied to the Commission - Eurostat (Source: Commission – Eurostat) | Improved analyses of dataImproved statistical knowledge | Regulation will probably be adopted in 2006. First reference year for the statistics will be 2008. |

Action Programme for administrative cooperation in the fields of external borders, visas, asylum and immigration (ARGO) | To promote cooperation between national administrations responsible for implementing Community rules and to ensure that proper account is taken of the Community dimension in their actions To promote the uniform application of Community law To encourage transparency of actions taken by the national authoritiesTo improve the overall efficiency of national administrations in their tasks | Disbursement rate/amount spent per year | Successful implementation of programme measured by:Number of projects implemented per activity areaNumber of training actions implementedNumber of staff exchanges implementedNumber of actions promoting data exchange implementedNumber of studies, conferences and seminars conducted(Source: Commission) | Increased cooperation between national administrations and with third countries Measured by:Number of common operative centres and joint teams set upNumber of cooperation activities in third countries set up(Source: Commission) | Uniform application of Community lawImproved transparency of actions taken by national authorities Improved efficiency of national administrations | Mid-term evaluation to be completed in July 2006. |

POLICY AREA: ESTABLISHING A GENUINE EUROPEAN AREA OF JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL MATTERS |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: The policy area includes both first pillar (civil justice) and third pillar (criminal justice) matters. The main instruments are legislation including the introduction of new legal instruments and activities to stimulate judicial cooperation. Evaluation should cover the implementation of mutual recognition instruments and the various flanking (confidence building) measures that make mutual recognition possible. The potential to identify the causal links between the interventions and the achievement of objectives is greater within civil matters than criminal matters. Information on the scale and nature of the relevant (cross border) civil and criminal matters is however poor. The instruments in both sub policy areas are potentially reinforcing. The classification of the instruments within the civil matters sub policy area relate to both process (cooperation and procedures) and to substantive problems addressed by the instruments (cross border disputes and breakdown of international marriages). There is also a miscellaneous sub category. The achievement of a European area of justice in criminal matters may be constrained by continued variations in definitions of crimes and penalties. Several of the instruments mentioned under civil matters are ‘forthcoming’. They are included however because they illustrate aspects of the evaluation challenges in this policy area. The Judicial training instrument is relevant to both sub policy areas. There are close links between the instruments and objectives of the policy sub area 2 Criminal matters, and the objectives and activities in the policy area: law enforcement cooperation, prevention and fight against organised crime. Also, it should be noted that adjustments to the indicators put forward in criminal matters may take place in light of the implementation of the forthcoming Action Plan on statistics in the field of crime and criminal justice (see more expanded reference on page 49). |

Policy sub-area 1: Civil matters |

Objectives:To increase mutual recognition and enforcement of judicial decisionsTo establish clear rules on jurisdiction and applicable law To reduce the costs of resolving cross border disputesTo increase the likelihood that cross border disputes are resolvedTo reduce the likelihood of cross border disputes arisingTo reduce the negative consequences of breakdowns in ‘international’ marriages and prevent child abduction |

Policy sub-area level indicators:Number of mutually recognised judicial decisionsAverage costs (of different types) of cross-border disputesNumber of cross-border cases not resolvedSpouses’ (perceptions of) costs of international divorces The number and amount of cross-border maintenance claims not paidSource: MS |

Main instrument | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

| | | Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts | |

Horizontal cooperation activities |

Specific programme ‘Civil justice’ (Framework Programme 2007-2013 Fundamental Rights and Justice) | To increase mutual confidence of judicial actors. To increase instances of mutual recognition. To reduce application of intermediate procedures. | Participation in and support for cooperation programme. | Number of meetings, workshops.Numbers of legal, judicial and administrative authorities involved in cooperation. Source: programme monitoring system | Increased knowledge of Member States legal and judicial systems in civil matters.Measured by: Levels of knowledge amongst relevant authorities (Source: MS surveys) | Mutually recognised decisions acted upon/ enforced.Increased legal certainty.Improved access to justice.Decreased costs and time spent in accessing justice due to disparities in civil law and civil procedures. | Establishing causal links between the interventions and outcomes and impacts will be problematic |

