Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION establishing a second phase of the programme of incentives and exchanges, training and cooperation for legal practitioners (Grotius II - General and Criminal)

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. INTRODUCTION

On 31 December 2000, three of the multinannual financing programmes adopted through Joint Actions on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union will expire. The three Joint Actions are:

*Joint Action 96/636/JAI of 29 October 1996 establishing a programme of incentives and exchanges for legal practitioners (Grotius); [1]

[1] OJ L 287, 8.11.1996, p. 3.

*Joint Action 96/700/JAI of 29 November 1996 establishing an incentive and exchange programme for persons responsible for combating trade in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children (Stop); [2]

[2] OJ L 322, 12.12.1996, p. 7.

*Joint Action 97/12/JAI of 20 December 1996 establishing a common programme for the exchange and training of, and cooperation between, law enforcement authorities (Oisin). [3]

[3] OJ L 7, 10.1.1997, p. 5.

The programmes were set up with financial references of EUR8.8 million for Grotius, EUR6.5 million for Stop, and EUR8 million for Oisin respectively. For each year of implementation, annual programmes setting objectives and thematic priorities, describing procedures and inviting organisers to submit projects for possible co-financing have been adopted and subsequently published in the Official Journal. Numerous projects have been adopted for co-financing. The Committees set up to assist the Commission in the implementation of the programmes, comprising representatives from each Member State, have usually met twice a year during the period of implementation, in particular to discuss and give their opinions on the annual programmes and the Commission's proposals on which projects to adopt for co-financing.

The Commission has reported three times (1996 and 1997 in one report) to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the programmes. The reports show that the programmes have achieved their objectives and given value for money by supporting the numerous projects the reports have been based on. The report to be transmitted to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the programmes in the financial year 2000 will offer an opportunity to draw further conclusions on the effectiveness and impact of the programmes.

An external evaluation carried out at the beginning of 2000 has confirmed that the programmes have achieved their objectives and made a positive contribution at European level in the fields of law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The effectiveness of the programmes, measured in terms of the resources deployed, was also found to be satisfactory.

However, the external evaluation suggested a number of avenues to be explored for improving the impact of the co-financed projects, for example fewer seminars and conferences, better preparation of projects, and broader dissemination of the results. These conclusions have been taken into account in the proposals for renewing the programmes.

On 1 May 1999 the Amsterdam Treaty entered into force and introduced the notion of an area of freedom, security and justice. The conclusions from the European Council in Tampere on 15-16 October 1999 then made this notion a core concept for the European Union. In addition, the Commission adopted a Scoreboard to review progress in setting up this area.

It is clear that the programmes can have a continuing and significant role in law enforcement and judicial cooperation at European level, after the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, with the overall objective of contributing to the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. Consequently, the Commission has concluded that the programmes should be renewed so as to allow for a continuation of the support for projects at European level, which plays an important role in creating this area. In the case of the Stop Programme, this conclusion is also supported by the European Parliament in its Resolution of 19 May 2000 on the Commission's second Communication "For further actions in the fight against trafficking in women".

For the future, however, it will be necessary to strategically re-orientate the way the programme operate and are managed in the context of co-financing in the field of police and judicial cooperation. For instance, all the Title VI programmes may be merged into a "Framework Programme".

2. THE PROPOSALS FOR COUNCIL DECISIONS: DEVELOPMENTS

The proposals for Council decisions establishing second phases of the Grotius (general and criminal), Stop and Oisin programmes build on the experience gained over the five-year implementation period of the current programmes. One of the conclusions reached during the exercise of renewing the programmes is that a future strategic re-orientation including all programmes supporting projects in the field of law enforcement and judicial cooperation will be necessary. A re-orientation creating a single "Title VI Framework Programme" would be in line with the Commission's general trend towards focusing on larger programmes and could possibly lead to an increase in the available resources. A Framework Programme would also simplify the budgetary procedures, raise the profile of the activities and allow for greater synergy between the currently separate four Title VI programmes, even if a separation in terms of content is maintained through having separate chapters.

The re-orientation to come is the reason why the renewal has been limited to two years. It will thus be possible to carry out a strategic re-orientation of all the Title VI programmes at the same time, as the programme of exchanges, training and cooperation for persons responsible for action to combat organised crime (Falcone) also comes to an end on 31 December 2002.

