Special Report EU Youth Guarantee:  
first steps taken but 
implementation risks 
aheadEN 2015  NO 03
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS  
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi  
1615 Luxembourg  
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-1
E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu  
Internet: http://eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditorsECA  
YouTube: EUAuditorsECA
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet ( http://europa.eu ).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015
Print ISBN 978-92-872-2062-2 ISSN 1831-0834 doi:10.2865/782852 QJ-AB-15-002-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-872-2008-0 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/243811 QJ-AB-15-002-EN-N
EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-2030-1 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/08292 QJ-AB-15-002-EN-E
© European Union, 2015
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Luxembourg
EU Youth Guarantee: 
first steps taken but 
implementation risks 
ahead
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)Special ReportEN 2015  NO 03
Audit  team
The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its performance and compliance audits of specific budgetary areas or 
management topics. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks 
to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and 
public interest.
This performance audit was produced by Audit Chamber II — headed by ECA Member Henri Grethen — which specialises 
in the structural policies, transport and energy spending areas. The audit was led by ECA Member Iliana Ivanova, sup ‑
ported by Tony Murphy, head of private office; Mihail Stefanov, attaché of private office; Emmanuel Rauch, head of unit; 
Valeria Rota, team leader; Kristina Maksinen, auditor and Paolo Pesce, auditor.
From left to right: P . Pesce, T. Murphy, I. Ivanova, M. Stefanov, K. Maksinen, E. Rauch.

03
 Contents
Paragraph
 Abbreviations
 Glossary
I–V Executive summary
1–23  Introduction
1–8 Youth unemployment in the EU
9–10  The EU’s role in employment policy
11–13  Youth Guarantee: a measure to support young people in finding a job and structural reform to 
improve school‑to‑work transitions
14–23  Funding of the Youth Guarantee scheme
24–26  Audit scope and approach
27–84  Observations
27–43  The Commission provided adequate and timely support to the Member States in setting up the 
Youth Guarantee scheme
29–31  Commission guidance on designing the Youth Guarantee scheme provided to Member States within 
5 months of the Council recommendation
32–35  The Commission carried out a comprehensive and timely assessment of the draft YGIPs submitted by 
Member States
36–37  The Commission’s assessment identified many of the shortcomings in draft YGIPs
38–39  Not all Member States submitted a revised YGIP following the Commission’s assessment
40–43  Commission assessment of YGIPs not sufficiently coordinated with its assessment of the ex ante  
conditionality for ESF/YEI operational programmes
 
04 Contents
44–84 The Court identified a number of risks to the effective implementation of the Youth Guarantee 
scheme
45–57  Risk that total funding may not be adequate
58–64  Lack of definition of good quality job offer may hamper the effectiveness of the Youth Guarantee
65–84  Comprehensive Youth Guarantee monitoring and reporting framework still being developed
85–91  Conclusions and recommendations
 Annex I — Youth unemployment rate (June 2014)
 Annex II  — Countries eligible for YEI funding
 Annex III — Commission assessment of YGIP and YEI ex ante  conditionalities
 Reply of the Commission
05
 Abbreviations
AIR : Annual Implementation Report
CPR : Common provisions regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European 
Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime 
and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European 
Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation 
(EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320)).
CSRs : Country‑specific recommendations
EMCO : Employment Committee
ESF : European Social Fund
ESIF : European Structural and Investment Funds
GDP : Gross domestic product
IA: Impact assessment
ICT: Information and communication technology
ILO: International Labour Organisation
NEETs : (Young people) Not in Employment, Education or Training
OP: Operational programme
PES : Public employment services
SWD : Staff working document
YAT : Youth Action Team
YEI: Youth Employment Initiative
YG: Youth Guarantee
YGIP : Youth Guarantee Implementation Plan
06
 Glossary
European Network of Public Employment Services : The network was established following a Decision by 
the Council and the European Parliament to maximise the efficiency of public employment services (PES). The 
network comprises all 28 EU countries and the European Commission. It aims to compare PES performance through 
benchmarking, identify evidence‑based good practices and foster mutual learning, promote the modernisation 
and strengthening of PES service delivery, including that of the Youth Guarantee, prepare inputs to the European 
Employment Strategy and the corresponding national labour market policies.
European Semester : The European Semester is the first phase of the EU’s annual cycle of economic policy 
guidance and surveillance. Each European Semester, the European Commission analyses the fiscal and structural 
reform policies of every Member State, provides recommendations, and monitors their implementation. In the 
second phase of the annual cycle, known as the National Semester, Member States implement the policies they 
have agreed.
