EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 15.11.2011 
SEC(2011) 1365 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
 
Accompanying the documents 
  
Proposal for a Regulation of  the European Parliament and of the Council establishing 
for the period 2014 to 2 020 the Justice Programme 
 
Proposal for a Regulation of  the European Parliament and of the Council establishing 
for the period 2014 to 2020 the Rights and Ci tizenship Programme 
{COM(2011) 758 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1364 final} 
 
 
EN 2   EN During the 2007-2013 financial pe rspective funding in the ar ea of justice, rights and 
citizenship is provided by 6 programmes: Civil Justice (JCIV),  Criminal Justice (JPEN), 
Fundamental Rights and Citizenship (FRC),  Daphne III (DAP),  Drug Prevention and 
Information Programme (DPIP) and by the sections  Antidiscrimination and Diversity and 
Gender Equality of the  Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity (PROGRESS).  
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
In preparation of the proposals for 2014-2020 mid-term evaluations  were carried out for the 
ongoing programmes. The results of the evaluati ons of JCIV, JPEN, FRC, DAP and DPIP are 
already published. PROGRESS was evaluated by its annual perf ormance reports and these 
findings were complemented by the interim resu lts of the programme's mid-term evaluation. 
A public stakeholder consultation  on the future of funding in th e area of justice, rights and 
equality took place between 20 April 2011 and 20 June 2011. 187 respondents (37 individuals and 150 organisations) submitted their contribu tion. The responses largely acknowledged the 
EU added value in all areas of funding and expressed the need for simplification of 
management and procedures. Most of the propos ed measures were rated positively and there 
was agreement concerning the proposed types of  activities and delivery mechanisms. A public 
consultation on a possible successor instrument  to Progress took plac e between 4 April 2011 
and 27 May 2011. 
The consultation of the Impact Assessment steering group  involving LS, SG, BUDG, 
EMPL, HOME, SANCO, COMM, EAC, COMP  and MARKT was launched on 20 May 
2011, convened twice and accompanied the final st ages of the preparation of the impact 
assessment. 
2. T
HE CURRENT SYSTEM OF FUNDING  
During the ongoing 2007-2013 financial perspectiv e six funding programmes are in place to 
support EU policies in the area of ju stice, rights and equality with a relatively small  total 
budget  of € 791 million  for the entire period. They are im plemented via centralised direct 
management through annual programming and three types of actions: tran snational projects 
(Action Grants), support to NGOs (Operating Grants) and Commission initiatives. These 
programmes are: 
• The Civil Justice  Programme  (JCIV) - € 109,5 million (2007-2013); 
• The Criminal Justice Programme  (JPEN) - € 199,3 million (2007-2013); 
• The Fundamental Rights and Citizenship  Programme (FRC) - € 97,25 million (2007-
2013);  
• The Daphne III Programme  (DAP) € 121,43 million (2007-2013); 
• The Drug Prevention and Information Programme (DPIP) - € 22,35 million (2007-
2013); 
 
EN 3   EN • The sections Antidiscrimination and Diversity  and Gender Equality  of the 
PROGRESS  programme - € 241,52 million (2007-2013), 35% of the overall PROGRESS 
budget.  
3. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
As confirmed by the Stockholm Progr amme, the develo pment of an area of freedom, 
security and justice  remains a priority for the European Union . Although significant 
progress has already been achieved in this field, Europe still faces challenges , which should 
be addressed in a comprehensive manner.  
Policy challenges 
Judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters  is still insufficient. Access to justice 
should become a reality, consumer rights have to  be enforced and differe nces in contract law 
between Member States have to be tackled. In the area of criminal law the implementation of 
the existing instruments needs to be improved, wh ile quality treatment to victims is placed 
high on the agenda. In the area of criminal justice the prevention of drug-related crime  
requires a long-term, integrated and multid isciplinary approach at EU level.  
EU citizenship rights are now firmly anchored in  primary EU law and substantially 
developed in secondary law. However, EU citize ns still encounter difficulties when exercising 
these rights. Lack of information is considered by EU citizens as one of the most important barriers to cross-border commuting and to exercising their right to free movement. 
People’s interest in and expectations about  the enforcement of the EU Charter of 
Fundamental Rights  are high. However, there is a frequent misunderstanding about the 
purpose of the Charter and the situations where it applies or does not apply. In the specific 
area of the Rights of the Child  this lack of awareness is particularly acute.  
Despite remarkable advances towards equality between women and men  significant 
inequalities persist at global and EU level. Violence against women  still remains one of the 
worst expressions of that inequality.  
Discrimination  in the EU is experienced regularly by an important part of the population. 
However, Europeans are not sufficiently aware of  their rights should they become a victim of 
discrimination or harassment. 
The EU has become a party to the UN C onvention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities . 
However, persons with disabilities are not yet able to fully enjoy the rights and fundamental 
freedoms enshrined in the Convention.  
The role of funding  
The role of funding is to suppor t the EU legislative and policy activity. The specific problems 
to be addressed by funding are: 
- Insufficient knowledge of the EU  acquis and of EU policies by the persons who derive rights 
from it;  
 