Although the structure and, to some extent, the wording of the proposals is different from the Joint Actions establishing the original programmes, there is no intention of changing the programmes' scope, with the exception of Grotius, which has been divided into two programmes, Grotius "General and Criminal" and Grotius "Civil". A separate proposal on Grotius "Civil" has been adopted by the Commission. [4]

[4] COM(2000) 516 final, 5.9.2000.

The reason is that the current Grotius programme was established in 1996 by a joint action on judicial co-operation both in civil and in penal matters. At that time, all judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters was governed by the former article K.1 of the Treaty on European Union.

The Amsterdam Treaty that came into force on 1 May 1999 modified the provisions on judicial cooperation. Judicial cooperation in civil matters now falls under Articles 61 and 65 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, while judicial cooperation in penal matters falls under Articles 29 and 34 of the Treaty on European Union. This different legal basis has required two separate decisions.

The scope of the Grotius, Oisin and Stop programmes mainly covers specialised professions, such as judges, prosecutors, legal practitioners, police departments, law enforcement services, public officials, and persons responsible for assistance to victims. However, training bodies, universities, voluntary associations and other research centres are also eligible.

The main objectives are to contribute to the creation of an European area of freedom, security and justice in order to offer a high degree of protection to citizens, and to help fight organised crime.

To this end, Grotius is expected to pursue the specific objectives of cooperation between legal practitioners, increasing the knowledge of the different legal and judicial systems and facilitating judicial cooperation between the Member States.

Oisin will encourage cooperation between the law enforcement services of the Member States to allow them to achieve a better knowledge of the working methods of their counterparts in other Member States and constraints by which they may be bound.

Stop will develop initiatives to combat the trade in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children, including child pornography and the violence associated with it, and to help the victims of these criminal activities.

The proposed instruments are:

-Training programmes on legislation, operational procedures and good practice in the Member States,

-Exchanges and mobility programmes in institutions of the Member States,

-Seminars, colloquia and conferences,

-Research and studies on law and new working methods,

-Dissemination of information and building on achievements.

The proposed structures reflect the general trend in Community programmes, e.g. the Daphne Programme. The restructuring has also led to the introduction of some new terminology and types of project, for example:

*the proposals refer to an Annual Work Programme rather than an Annual Programme,

*they introduce specific actions and complementary measures on subjects indicated in the Annual Work Programme,

*they seek to express more clearly the criteria for the evaluation and selection of projects.

The proposed financial reference amount for the programmes has been increased in view of the growing interest shown in the programmes and the more ambitious objectives. The proposals indicate a financial reference of EUR4 million for Grotius, EUR4 million for Stop, and EUR8 million for Oisin respectively. It is proposed that, henceforth, co-financing be limited to 70% instead of 80%, the purpose being to achieve more accurate estimates of the costs by the organisers and to mobilise more national co-financing for the benefit of the programmes.

As for the objectives of the proposed programmes, they have been more closely linked to the Treaties, now the Amsterdam Treaty, and the Europe-wide policies and action plans under Title VI of the Treaties. The special importance of involving the applicant countries in the actions under the programmes is also stressed as an objective. Increased participation of public services and organisations from the applicant countries in projects under the current programmes should be further encouraged, not least in view of the future enlargement of the European Union. The Commission therefore also proposes that the specific projects (described below) could be used for fields in which applicant countries have expressed an explicit interest in taking action. A Member State or an organisation from a Member State will, however, remain formally responsible for introducing a proposal and for the proper implementation of the adopted action. But, in order to inform the applicant countries on the proceedings and, hence, the activities under the programme, the Commission could invite representatives of the applicant countries, as observers, to information meetings, to be held after the official meetings of the Committees set up to help the Commission implement the programmes.

This information will facilitate the preparatory work on the agreements that have to be reached with each applicant country on a contribution to the budget of the programmes.

Turning to another development in the proposals, the experience gained in implementing the programmes in the past show that there are sometimes gaps in the topics covered by the proposals submitted to the Commission, i.e. they do not fully cover the thematic priorities set in the annual programmes. Focused and targeted projects could also be designed to respond to specific needs in specific areas. It is therefore proposed that the Annual Work Programme identify a few specific projects, indicating their form (campaign, conference, exchange programme, research), and a clearly defined topic and target. These specific projects would qualify for 100% financing. The Commission, in its proposal for the Annual Work Programmes, will be able to specify these projects and invite organisers to submit proposals on how they will carry them out. The proposals received will be evaluated on the same criteria as any other proposal.