European Social Fund : The European Social Fund (ESF) aims to strengthen economic and social cohesion within 
the European Union by improving employment and job opportunities (mainly through training measures), 
encouraging a high level of employment and the creation of more and better jobs.
Ex ante conditionalities : These are concrete and precisely predefined critical factors which are a prerequisite for, 
and have a direct and genuine link to, and direct impact on, the effective and efficient achievement of a specific 
objective for an investment priority or a Union priority. When preparing operational programmes receiving 
co‑financing from the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) in the 2014–20 programming period, 
Member States must assess whether these conditionalities have been fulfilled. If they have not been fulfilled, action 
plans need to be prepared to ensure fulfilment by 31 December 2016.
Front loading : In the context of the YEI, front loading means that the related full budget will be available for 
disbursement during the first 2 years of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) instead of being distributed over 
the 7 years (2014–20).
Impact assessments : The impact assessments (IAs) contribute to the EU decision‑making processes by 
systematically collecting and analysing information on planned interventions and estimating their likely impact. IAs 
must be carried out for all major policy initiatives (i.e. those presented in the annual policy strategy (APS) or, later, 
in the Commission’s legislative work programme (CLWP)), with some clearly defined exceptions. In addition, other 
significant initiatives can be covered on a case‑by‑case basis.
International Labour Organisation : The International Labour Organisation (ILO) is a United Nations agency 
dealing with labour issues, and in particular with international labour standards. 185 of the 193 UN member states 
are members of the ILO. Unlike other United Nations specialised agencies, the International Labour Organisation has 
a tripartite governing structure  — representing governments, employers, and workers. The ILO is a major provider 
of labour statistics.
NEETs : NEETs are defined as young people ‘neither in employment, education or training’. This definition was 
agreed by the Employment Committee (EMCO) in April 2010 for use in the context of the Europe 2020 Integrated 
Guidelines. This definition of NEET includes unemployed people not in education and training and inactive people 
not in education and training.
07 Glossary
In other words, ‘not employed’ includes both unemployed and inactive, while ‘not in education or training’ means 
that people who are employed and/or receiving formal or non‑formal education are not considered to be NEETs.
Operational programme : An operational programme (OP) sets out a Member State’s priorities and specific 
objectives and how the funding (EU and national public and private co‑financing) will be used during a given period 
(generally 7 years) to finance projects. These projects must contribute to achieving a certain number of objectives 
specified at the level of the OP’s priority axis. OPs exist for each of the funds in the Cohesion area (i.e. ERDF, CF and 
ESF). An OP is prepared by the Member State and has to be approved by the Commission before any payments from 
the EU budget can be made. OPs can only be modified during the period covered if both parties agree.
Youth Action Team : In February 2012, the Commission, together with the eight Member States with the highest 
levels of youth unemployment at the time, set up Youth Action Teams (YATs) to identify measures to make use 
of EU funding (including that from the ESF) still available under the 2007–13 programming period to support job 
opportunities for young people and small and medium‑sized businesses.
Youth Employment Initiative : The Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) aims to provide financial support to regions 
experiencing youth unemployment rates above 25  %, by supporting the implementation of the Youth Guarantee 
to reinforce and complement the activities funded by the ESF. It funds activities directly, targeting young people 
not in employment, education or training (NEETs) under the age of 25  years (or where the Member States consider 
relevant, under the age of 30). It has an overall budget of 6 billion euro. The policy framework for the YEI is 
constituted by the Youth Employment Package and in particular by the recommendation on establishing the Youth 
Guarantee. The legal basis for the YEI is provided by the ESF regulations for 2014–20.
Youth Guarantee : The Youth Guarantee, adopted by the Council recommendation of 22 April 2013 on establishing 
a Youth Guarantee, should ensure that all young people up to the age of 25 receive a good quality offer of 
employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within 4 months of leaving formal education 
or becoming unemployed. The Youth Guarantee is a crucial structural reform, making institutions work better 
together to provide concrete results for young people.
Youth Guarantee Implementation Plan : The Youth Guarantee Implementation Plan (YGIP) sets out how the Youth 
Guarantee will be implemented at national level, the respective roles of public authorities and other organisations, 
how it will be financed (including the use of EU funds), how progress will be assessed and the timetable. These plans 
are prepared by the Member States. They are not adopted by the Commission.