European judicial network in civil and commercial matters | To improve and facilitate co-operation in civil justice matters To facilitate access to justice and informationTo reduce costs of access to information on international and European law and national judicial systems by EU nationals (and therefore increase access). | Participation in and support for cooperation programme. | Meetings, publications website.Numbers of legal actors involved in cooperation.Source: Network management reports (Source: Commission) | Hits and usage of website (Source: Commission) | Improved access to justice and quality of advice on cross (internal) border issues.Improvement of judicial cooperation between MS and courts | Establishing causal links between the interventions and outcomes and impacts will be problematic |

Rules on procedures |

Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I 44/2001) | To harmonise national rules of conflict of jurisdiction To simplify procedures for recognition and enforcement of judgements from MS | Implementation | Harmonised Community rules (Source: MS reporting to Commission) | Simpler and quicker procedures to recognise and enforce the judgements Measured by: Length of time taken to recognise and enforce the judgements (Source: MS) | Better and quicker access to justice Prevent conflict of jurisdiction | Clear intervention logic |

Regulation on taking evidence in civil and commercial matters (1206/2001) | To improve, simplify and speed up procedures for taking evidence between the courts of different MS | Implementation | Establishment of facilitated cross-border procedures between courts in different MS for taking evidence (Source: MS reporting to Commission) | Quicker and more efficient judicial procedures Measured by: Length of time taken to take evidence between courts (Source: MS) | Better and quicker access to justice | Clear intervention logic. |

Regulation on the service of documents in civil and commercial matters (Regulation 1348/2000) | To increase efficiency and speed in judicial procedures To improve and expedite the transmission of documents between MS | Implementation | Establishment of common rules on transmission of judicial and extrajudicial documents between MS(Source: MS reporting to Commission) | Quicker and more efficient judicial procedures Measured by: Length of time taken to transmit the documents and enforce judgements(Source: MS) | Better and quicker access to justiceQuicker judicial procedures | Clear intervention logic. |

Directive on legal aid in cross-border disputes (Council Directive 2003/8/EC) | To guarantee adequate level of legal aid in cross-border disputes through establishing minimum common standards between MS | Implementation | Minimum common standards relating to legal aid in cross-border disputes (Source: MS reporting to Commission) | Adequate levels of legal aid in cross-border disputes (Source: MS) | Improved access to justice, especially of vulnerable groups | Clear intervention logic. |

Resolution of cross border disputes |

European payment order (forthcoming) | To reduce the costs and time taken to make payments.To increase the number of cross-border orders for payment | Implementation | Numbers of cross-border orders for payment made | Reduction of intermediate procedures | Reduced costs and time of litigation in cross-border cases concerning uncontested pecuniary claims.Improved access to justice.Facilitated recovery of cross-border debts | Establishing causal links between the interventions and outcomes and impacts will be problematic. Proposal yet to be adopted. |

European enforcement order for uncontested claims (Regulation 805/2004) | To enable quick and efficient enforcement of an uncontested claim between MS | Implementation | Number of applications of European enforcement order in EU MS (Source: MS) | Quicker and more efficient enforcement of uncontested claims in another MS Measured by: Length of time needed to enforce such a claim (Source: MS) | Reduced costs and time in such cross-border cases Improved access to justice | Establishing causal links between the interventions and outcomes and impacts will be problematic |

Instrument on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) | To reduce the costs of dispute resolutionTo facilitate recourse to mediation by improving legal certainty | Implementation | More possibilities and better awareness of possibilities for ADR | More attempts to use ADR | Reduced costs of dispute resolution More disputes resolved without going to court | Establishing causal links between the interventions and outcomes and impacts will be problematic |

Instrument on small claims | To facilitate cross-border access to justice for small claimsTo reduce the costs and time taken to resolve small claims.To increase the number of legitimate small claims made. | Implementation | Application of Small Claims Procedure in the 25 EU MS(Source: MS) | Increased number of small claims pursued.(Source: MS) | More small claims resolved.Increased legal certainty.Increased access to justice. | Proposal yet to be adopted. |

Marriage and divorce law |

Instrument on maintenance obligations | To improve and simplify enforcement procedures of maintenance obligations. To enhance cooperation. To clarify what is applicable (non-conflicting) law | Implementation | Application of Regulation in maintenance obligations proceedings in 25 EU MS(Source: MS) | Reduction of intermediate procedures.Reduced cases of forum shoppingIncreased cooperation between legal professionals / competent authorities in the Member States(Source: MS) | Increased legal certaintyBetter informed decisionsMutually recognised decisions acted upon/ enforced.Facilitated recovery of debts (maintenance for creditors) | Instrument is at the Council discussion stage.Establishing causal links between the interventions and outcomes and impacts will be problematic. Evaluation requires good data from the Member States. |