On the basis of past experience, as well as the conclusions of the external evaluation, it was also felt that the programmes should include complementary measures to achieve their objectives more effectively. These are envisaged as support for projects already co-financed under the programmes. In other words, the Commission could indicate in the Annual Work Programme subjects and themes (for instance, publishing a booklet setting out the results of a project, or further development of websites or databases concerning the programme's activities, or meetings of experts dealing with a specific topic) on which the co-financing for promoters may also reach 100%.

However, the proposals limit the percentage of the annual appropriations that can be used for these fully financed specific projects and complementary measures to 10% each.

The proposals for committee procedures for the implementation of the programmes are modelled on the Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, [5] the "Comitology Decision". This Decision applies only to the Committees working within the Community sphere of the Treaties, but the procedures set out in the Decision and used as a model in the proposals are, in practice, similar to the procedures that have been applied in the implementation of the programmes since 1996.

[5] OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, pp. 23-26.

It is proposed that the measures implementing the programmes be adopted in accordance with two different procedures, the advisory procedure and the management procedure. The proposals do not require a different procedure to be selected depending on the amount of the co-financing requested, i.e. above or below EUR50 000, taking into account the fact that, on average, the projects rarely exceed EUR100 000 in terms of total investment. It is therefore proposed that the decision to co-finance all projects proposed by promoters as well as the decision to finance complementary measures should be adopted under the advisory procedure, the reason being that the Commission is responsible for the selection process and asks the Committee for an opinion on the overall list, including the complementary measures.

The adoption of the Annual Work Programme and specific projects will, by contrast, follow the management procedure. This is because this instrument is much more important, particularly in terms of defining the priorities for potential tendering organisations and in calling for specific projects.

The advisory procedure means that the Commission is obliged to take the utmost account of the opinion of the Committee and to inform the Committee of the manner in which this is done. The management procedure means that the Commission can adopt the measure unless there is a qualified majority in the Committee against it.

3. THE PROPOSALS FOR COUNCIL DECISIONS: ARTICLES

Article 1

Article 1 establishes the second phase of the programmes and states that they are established for a two-year period beginning on 1 January 2001.

Article 2

Article 2 sets the objectives of the programme. It indicates a close link to the overall objective set in the Amsterdam Treaty and therefore also to the action plans etc. in place for the work creating an area of freedom, security and justice. Thereafter, the objectives for each of the programmes are defined, within the context of the overall objective. The involvement of applicant countries is also given particular prominence here.

Article 3

Article 3 states who can receive co-financing from the programmes. Organisations falling within the scope of the programmes are identified and target groups thereby defined. It also indicates what is understood by "European dimension" and, hence, how many partners from Member States and applicant countries need to be involved.

Article 3 also introduces the specific projects and complementary measures that can be financed up to 100% to fully achieve the programmes' objectives.

Article 4

Article 4 defines actions covered by the programme and includes those implemented under the current programmes.

Article 5

The first paragraph of Article 5 concerns the budgetary rules of the programmes, while the following paragraphs indicate the basic principles for financing projects.

Article 6

Article 6 deals with the programmes' implementation. Paragraph 1 states that implementation is to be carried out in cooperation between the Commission and the Member States. The following two paragraphs indicate one basic rule to observe and three steps to be taken by the Commission in implementing the programme. Paragraph 4 identifies which measures the Committee established by Article 7 should examine and deliver an opinion on.

Paragraph 5 sets out the general criteria for the evaluation and selection of actions to be financed under the programme. The Commission has tried to be very clear on this point as it is of the utmost importance that applicant organisers know on what basis their proposals will be evaluated. The Commission will base its grounds for the selection or rejection of proposals on these criteria.

Article 7

The first paragraph of Article 7 provides that the Commission will be assisted in the implementation of the programme by a Committee composed of representatives from the Member States. Paragraph 2 introduces the internal rules of procedure. Paragraph 3 introduces the possibility for the Commission to invite representatives from the applicant countries to information meetings.

Article 8

Article 8 describes the advisory procedure. It is indicated in Article 6(4) that the procedure shall apply to the adoption of actions received from organisers identified in Article 3(1) and complementary measures referred to in Article 3(4).

Article 9

Article 9 describes the management procedure. Article 6(4) states that the procedure will apply to the adoption of an Annual Work Programme and the adoption of specific projects under the Annual Work Programme.