08
 Executive  
summary
I
An average unemployment rate of 22 % in the EU in 
June 2014 for young people aged between 15 and 
24 represents a significant challenge for all Member 
States. The situation is critical in some Member States 
where the unemployment rates affect between one in 
two or one in three young people, raising the prospect 
of a lost generation with significant socioeconomic 
costs.
II
As a reaction to the worsening situation for unem ‑
ployed young people, which was exacerbated by the 
economic and financial crisis, in 2012 the Commission 
made a proposal for a Youth Guarantee Scheme which 
resulted in the adoption of a Council recommendation 
in April 2013. In this, the Council made recommenda ‑
tions to the Commission and Member States to set up 
the ‘Youth Guarantee’, which is defined to ensure sys ‑
tematically, throughout the EU, that all young people 
under 25 receive a ‘good quality’ offer of employment, 
continued education, apprenticeship or traineeship 
within 4 months of becoming unemployed or leaving 
formal education.
III
The Scheme will be financed from the EU budget 
through the European Social Fund and a dedicated 
Youth Employment Initiative with an estimated alloca ‑
tion of 12,7 billion euro for 2014–20. Complementary 
national funding will be required, since in addition to 
measures directed at individuals, structural reforms 
are also needed.IV
The Court’s audit assessed whether the Commission 
has provided appropriate support to Member States 
in setting up their Youth Guarantee schemes and 
reviewed possible implementation risks. The Court 
concluded that the Commission provided timely and 
appropriate support to the Member States. However, 
three potential risks to the effective implementation 
of the scheme were identified, namely, the adequacy 
of the total funding, how a good quality offer is 
defined and the way in which the Commission mon ‑ 
itors and reports on the results of the scheme.
V
The Court recommends that:
 ο Member States should provide a clear and com ‑
plete overview of the cost of all planned measures 
to combat youth unemployment under the Youth 
Guarantee scheme in order that the Commission 
can assess the overall funding needs.
 ο The Commission should promote a set of qualita ‑
tive attributes that should be fulfilled for jobs, 
traineeships and apprenticeships to be supported 
from the EU budget. This could be based on the 
elements which define a good quality offer in the 
Commission Guidance for evaluation of the Youth 
Employment Initiative.
 ο The Commission should put in place a comprehen ‑
sive monitoring system for the Youth Guarantee 
scheme, covering both structural reforms and 
measures targeting individuals. The results of this 
monitoring should be reported to the European 
Parliament and the Council.
09
 Introduction
Youth unemployment in 
the EU
01 
Over the last decade, and in particular 
since the beginning of the economic 
and financial crisis, the number of 
unemployed people in the EU has in ‑
creased considerably. The risk of being 
unemployed is even higher for young 
people (15–24 years): for example, as 
young people are less experienced, 
they are often the first targets of job 
cuts. In some Member States, during 
the height of the economic and finan ‑
cial crisis this resulted in a situation 
where the transition of young people 
from school to the job market was 
almost impossible1.
02 
Youth unemployment is also more 
sensitive to the economic cycle than 
overall unemployment, and young 
people are also more likely to be 
employed in economic sectors more 
exposed to economic downturns, such 
as the manufacturing, construction, 
retail or hospitality sectors. In the last 
4 years, the overall employment rates 
for young people have fallen by three 
times as much as for adults. According 
to the International Monetary Fund 
(IMF), cyclical factors explain about 
50 % of the changes in youth unem ‑
ployment rates across Europe, but 
70 % of the increase in unemployment 
rates in stressed euro area countries2.03 
In 2010, the Commission launched 
the ‘Youth on the Move’3 Europe 2020 
flagship initiative, which advocated 
better education and training, more 
successful labour market integra ‑
tion and greater mobility as tools to 
combat youth unemployment. The 
Commission also called upon Member 
States to ensure that all young people 
are in a job, further education or other 
activation measure within 4 months of 
leaving school and to provide this as 
a ‘Youth Guarantee’.
04 
In December 2011, the Commission 
proposed a ‘Youth Opportunities 
Initiative’4 and in January 2012 it an ‑
nounced that it would work with the 
eight Member States most affected by 
youth unemployment by establishing 
‘Youth Action Teams’ (YATs) with a view 
to making better use of the EU fund ‑
ing still available during the 2007–13 
programming period.
05 
In December 2012, in its ‘Youth Em ‑
ployment Package’5, the Commission 
proposed a Council Recommendation 
to establish a ‘Youth Guarantee’. This 
proposal was adopted by the EU’s 
Council of Ministers in April 20136 and 
further endorsed by the June 2013 
European Council7.1 United Nations Regional 
Information Centre for 
Western Europe ‘Youth: the 
hardest hit by the global 
financial crisis’ ( http://www.
unric.org ).