Regulation on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and parental responsibility (Brussels II, 2201/2003) | To harmonise rules of jurisdiction To enable automatic recognition and enforcement of judgements between MS | Implementation | Establishment of harmonised rules on jurisdiction (Source: MS) | Quicker and more efficient recognition and enforcement of judgements Measured by: Length of time taken to recognise and enforce a judgement (Source: MS) | Better access to justice Better protection of citizens in case of divorceFacilitated visiting rights for parentsBetter protection of children’s’ rights | Evaluation requires good data from the Member States. |

Various |

Instrument on the conflict of laws in the area of contractual obligations (Rome I). | To reduce costs associated with differences regarding non-contractual obligationsTo increase party autonomy and flexibility To increase legal certainty for consumers and internal market | Implementation | Numbers of cross-border disputes settledApplication of conflict of law rules in the MS(Source: MS) | Improved mutual trust between judicial authoritiesFaster procedures.(Source: MS) | Reduced uncertainty.Reduced costs.Facilitated mutual recognition of international contracts | Proposal in discussion stage. |

Proposal for a regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II, COM(2003) final) | To harmonise rules on non-contractual obligations To increase legal certainty | Implementation | Provision of a set of community rulesApplication of rules in the MS (Source: MS) | Improved mutual trust between judicial authoritiesFaster procedures.(Source: MS)Increased legal certainty for victims of damages and perpetrators of torts | Reduced legal uncertainty. Better access to justice Reduced costs of accessing justice | Establishing causal links between the interventions and outcomes and impacts will be problematic |

Regulation on insolvency proceedings (1346/2000) | To improve efficiency and effectiveness of cross-border insolvency proceedings To prevent shopping for a more favourable legal position | Implementation | Provision of a set of community rulesApplication of rules in the MS (Source: MS) | More efficient and effective cross-border insolvency proceedings Prevention of shopping for a more favourable legal positionMeasured by: Time taken for proceedings Perceptions of shopping amongst legal professionals (Source: MS, surveys) | Better access to justice Reduced costs of accessing justiceBetter resolution of cross border insolvenciesBetter cooperation between courts and administrators of insolvency | Clear intervention logic |

Directive on compensation to crime victims (2004/80/EC) | To facilitate better access for victims to compensations where crime was committed in another MS To establish a compensation mechanism in such cases | Implementation | Co-operation mechanism between MS set up(Source: MS) | Better access to compensation to victims of crimes in cross-border situations (Source: MS) | Better access to justice Better compensation for victims of cross-border crime in Europe | Clear intervention logic |

Policy sub-area 2: Criminal matters (Justice) |

Objectives: To promote mutual recognitionTo increase confidence and other conditions leading to mutual recognitionTo reduce differences in the definition of crimes. In particular, to explore common definitions and procedures for human trafficking and cross border crimes To reduce differences in detention and trial proceduresTo improve taking of evidenceTo reduce differences in penaltiesTo speed up cross border arrest and surrender proceduresTo facilitate cross border management, freezing and confiscation of criminal assetsTo protect victims of crime |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Number of mutually recognised judicial decisionsExtent of mutual confidence: proportion of officials in national administrations who have high confidence in other MS systems (measured by surveys of national authorities) Level of awareness of judicial actors of other MS systems Number of definitions of crimes approximated Number of reduced differences in detention and trial procedures and definition of penaltiesLength of cross-border arrest and surrender procedures Size of criminal assets frozen and confiscated in cross-border cases Source: MS |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

| | | Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts | |

European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA)) | To facilitate and expedite surrender procedures in respect of persons wanted for trial and sentenced persons between Member States | Transposition | Numbers of arrest warrants issued, executed and refusedNumbers of persons surrendered and of persons received from other Member States and numbers of persons consenting to surrender. (Source: MS) | Faster and simpler surrender procedures Measured by:Average duration of surrender procedures (Source: MS) | Increased visibility of mutual recognition, better knowledge of each other's judicial systems and increased mutual confidence between judicial authorities.Increased security and safety within the EU | Requires good data from MS. MS must actively participate in evaluation. |