Article 10

Article 10 imposes an obligation on the Commission to ensure that the programme is evaluated and monitored. It also requires the Commission to report annually to the European Parliament and the Council on the results of its evaluation and monitoring.

Article 11

Article 11 states that the decision to establish the programme enters into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

2000/0339 (CNS)

Proposal for a

COUNCIL DECISION

establishing a second phase of the programme of incentives and exchanges, training and cooperation for legal practitioners (Grotius II - General and Criminal)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 34(2)(c) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission of .... 2000,

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament,

Whereas:

(1) Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union states that the Union's objective is to provide citizens with a high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice by developing common action among the Member States in the fields of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

(2) The conclusions of the Tampere European Council call for cooperation in the fight against crime to be stepped up in order to achieve a genuine European area of justice.

(3) The Grotius programme, set up by Joint Action 96/636/JAI of 29 October 1996, [6] has helped step up cooperation between the Member States' judiciaries and improve mutual understanding of their legal and judicial systems.

[6] OJ L 287, 8.11.1996, p. 3.

(4) The renewal of the programme, expressly provided for by that Joint Action, would enable this cooperation to be improved.

(5) The entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty brings judicial cooperation in civil matters under Article 61 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and, consequently, support for cooperation activities in this field has become the subject of a separate Commission initiative on the renewal of the Grotius "Civil" programme.

(6) It is desirable to ensure continuity for the general and criminal projects supported by the Grotius programme and to renew the programme for a second phase of two years.

(7) The Grotius general and criminal programme must be opened up further to the applicant countries by facilitating their participation in the projects supported by the programme,

(8) In accordance with Article 2 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission [7], the measures needed to implement this Decision as referred to in Article 3(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 3(4) should be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure laid down in Article 3 of Decision 1999/468/EC.

[7] OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

(9) Since the measures needed to implement this Decision as referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(4) and the first subparagraph of Article 6(3) are management measures within the meaning of Article 2 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999, these measures should be adopted in accordance with the management procedure provided for in Article 4 of the latter Decision,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1 - Establishment of the programme

1. This Decision establishes, for general and criminal matters, the second phase of the Grotius cooperation programme set up by Joint Action 96/636/JAI of 29 October 1996.

2. The programme is hereby renewed for the period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2002 and may be extended beyond the latter date.

Article 2 - Programme objectives

1. The programme shall contribute to the general objective of providing citizens with a high level of protection in an area of freedom, security and justice. Within this framework, it is intended to stimulate mutual knowledge of legal and judicial systems and to facilitate general judicial and criminal cooperation between the Member States.

2. The specific objectives of the programme are:

-preparation of projects in the field of criminal judicial cooperation;

-help in implementing the instruments adopted;

-support for better mutual understanding on general topics of shared interest for the Member States;

-local ad hoc projects with the aim of improving cooperation on the ground;

-setting up networks between certain organisations and professions.

3. The applicant countries may participate in projects in order to familiarise themselves with the Union acquis in this area and help them prepare for accession. Other third countries may also participate where this serves the aims of the projects.

Article 3 - Access to the programme

1. The programme shall co-finance projects submitted by the institutions and public or private organisations, including professional organisations, research institutes and legal and judicial training/further training institutes for legal practitioners.

2. For the purposes of this Decision, "legal practitioners" means judges, public prosecutors, lawyers, law officials, criminal investigation officers, bailiffs, experts, court interpreters, other professionals associated with the judiciary and researchers.

3. To be eligible for co-financing, the projects must involve at least three Member States, or two Member States and one applicant country, and have the objectives mentioned in Article 2.

4. The programme may also finance:

-specific projects of particular interest in terms of the programme's priorities or cooperation with the applicant countries;

-complementary measures such as seminars, meetings of experts or other activities to disseminate the information obtained under the programme.

Article 4 - Activities under the programme

The programme shall comprise the following types of project which apply to all fields of judicial cooperation with the exception of judicial cooperation in civil matters:

-Training;

-Exchanges and work experience placements;

-Studies and research;

-Meetings and seminars;

-Dissemination of the results obtained within the framework of the programme.

Article 5 - Financing the programme

1. The annual appropriations shall be authorised by the budgetary authority within the limits of the financial perspective.

2. The co-financing of a project by the programme shall be exclusive of any other financing by another programme financed by the budget of the European Communities.