2 International Monetary Fund, 
Country Report No 14/199 
‘Euro Area Policies’, July 2014, 
Part ‘Youth Unemployment in 
Europe: Okun’s Law and 
Beyond’.
3 COM(2010) 477 final of 
15 September 2010 ‘Youth on 
the Move’.
4 COM(2011) 933 final of 
20 December 2011 ‘Youth 
Opportunities Initiative’.
5 COM(2012) 729 final of 
5 December 2012 ‘Proposal for 
a Council Recommendation 
on establishing a Youth 
Guarantee’.
6 Council Recommendation of 
22 April 2013 on establishing 
a Youth Guarantee (OJ C 120, 
26.4.2013, p. 1).
7 European Council Conclusions, 
27–28 June 2013, EUCO 
104/2/13 ( http://www.
consilium.europa.eu ).
10 Introduction
Youth (15–24 years old) unemployment rates in EU Member States (June 2014)
Source:  Eurostat.Figure 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Spain
Greece
Italy
Croatia
Cyprus
Portugal
Slovakia
Romania
Ireland
Poland
France
Sweden
Bulgaria
Belgium
EU (28 countries)
Lithuania
Latvia
Hungary
Finland
Slovenia
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
Luxembourg
Estonia
Denmark
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Germany Youth unemployment in the EU — some figures on the situation in 2014
Just under 5 million young people (under 25) were unemployed in the EU ‑28 area in June 2014, of whom over 
3.3 million in the euro area. This represents an unemployment rate of 22 % in the EU. More than one in five 
young EU citizens on the labour market cannot find a job; in Greece and Spain it is one in two.Box 106 
In 2014, youth unemployment within 
the EU as a whole was still at alarming ‑
ly high levels (see Box 1  and Annex I).
07 
Moreover, the gap between the coun ‑
tries with the highest and the lowest 
unemployment rates for young people 
is extremely high (see Figure 1).  There is a gap of nearly 50 percent ‑
age points between the Member 
State with the lowest rate of youth 
unemployment (Germany at 7.8 % in 
June 2014) and the one with the high ‑
est rate (Spain at 53.4 % in June 2014).
11 Introduction
08 
Youth unemployment also has a signif ‑
icant socioeconomic cost. A 2012 Euro ‑ 
found8 study concluded that young 
Europeans between 15 and 24 who are 
not employed, not in education and 
not in training (NEETs) are estimated 
to have a cost (in terms of unemploy ‑
ment benefits and foregone earnings 
and taxes) of around 153 billion euro 
(around 1.2 % of EU GDP) per year. In 
addition, there is a long ‑term cost of 
youth unemployment to the economy, 
to society and to the individuals con ‑
cerned, such as increased risk of future 
unemployment (as a result of the skills 
deterioration and demotivation which 
result from protracted unemployment 
and inactivity) and poverty. In 2014, 
a total of 7.5 million young people 
were NEETs.
The EU’s role in 
employment policy
09 
The EU’s role in employment policy 
is to ensure that the employment 
policies of the Member States are 
coordinated, in particular by defining 
guidelines for these policies. The Com ‑
mission may also support and, if neces ‑
sary, complement national actions to 
combat unemployment9.10 
In the context of the European Semes ‑
ter, the Commission also has a role in 
proposing recommendations to the 
Council following its multilateral sur ‑
veillance of Member States’ economic 
policies, including employment10. 
The Commission considers that these 
recommendations known as ‘coun ‑
try‑specific recommendations’ (CSRs) 
are politically binding, once they are 
endorsed by the European Council. 
Ultimately they may lead to sanctions: 
if they are addressing weaknesses 
considered as putting the Member 
States in a situation of macro‑econom ‑
ic imbalance and/or excessive deficit 
where the European Council considers 
that they are not subsequently suffi ‑
ciently addressed by the Member State 
concerned11.8 Eurofound (2012), NEETs — 
‘Young people not in 
employment education or 
training: Characteristics, cost 
and policy responses in 
Europe’ , Publications Office of 
the European Union, 
Luxembourg.
9 Article 5(2) and 147 of 
Consolidated Version of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union (OJ C 115, 
9.5.2008, p. 47).
10 Article 148 of Consolidated 
Version of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European 
Union (OJ C 115, 9.5.2008, 
p. 47).