EN 4   EN - Insufficient knowledge of the EU acquis and of EU policies by the relevant practitioners, 
leading to inconsistent and insufficien t application of EU  law and policies; 
- Insufficient cooperation and exchange of info rmation at transnationa l level and lack of 
mutual trust between authorities,  such as judicial authorities; 
- Need for concrete information, evidence , research and good prac tices concerning the 
situation and the needs on the ground, in order to feed to the development of EU legislation 
and policies. 
As a result, funding should focus on areas where it can produce clear added value:  
• It should enhance the effectiveness of legislation  by supporting: 
• Information and public awareness raising;  
• Training and capacity building for legal professionals and other practitioners. 
• Funding has a central role in promoting cooperation at transnational level , through : 
• Strengthening networks;  
• Cross-border cooperation on enforcement. 
• Additionally, funding should support:  
• Research, analysis and ot her support activities,  to provide to the legislator clear and 
detailed information on the probl ems and the situation on the ground. 
Relevance, Effectiveness and Effi ciency of funding activities 
In accordance with the Commission's Commu nication on A Budget for Europe 2020, the 
budget needs to be responsive a nd easily adaptable to  the ongoing policy deve lopments, i.e. it 
has to ensure flexibility . This is currently hampered by the fragmented approach  imposed 
by six separate programmes. This setup further leads to funding overlaps,  which are 
counteracting the need for increased focus on policy priorities  identified for all six 
programmes.  
The mid-term evaluations have confirmed the overall effectiveness  of the programmes, but 
they have also identified problems, such as a dilution of funds  ('saupoudrage' ) amongst 
many small-scale projects with limited impact  and EU dimension. Despite the fact that 
funding is allocated to a multit ude of projects, there is no balanced geographical spread  
among the organisations which receive funding. The mid-term evaluations agree that more should be done to improve the dissemination and use of  results and outputs  of the funded 
activities. Improvement in dissemination goes hand in hand with improvement in the 
evaluation and monitoring .  
The mid-term evaluations and the public consultation highlighted in terms of efficiency  the 
complex and bureaucratic procedures  that the applicants are facing
. From an 
administrative point of view the multiplication of procedures for the different programmes 
imposes a high administrative bur den on the Commission . The multiplication of 
 
EN 5   EN procedures and the high admi nistrative burden contribute to increasing the length of 
procedures.   
4. EU' S RIGHT TO ACT  
The EU’s right to act derives from specific TFEU articles:  
Within Title V:  
• Judicial cooperation in civil matters (Article 81(1) and (2) TFEU); 
• Judicial cooperation in criminal  matters (Article 82(1) TFEU); 
• Crime prevention (Article 84 TFEU). 
Outside Title V: 
• Non-discrimination (Ar ticle 19(2) TFEU); 
• EU citizenship (Article 21(2) TFEU); 
• Internal Market (A rticle 114 TFEU); 
• Public health (Article 168 TFEU); 
• Consumer protection (Article 169 TFEU); 
• Administrative cooperati on (Article 197 TFEU); 
Subsidiarity principle 
Action at EU level produces clear benefits compared to action by Member States alone, 
especially in promoting transn ational cooperation, networking opportunities and mutual trust. 
Furthermore, it ensures consistent interpretatio n and coherent applica tion of EU legislative 
instruments in all Member States and it brings economies of scale.  
5. OBJECTIVES  
General objective:  
• To provide focused, effective and efficient support to the development of a European 
area of justice, respectfu l of rights and equality 
Specific and operational objectives:  
• Ensure that the scope  of the programmes is appropria te to provide support to the 
policies in the area of justice, rights a nd equality and to be responsive to their 
developments: 
Ensure flexibility in the allocation of funds; reduce overlaps and fragmentation.  
 