3. Financing decisions shall be followed by grant contracts between the Commission and the organisers. The financing decisions and contracts arising therefrom shall be subject to financial control by the Commission and to audits by the Court of Auditors.

4. The proportion of financial support from the Community budget shall not exceed 70% of the cost of the project.

5. However, the specific projects and complementary measures mentioned in Article 3(4) can be financed to 100%, up to a ceiling of 10% of the total financial package allocated annually to the programme for each of the two categories.

Article 6 - Implementation of the programme

1. The Commission shall be responsible for the management and implementation of the programme, in cooperation with the Member States.

2. The programme shall be managed by the Commission in accordance with the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.

3. To implement the programme, the Commission shall:

-prepare an Annual Work Programme comprising specific objectives, thematic priorities and, if necessary, a list of specific projects and complementary measures;

-evaluate and select the projects presented by the organisers mentioned in Article 3;

4. The Commission shall submit to the Committee mentioned in Article 7 the draft measures to be taken to implement the project. Examination of the drafts presented by the organisers and of the complementary measures shall be carried out in accordance with the advisory procedure mentioned in Article 8. Examination of the Annual Work Programme and the specific projects shall be carried out in accordance with the management procedure mentioned in Article 9.

5. The Commission shall evaluate and select projects submitted by the organisers on the basis of the following criteria:

-conformity with the programme's objectives;

-European dimension of the project and scope for participation by the applicant countries;

-compatibility with the work undertaken or planned within the framework of the European Union's political priorities on judicial cooperation in general and criminal matters;

-complementarity with other past, present or future cooperation projects;

-ability of the organiser to implement the project;

-inherent quality of the project in terms of its conception, organisation, presentation and expected results;

-amount of the subsidy requested under the programme and proportionality with the expected results;

-impact of the expected results on the programme's objectives.

Article 7 - Committee

1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee entitled "Grotius - General and Criminal", consisting of representatives of the Member States and chaired by the Commission's representative.

2. This Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure on a proposal by the chair and in accordance with the conditions specified in Article 7(1) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC.

3. The Commission may invite representatives from the applicant countries to information meetings after the Committee's meetings.

Article 8 - Advisory procedure

If reference is made to this Article, the advisory procedure provided for in Article 3 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7(3) of that Decision.

Article 9 - Management procedure

1. If reference is made to this Article, the management procedure provided for in Article 4 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7(3) of that Decision.

2. The period specified in Article 4(3) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.

Article 10 - Evaluation

1. The Commission shall undertake each year an evaluation of the actions carried out in implementing the programme for the previous year.

2. Each year the Commission shall report each year to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the programme. The first report shall be presented before 31 July 2002.

Article 11 - Entry into force

1. This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

2. This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the Council

The President

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

1. Title of operation

Proposal for a Council Decision establishing a second phase of the programme of incentives and exchanges, training and cooperation for legal practitioners (Grotius II - General and Criminal).

2. Budget Heading(s) Involved

B5-820

3. Legal Basis

Article 34 TEU

4. Description of operation

4.1 General objective

The aim of the operation is to continue the Grotius programme, which comes to an end at the end of 2000.

The Grotius II programme is intended to promote mutual understanding of the legal and judicial systems and to facilitate judicial cooperation between the Member States on general and criminal matters.

Grotius II promotes the financing of training, exchange and work experience programmes, the organisation of meetings, studies and research and the distribution of information within a coherent structure which enables the results to be disseminated at European level.

These activities are important resources for attaining the objectives of creating a European judicial area and combating organised crime at Union level.

The programme is in accordance with the following political instruments:

- The The Council and Commission action plan, presented to the Vienna European Council on 11 and 12 December 1998, on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an area of freedom, security and justice. In paragraph 84 it states that "the European Council calls for particular attention to be paid to the creation of a European Judicial Area, in accordance with the Treaty of Amsterdam, endowed with the necessary instruments for effective judicial and police cooperation ...";

- The Tampere European Council conclusions of 15 and 16 October 1999; within the framework of the fight against crime at the level of the Union, in paragraph 42 it states that "the exchange of best practices should be developed [and] the network of competent national authorities for crime prevention and cooperation between national crime prevention organisations should be strengthened ...".

4.2 Period covered and arrangements for renewal

The programme is envisaged for a period of two years (2001-02). This is in order to study the feasibility of merging the existing programmes (Grotius, Oisin and Stop) into a single programme governed by Title VI of the EU Treaty.