11 Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
16 November 2011 on the 
prevention and correction of 
macroeconomic imbalances 
(OJ L 306, 23.11.2011, p. 25).
12 Introduction
Youth Guarantee: 
a measure to support 
young people in finding 
a job and structural 
reform to improve 
school‑to‑work 
transitions
11 
The 2013 Council recommendation 
outlines the concept of the Youth 
Guarantee (see Box 2)  and addresses 
specific recommendations to both the 
Member States and the Commission 
regarding the setting up and the im ‑
plementation of the Youth Guarantee.
12 
Unlike previous measures, the Youth 
Guarantee aims to provide one of four 
alternative offers (job, apprenticeship, 
traineeship or continued education) to 
young persons neither in employment, 
nor in any education or training across 
the EU in a systematic way. According 
to the Council, Member States should 
deliver the Youth Guarantee ‘in accor ‑
dance with national, regional and local 
circumstances’12.13 
The implementation of the Youth 
Guarantee requires a mix of mea ‑
sures which can be implemented in 
the short, medium and longer term. 
While some results relating to actions 
directed at individuals can be achieved 
quickly, others will require some time 
to have a positive impact. Examples of 
long‑term measures include: structural 
reforms in relation to public employ ‑
ment services (PES) and, adjustments 
to labour legislation.
What is the ‘Youth Guarantee’?
Under the Youth Guarantee Member States should ensure that, within 4 months of leaving school or losing 
a job, young people under the age of 25 can either find a ‘good quality’ job suited to their education, skills 
and experience or acquire the education, skills and experience required to find a job in the future through an 
apprenticeship, a traineeship or continued education.Box 212 Recommendation 1 of Council 
Recommendation of 
22 April 2013 on establishing 
a Youth Guarantee.
13 Introduction
Funding of the Youth 
Guarantee scheme
14 
The Youth Guarantee scheme is 
financed from the EU budget, in partic ‑
ular through the Youth Employment 
Initiative (YEI)13 and the European 
Social Fund (ESF) for the 2014–20 pro ‑
gramming period, and from national 
budgets (see Figure 2).  This public funding can be com ‑
plemented by private funding (e.g. 
investments by companies on appren ‑
ticeships schemes or training schemes 
financed by private foundations).13 European Council conclusions, 
8 February 2013, EUCO 37/13 
(http://www.consilium.
europa.eu ).Figure 2Overview of the funding of the Youth Guarantee
Source:  ECA.European Social Fund
(ESF)National FundingFunding sources
Youth Guarantee
Good-quality oﬀers for:
Employment - Continued Education - Apprenticeship - TraineeshipYouth Employment Initiative
(YEI)
14 Introduction
European Social Fund
15 
The ESF is by far the most important 
source of EU funding for the Youth 
Guarantee scheme. In February 2015, 
the Commission estimated that the 
ESF funding will total around 9.5 bil ‑
lion euro including the 3.2 billion euro 
required to match the YEI funding, 
where appropriate (see paragraph 16). 
The ESF can finance measures specif ‑
ically targeting individuals as well as 
those relating to structural reforms 
(see Box 3).
Youth Employment Initiative
16 
To top up available EU financial sup ‑
port to the regions where individuals 
struggle most with youth unemploy ‑
ment and inactivity, the Council and 
the European Parliament agreed to 
create a dedicated 6.4 billion euro 
Youth Employment Initiative (YEI). The 
YEI funding comprises 3.2  billion  euro 
from a specific new EU budget line 
dedicated to youth employment which 
is to be matched by at least 3.2 bil ‑
lion  euro from national allocations 
under the existing ESF. Unlike the ESF part, the specific 
allocation for YEI is not subject to the 
national co‑financing requirement14 
and costs incurred by Member States 
since 1 September 2013 are eligible for 
reimbursement on a retrospective ba ‑
sis. The total YEI funding is front‑load ‑
ed so that these funds are available in 
2014 and 2015 and the related expen ‑
diture is due to be incurred by the end 
of 2017 and 2018.Examples of activities that can be supported by the ESF
Examples of activities that can be supported by the ESF include: development of specialised youth services, 
set‑up of one‑stop‑shops (e.g. within Public Employment Services (PES) and on the Internet), enhanced data ‑
bases, support to employment and schools careers services, awareness‑raising campaigns, support to volun ‑
tary organisations providing mentors, setting up centres for analysis and developing policy models.Box 3
14 Article 22(3) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1304/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council 
of 17 December 2013 on the 
European Social Fund and 
repealing Council Regulation 
(EC) No 1081/2006 (OJ L 347, 
20.12.2013, p. 470).