Instrument on the execution of orders freezing property or evidence (Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003) | To facilitate recognition and execution of freezing orders issued by a judicial authority of another Member State | Transposition | Number of freezing requests issued and executed(Source: MS) | Increased efficiency and effectiveness of freezing orders Measured by:Faster procedures to freeze assets Increased use of procedures to freeze assets Increased speed of national procedures as a consequence of freezing order Improved access to evidence obtained/Improved recovery of assets (Source: MS) | Increased efficiency of procedures; increased mutual confidence between judicial authorities.Decreased levels of organised crime (Source: Europol reports) | Requires good data from MS. |

Instrument on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005) | To facilitate the enforcement of financial penalties imposed by judicial or administrative authorities in a Member State other than the State in which the penalties were imposed. | Transposition | Number of decisions and issued and executed(Source: MS) | Faster and more effective procedures to ensure enforcement of financial penalties Measured by: Average length of procedures (Source: MS) | Dissuasive effect to potential criminals and decreased level of financial crime Increased visibility of mutual recognition, better knowledge of each other's judicial systems and increased mutual confidence between judicial authorities. | Requires good data from MS.Difficult to measure causal links between outcomes and impacts |

Instrument on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record (Council Decision 2005/876/JHA of 21 November 2005) | To improve exchanges of information on criminal records between Member States | Voluntary compliance | Number of requests sent , number of replies sent -for the purpose of criminal proceedings, and- for other purposesRespect of deadlines(Source: MS) | Improved knowledge available to sentencing authorities about the convicted person's full European criminal record.Improved circulation of information on criminal records for other purposes (e.g. employment) Improved quality of information on criminal records from abroad in the Member State of nationality (Source: MS) | Dissuasive effect to potential criminals and hence decreased levels of crime Increased visibility of mutual recognition, better knowledge of each other's judicial systems and increased mutual confidence between judicial authorities.More appropriate and better informed sentencing decisions | Requires good data from MS.Difficult to measure causal links between outcomes and impacts |

Instrument on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001) | To assist victims before or after criminal proceedings | Transposition | Application of rules the instrument (Source: MS) | Better information for victims on legal advice and on their rights, protection for vulnerable victims and more appropriate methods of obtaining evidenceImproved situation for victims in relation to criminal proceedings(Source: MS) | Raised awareness of victims' rights amongst practitionersMeasured by MS surveys Better access to justice | Requires good data from MS. |

Framework programme on police 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 projectsParticipation | Number of activities promoting training and expert mobilityNumber of dissemination activitiesNumber of conferences and seminarsNumber of studies, research and evaluations(Source: Commission) | Development of instruments, strategies and activities for cooperationDevelopment of methods, techniques and instruments for operational and training useExchange and dissemination of information, experience and best practices(Source: Commission) | Improved operational procedures and approachesBetter operational cooperationCross-border use of good practicesMutual understanding of respective police, legal and administrative systemsCommon perception of criminality | Transnational cooperation activities normally require qualitative approaches to evaluation taking account of varying contexts. |

Flanking measures in place |

The European Judicial Network (Joint Action of 29 June 1998 adopted by the Council) | To improve judicial cooperation between Member States through direct contacts between judicial authorities | Designation of national contact points | Regular meetings, creation and updating of specific tools (website, "fiches belges", atlas and SOLON legal glossary) Number of cases in which the EJN is involved.(Source: EJN and Member States) | Increased efficiency of procedures and better communication between judicial authorities.Measured by: Average duration of procedures, analysis of outcomes of proceedings, perceptions of ECJ as a communication tool (Source: EJN and Member States) | Improved functioning of mutual recognition instruments, better knowledge of each other's judicial systems and increased mutual confidence between judicial authorities. | |

Eurojust (Council Decision of 28 February 2002) | Better co -ordination of investigation and prosecution of serious cross-border crime | Appointment of national experts to Eurojust | Immediate access to information about legal systems from a practitioner of the nationality of the Member States in question.Measured by: number of cases where Eurojust is used Establishment of the coordination role.Establishment of Eurojust as a potential arbiter of conflicts of jurisdiction.Establishment of Eurojust as peporting authority for problems with European Arrest Warrants.(Source: Eurojust and MS) | Increased efficiency of procedures and better communication between prosecutors and judicial authorities.Measured by: Average duration of procedures, analysis of outcomes of proceedings(Source: Eurojust and MS) | Increased cross border prosecution rates and improved efficiency (evidence gathering, mutual information exchange on procedural matters) Improved functioning of mutual recognition instruments, better knowledge of each other's judicial systems and increased mutual confidence between judicial authorities. | |