5. Classification of expenditure or revenue

5.1 Non-compulsory expenditure

5.2 DA

5.3 EXPENDITURE: 4 m

6. Type of expenditure or revenue

-subsidy for co-financing with other public or private sector sources, up to 70% of the cost of the projects concerned

-100% subsidy for specific projects implemented by the Commission on priority aspects of European interest and for supplementary measures, up to a limit of 10% of the annual budget for each of the two categories.

7. Financial impact

7.1 Method of calculating total cost of operation (relation between individual and total costs)

The financial reference amount for the implementation of the programme for the period 2001 to 2002 shall be EUR4 million.

It corresponds to the previous Grotius programme's budgetary allocation of 2 million for the year 2000, multiplied by two (duration of the action).

7.2 Itemised breakdown of cost

Commitment appropriations (EUR million at current prices)

>TABLE POSITION>

7.3 Operational expenditure for studies, experts etc. included in Part B of the budget

Commitment appropriations (EUR million at current prices)

>TABLE POSITION>

7.4 Schedule of commitment and payment appropriations

Commitment appropriations (EUR million)

>TABLE POSITION>

8. Fraud prevention measures

-The general anti-fraud provisions apply. In addition, on-the-spot sampling checks are planned.

9. Elements of cost-effectiveness analysis

9.1 Specific and quantified objectives; target population

-Specific objectives: to increase knowledge of the legal language and comprehension of the legal terminology of the other Member States and applicant countries,

-to promote awareness of the shared values of the Member States' legal systems,

-to promote familiarity with the legal and judicial institutions and systems of the other Member States and the applicant countries,

-to establish working relations and mutual trust between legal practitioners,

-to promote discussions on improving judicial cooperation and on experiments in working methods,

-to compare trends in reforming the justice system,

-to disseminate information on the results of projects at European level.

-Target population: the programme is aimed at legal practitioners, namely judges, prosecutors, advocates, academic and scientific personnel, ministry officials, criminal investigation officers, bailiffs, court interpreters and other professionals associated with the judiciary.

9.2 Grounds for the operation

-Need for Community budgetary intervention, particularly in view of the subsidiarity principle: to facilitate networking of promoters, ensure transnationality and disseminate the results at European level.

-Choice of ways and means

* advantages compared with the alternative measures (comparative advantages): Europe-wide dissemination of results, response at European level to the needs of operators, greater coordination between the target populations.

* analysis of similar projects that may have been carried out at Community or national level: at Community level there are no other specific projects; at national level there is a limited number of projects, so that it is not possible to set up a network and disseminate good practice throughout the European area.

* expected secondary and multiplier effects: synergy and added value at European level.

-Main factors of uncertainty which could affect the specific results of the operation. Previous experience with the earlier projects proves that there are none. On the contrary, there is an increased awareness at European level and a growing demand from legal practitioners for this type of action with a view to creating an area of freedom, security and justice in Europe.

9.3 Monitoring and evaluation of the operation

-Performance indicators

* output indicators (measuring activities used): analysis and dissemination of the results of the projects; creation of transnational partnerships;

* impact indicators (measuring performance against objectives): increased training of legal practitioners in knowledge of the legal systems of the different countries, including legal language, and greater awareness of the need to understand different national practices;

-Details and frequency of planned evaluation: annual comprehensive internal evaluation; comprehensive external evaluation;

-Assessment of the results obtained (where the operation is to be continued or renewed). Independent favourable internal and external evaluation, results in line with the objectives, need to continue the activities undertaken, increasing demand from the promoters.

10. Administrative expenditure (Section III, Part A of the budget)

The necessary human and administrative resources are to be covered from within the managing DG's allocation.

10.1 Effect on the number of posts

>TABLE POSITION>

For additional resources, indicate at what rate they would need to be made available.

10.2 Overall financial impact of additional human resources

EUR

>TABLE POSITION>

The amounts are the total cost of additional posts for the entire duration of the operation, if this duration is predetermined, or for 12 months if it is indefinite.

10.3 Increase in other administrative expenditure as a result of the operation, especially costs relating to meetings of committees and groups of experts

EUR

>TABLE POSITION>

An external evaluation of the project proposals by two experts per Member State is provided for. In other words, each proposal will be examined separately by two experts in order to have an objective, independent evaluation.