EN 6   EN • Focus funding on specific areas of action which have clear added value and are 
responsive to the annual policy priorities: 
Enhance public awareness and knowledge of EU law and policies; support the 
implementation of EU law and policies in Member States; promote transnational cooperation; promote exchange of information and good practice; improve knowledge and understanding of EU law with view to ensu ring evidence-based policy making. 
• Improve the effectiveness  and performance orientat ion of the programmes:  
Prevent dilution of funds; ensu re better geographical  coverage; improve dissemination and 
use of results; improve monitoring and evaluation of the programmes.  
• Improve the efficiency  of the programmes:  
Simplify and reduce the length of procedures  for beneficiaries of funding and reduce 
administrative burden for Commission.  
6. O
PTIONS  
Option O – Baseline scenario 
The baseline scenario is to maintain th e existing programmes in their current form. 
Option A – 6 programmes – Status quo and improvements at management level 
While maintaining 6 programmes similar to th e existing ones, some, but not all problems 
identified could be addressed by streamlining th e objectives in the legal acts and introducing 
harmonisation in the management of the programmes. 
Option B – 2 programmes  
This option would adopt all measures foreseen  under option A. Additionally, it would aim for 
more improvement by merging the six progra mmes in two, a "Justice Programme" (merging 
the current JCIV, JPEN and DP IP programmes) and a "Rights and Citizenship Programme" 
(merging the current FRC, DAP and the two sections of the PROGRESS programme). As a result of this merge all procedures would need  to be implemented only twice (instead of six 
times) and this simplification would have a si gnificant positive impact on all the identified 
problems of scope, effectiveness and efficiency. 
Option C – 1 programme  
Under this option only one programme would be implemented, either a programme in the area 
of justice or a programme in the area of right s and citizenship. This option would ensure the 
advantages of option B for this funded area; but  funding would cease comp letely in the other 
policy area. 
Discarded options 
 
EN 7   EN A change from centralised management to shared management  is discarded due to the small 
amount of the EU budget allocate d to this area and the dispr oportionately high administrative 
burden this would create. 
A moderate change of the centralised direct  management mode would be to insert the 
objectives contributing to the promotion of  justice, rights and equality policies into the 
objectives of other EU funding programmes . This option is discarded, because it would 
lead to extensive fragmentation of the objectives, causing reduced effectiveness.  
Discontinuing funding  in the area of justice, rights and equality is also a discarded option, as 
funding is an essential tool for supporting the development and implementation of EU policies 
and for providing information and raising aw areness in this rapi dly developing field. 
7. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS  
Option 0 – Baseline scenario 
The impact of this option would reflect the cu rrent situation. The progr ammes would continue 
to achieve an overall successful implementati on, but their deficiencies would still prevent 
them from developing the full scale of their potential.  
Option A – 6 programmes – Status quo and improvements at management level 
Focus on concrete areas of action would facilit ate the achievement of the funding priorities. 
Improved management would put into practice measures to render the programmes more 
effective. Furthermore streamlined management would address some of the problems of scope 
(i.e. overlaps) and of efficiency (i.e. simple r procedures for applic ants). However, these 
improvements would be limited, as the multitude of programmes, which is a root cause of 
many of the problems, would not be addressed.  
Option B – 2 programmes  
The merge of the programmes would be a more effective measure to ensure that the policy 
priorities are addressed sufficiently and to achieve flexibilit y in the allocati on of funds. Fewer 
programmes would also mean less fragmenta tion and fewer instances of overlaps.  
In terms of efficiency the merge of the pr ogrammes would reduce the number of necessary 
procedures. Fewer and streamlined procedures  would result in more simplification for 
applicants, reduced administrative burden and consequently shorter pr ocedures in comparison 
to option A.  
This simplification and increased efficiency of the programmes would have a significant 
positive impact on the effectiveness of the programmes. All measures of option A would be applicable and they would increase their impa ct, as additional human resources would be 
allocated to these tasks.  
Option C – 1 programme  
The implementation of a single programme would be beneficial in terms of simplification, 
uniformity in procedures and flexibility. Howe ver, it would not be possible to address 
sufficiently the policy priorities and needs of  the whole policy area , but only of the one 
 
EN 8   EN chosen for funding. In the funded area the prog ramme would be equally effective as under 
option B, but the overall effectiveness of fundi ng would be compromised by the fact that it 
would not be able to addr ess the other policy area.  
8. PREFERRED OPTION  
The preferred option is the implementation of two programmes  which would cover the full 
scope of the current funding programmes  (option B ). This option encompasses all possible 
benefits and no disadvantages in comparison with the baseline scenario. On the contrary, 
option A is not preferred, as it presents only li mited improvements, but does not address fully 
the root causes of the problems; and option C,  although it offers maximum benefits in terms 
of management, it allows only for part ial coverage of the policy areas.  
9. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
Monitoring and evaluation obligations, regular reporting and interim and ex-post evaluations 
would be included in the lega l acts of the programmes. Results-based management  and 
performance measurement  would be promoted on the basis of performance indicators.