15 Introduction
15 Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1304/2013.
16 Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1304/2013 and Annex VIII 
of Regulation (EU) 1303/2013.
17 Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1304/2013.
18 European Commission MEMO 
‘The EU Youth Guarantee’, 
8 October 2014.17 
The YEI is part of the overall ESF pro ‑
gramming and approved either in spe ‑
cific YEI operational programmes or as 
part of ESF operational programmes 
as a priority axis or even as part of 
a priority axis15.
18 
YEI support concentrates on regions 
experiencing youth unemployment 
rates above 25 % and on young people 
not in employment, education or train ‑
ing (NEETs). It funds activities directly 
targeting young people under the age 
of 25 or, where the Member States 
consider it to be relevant, under the 
age of 3016 (see Box 4).
19 
Twenty Member States are eligible 
for YEI funding (see Figure 3  and 
Annex II) , as they had regions where 
youth unemployment was over 25 % 
in 201217.20 
In 2014, the Commission stated that 
in order to make the Youth Guarantee 
a reality, Member States also need to 
prioritise youth employment measures 
in their national budgets18.
Examples of activities that can be supported by YEI
Measures that can be financed through the YEI are, for example: provision of first job experience, job coaching 
for individuals, mobility measures to bring skills and jobs together, start‑up support for young entrepreneurs, 
direct support for traineeships and apprenticeships, and provision of digital skills training.Box 4
16 Introduction Figure 3Youth Employment Initiative  — eligible regions
Eligible regions
SWEDEN:
Mellersta Norrland, Norra Mellansverige, Sydsverige
BELGIUM:
Hainaut Province, Liège Province, Région Bruxelles Capitale
IRELAND:
Border, Midland and Western, Southern and Eastern
UNITED KINGDOM:
Inner London, Merseyside, South Western, Scotland, Tees Valley and Durham, West Midlands
FRANCE:
Aquitaine, Auvergne, Centre, Champagne-Ardenne, Haute Normandie, Languedoc-Roussillon, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Picardie, Mayotte, Guadeloupe, Guyane, Martinique, Réunion
PORTUGAL:
Alentejo, Algarve, Centro (PT), Lisboa, Norte, Região Autonoma da Madeira, Região Autonoma dos AçoresSPAIN:Andalucía, Aragón, Canarias, Cantabria,Castilla y León, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalunya,Ciudad Autónoma de Ceuta, Ciudad Autónoma de Melilla, Comunidad de Madrid, Comunidad Foral de Navarra, Comunidad Valenciana, Extremadura, Galicia, Illes Balears, La Rioja, País Vasco, Principado de Asturias, Región de Murcia
ITALY:
Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Emilia-Romagna, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Lazio, Liguria, Lombardia, Marche, Molise, Piemonte, Puglia, Sardegna, Sicilia, Toscana, Umbria, Valle d’Aosta/Vallée d’Aoste
POLAND:
Dolnoslaskie, Kujawsko-Pomorskie, Lódzkie, Lubelskie, Lubuskie, Maloposkie, Podkarpackie, Swietokrzyskie, Warminsko-Mazurskie, Zachodniopomorskie
CZECH REPUBLIC:
Severozápad
HUNGARY:
Dél-Alföld, Dél-Dunántúl, Észak-Alföld, Észak-MagyarországSLOVAKIA:Stredné Slovensko, Východne Slovensko,Západné Slovensko
ROMANIA:
Centru, Sud-Muntenia, Sud-Est
BULGARIA:
Severen tsentralen, Severoiztochen, Severozapaden, Yugoiztochen, Yuzhen tsentralen
SLOVENIA:
Vzhodna Slovenia
CROATIA:
Jadranska Hrvatska, Kontinentalna Hrvatska
GREECE:
Anatoliki Makedonia-Thraki, Attiki, Dytiki 
Ellada, Dytiki Makedonia, Ipeiros, Kentriki 
Makedonia, Kriti, Notio Aigaio, Peloponnisos, 
Sterea Ellada, Thessalia, Vorejo Aigaio
LATVIA, LITHUANIA, CYPRUS
Source:  European Parliamentary Research Service.