Joint investigation teams(Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002) | To facilitate, expedite and improve investigations in cross border cases | Transposition | Setting up of joint investigation teamsNumber of cases investigated by such teams (Source: MS) | Efficient gathering of evidence in cross border casesMeasured by: Average duration of cross-border case reaching the court(Source: MS) | Increased range of judicial cooperation tools. Improved functioning of mutual recognition instruments, better knowledge of each other's judicial systems and increased mutual confidence between judicial authorities. | |

Horizontal instrument for both Sub Policy area 1 (Civil matters) and Sub Policy area 2 (Criminal matters) |

Judicial training | To improve knowledge of relevant EU instruments among legal practitionersTo enhance mutual understanding of legal systems among judges and prosecutors To co-ordinate national judicial training programmesTo promote better language skills among European legal practitioners | Participation in training activities | Organisation of training activities Measured by: Training programmes offered, number of participants benefiting from training on EU matters )(Source: Commission. Participant feedback) | In evaluating the success of this policy, regard must be had to the effective use of available EU funding.Increased number of judicial training activities, increased coordination between national judicial training programmes, development of the European Judicial Training Network.Measured by: Quality of training activities, number of participants in exchanges Improved knowledge of European and international instruments amongst judges and prosecutors (Source: MS Interviews with law enforcement and judicial actors) | Increased understanding of mutual recognitionPromotion of a European judicial culture. | |

POLICY AREA: LAW ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION AND PREVENTION OF AND FIGHT AGAINST GENERAL ORGANISED CRIME |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: Policy based on the TEU Title VI (third pillar). Activities include legislation, including the approximation of crimes and penalties and cooperation measure. Establishing causal links between the EU interventions and the ultimate objective of reducing crime is always likely to be problematic. The current factsheet intends to facilitate the assessment of the implementation of EU instruments in this area. Full fledged evaluation will require substantial improvements in the quality and availability of statistical information in the field of crime and criminal justice. The forthcoming Action Plan in this field (to be adopted by the Commission in July 2006) will address these issues and put forward concrete proposals, including carrying out an inventory and setting-up an expert group. In this context, this factsheet and the indicators included therein will necessarily be adjusted and improved in the light of the implementation of the Action Plan, and could be used as a starting point for discussions in this field. |

Policy sub-area 1: Crimes and Sanctions (i.e. legislation to fight organised (cross border) crime and terrorism) |

Objectives:To combat: TerrorismSmuggling and trafficking of human beings, Sexual exploitation, racism and xenophobia, Financial and economic crime, Environmental crime, Illicit trafficking in goods, Organised crime and cyber crime.To reduce the financial resources available to those involved in organised crimeTo criminalise active and passive corruption |

Policy sub-area level indicators:Numbers and trends of successful prosecutions for (Source: UN crime and criminal justice trends surveys, European sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, Commission crime and criminal justice statistics): Smuggling and trafficking of human beings, Sexual exploitation, Financial and economic crime, Environmental crime, Illicit trafficking in goods (including firearms), Numbers of successful prosecutions for organised crime (Source: UN crime justice and crime trends surveys, European sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, Commission crime and criminal justice statistics)Numbers of prosecutions for active and passive corruption (Source: UN crime justice and crime trends surveys, European sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, Commission crime and criminal justice statistics)Perception of levels of active and passive corruption (Source: Transparency International survey)Numbers of crimes subject to EU interventions and instruments (Source: UN crime justice and crime trends surveys, European sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, Commission crime and criminal justice statistics) |

Main instrument | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

| | | Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts | |

Terrorism |

Council Framework Decision (FD) of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism (2002/475/JHA) | To approximate the definition of terrorist offences, and penalties and sanctions in all MSTo establish jurisdictional rules to ensure that offences are prosecutedTo apply specific measures for victims of terrorist offences | Implementation of FD | Application of FD provisions. Measured by: The number of definitions of offences, penalties and sanctions approximated Number of measures applied for victims of terrorist offences (Sources: MS) | Number of terrorists prosecuted as a result of FD | Reduced instances of terrorist activities Improved help to victims of terrorism | Difficult to ass