17 Introduction
Role of the Commission in 
the set‑up, implementation 
and monitoring of the Youth 
Guarantee
21 
The Commission’s role in relation to 
the set‑up, implementation and mon ‑
itoring of the Youth Guarantee was 
specifically defined in the April 2013 
Council recommendation19. In particu ‑
lar, the Commission should:
 — encourage Member States to make 
best use of the ESF, in accordance 
with the relevant ESF investment 
priorities for the 2014–20 program ‑
ming period, and the YEI, where 
applicable, to support the set‑up 
and implementation of Youth 
Guarantee schemes as a policy 
instrument for combating and 
preventing youth unemployment 
and social exclusion;
 — monitor the design, implementa ‑
tion and results of the Youth Guar ‑
antee schemes, in the context of 
the multilateral surveillance of the 
Employment Committee (see para ‑
graph 68) within the framework of 
the European Semester and as part 
of the annual work programme of 
the European Network of Public 
Employment Services, analyse the 
impact of the policies in place, 
and address, where appropriate, 
country‑specific recommendations 
to Member States, on the basis 
of the guidelines for the Member 
States’ employment policies.22 
According to the Council recom ‑
mendation, in line with the 2014–20 
common provisions regulation the 
Commission and the Member States 
are to ensure the effectiveness of ESF 
and YEI funds during preparation and 
implementation through monitoring, 
reporting and evaluation20.
The Commission’s assessment 
of the Youth Guarantee 
implementation plans
23 
Following the June 2013 Commission 
Communication ‘Call to Action on 
Youth Unemployment’21 and the Euro ‑
pean Council meeting22, the Member 
States committed themselves to sub ‑
mitting a Youth Guarantee Implemen ‑
tation Plan (YGIP) to the Commission. 
The eligible YEI Member States were to 
send these documents by the end of 
2013 and the others in 2014. Within the 
framework of the European Semester, 
the Commission’s Directorate‑General 
for Employment, Social Affairs and 
Inclusion was entrusted with assessing 
the available Member States’ YGIPs in 
January 2014 so that feedback could 
be provided to Member States during 
the European Semester bilateral meet ‑
ings in February 2014.19 Recommendation of 
22 April 2013 on establishing 
a Youth Guarantee.
20 Article 4.9 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1303/2013.
21 COM(2013) 447 final of 
19 June 2013.
22 European Council Conclusions, 
27–28 June 2013, EUCO 
104/2/13 ( http://www.
consilium.europa.eu ).
18
 Audit scope and 
approach
24 
Through this audit, the Court assessed 
whether the Commission provided 
appropriate support to Member States 
in setting up the Youth Guarantee 
scheme and reviewed possible imple ‑
mentation risks.
25 
The audit covered the period from the 
adoption of the Council Recommenda ‑
tion in April 2013 to June 2014. At this 
date, the design phase of the Youth 
Guarantee scheme was complete, 
including the submission of YGIPs 
by Member States and their subse ‑
quent assessment by the Commission. 
Moreover, some additional informa ‑
tion provided by the Commission up 
until February 2015 (concerning, in 
particular, the estimated EU funding 
allocated to the Youth Guarantee and 
the development of the monitoring 
system) has been taken into account 
by the Court. The audit aimed to iden ‑
tify potential risks which could have 
an impact on the implementation of 
the scheme. The Court intends to also 
cover issues concerning youth employ ‑
ment, including the implementation of 
EU initiatives at Member State level, in 
future reports.26 
The audit focused on the Commission’s 
assessment of the YGIPs for a sample 
of five Member States: Ireland, Italy, 
Lithuania and Portugal, which were 
also subject to the Youth Action Teams 
(YAT), and France. For these five Mem ‑
ber States, the Court re‑performed 
the Commission’s assessment and 
analysed both the feedback that the 
Commission provided to the Member 
States and the subsequent follow‑up. 
The Court also examined, for the 
Member States for which the informa ‑
tion was available, the link between 
the assessment of the YGIPs and the 
assessment of the YEI ‑related ex ante  
conditionalities. Finally, the Court 
assessed the EU framework for mon ‑
itoring progress towards an effective 
implementation of the Youth Guaran ‑
tee scheme and related reporting.
19
 Observations
The Commission provided 
adequate and timely 
support to the Member 
States in setting up the 
Youth Guarantee Scheme
27 
Implementing the Youth Guarantee 
requires in‑depth structural reforms of 
training, job search and education sys ‑
tems to improve school‑to‑work tran ‑
sitions and the employability of young 
people. In addition to these structural 
reforms, the Youth Guarantee also 
encourages the use of a wide range 
of proactive measures to help boost 
demand for young people’s labour. 
These measures (such as temporary 
and well‑targeted wage or recruitment 
subsidies or apprenticeship and train ‑
eeship grants) can help young people 
enter the job market and further devel ‑
op their skills.
28 
The Council recommendation provides 
good practice guidance for setting up 
an effective Youth Guarantee scheme. 
The Court examined to what extent 
the Commission has included these 
good practice criteria in its assessment 
of the Youth Guarantee Implemen ‑
tation Plans (YGIPs). Furthermore the 
Court assessed to what extent the 
Member States took account of the 
Commission’s analysis of the draft 
YGIPs and whether the Commission’s 
assessment of YGIPs was well coordi ‑
nated with its ex ante  assessment of 
ESF/YEI OPs.Commission guidance on 
designing Youth Guarantee 
Scheme provided to Member 
States within 5  months of the 
Council recommendation
29 
The Court’s analysis showed that 
the Commission produced guidance 
for developing a national YGIP and 
circulated it to Member States in 
September 2013, i.e. 5 months after 
the adoption of the Council Recom ‑
mendation in April 2013. This guidance 
note comprised a template covering 
the key elements necessary for build ‑
ing a comprehensive implementation 
plan, based on the different axes of the 
Council recommendation:
 — the national context and how the 
Youth Guarantee would add value 
to current provisions;
 — building up partnership 
approaches;
 — early intervention and activation 
measures;
 — supportive measures enabling 
labour market integration;
 — funding of the Youth Guarantee 
scheme;
 — the assessment and continuous 
improvement of the reforms and 
initiatives.
20 Observations
30 
In addition, the Commission sup ‑
ported Member States by publishing 
‘frequently asked questions’ in De ‑
cember 2013 on the website dedicated 
to the Youth Guarantee and various 
supporting documents, such as a staff 
working document which details the 
basic concept of the Youth Guarantee 
and the principles that could contrib ‑
ute to its success. Moreover, the Com ‑
mission organised thematic events 
in October 2013 and April 2014 and 
succeeded in having all Member States 
appoint a national Youth Guarantee 
coordinator.
31 
The Court therefore considers that the 
Commission provided timely support 
to Member States. This facilitated 
Member States to initiate the set‑up 
of their national Youth Guarantee 
schemes and allowed them to submit 
their YGIPs within the short time ‑
frame agreed in the June 2013 Council 
conclusions, that is by the end of 2013 
for YEI‑eligible Member States and by 
spring 2014 for the remaining ones 
(see Annex II).The Commission carried out 
a comprehensive and timely 
assessment of the draft YGIPs 
submitted by Member States
32 
The Court notes that the responsibil ‑
ity for the YGIPs rests with the Mem ‑
ber States. The Commission’s role is 
to carry out a thorough, timely and 
consistent assessment of the draft 
YGIPs to identify shortcomings that 
may negatively affect the possibility of 
achieving an effective Youth Guaran ‑
tee. On this basis Member States could 
then adjust their YGIPs accordingly. In 
particular, this would enable Member 
States to make best use of the ESF and 
the YEI, where applicable, and support 
the set‑up and implementation of 
Youth Guarantee schemes.
33 
The Court has reviewed the Commis ‑
sion assessment of the national YGIPs 
and to what extent Member States 
have subsequently reacted to the 
shortcomings identified.
34 
The Court found that the Commission 
developed a comprehensive evalua ‑
tion grid, covering the key aspects of 
the Council recommendation. On the 
basis of this grid, the Commission was 
in a position to systematically assess 
the draft YGIPs submitted by Member 
States. The assessments were then 
subject to horizontal crosschecks with 
a view to ensuring consistency across 
all 28 YGIPs.
21 Observations
35 
As regards the Member States covered 
by this report, the Commission had 
assessed all the YGIPs reviewed by the 
Court and was in a position to provide 
feedback in time for bilateral meetings 
held in February 2014.
The Commission’s assess ‑
ment identified many of the 
shortcomings in draft YGIPs
36 
The Commission assessment iden ‑
tified a number of shortcomings in 
relation to information provided by 
the Member States concerning key 
aspects included in their national 
YGIPs. Examples of such shortcomings 
include: poor or non‑existent analysis 
of skills mismatch, failure to set out 
how the planned measures will ensure 
that all young NEETs will be reached, 
and inconsistencies in what constitutes 
a good quality offer.
37 
However the Commission did not 
thoroughly and consistently address 
the following aspects which are 
specifically included in the Council 
recommendation:
 — ICT/digital skills : The Commission 
had identified that ICT skills could 
offer great potential for the crea ‑
tion of sustainable jobs23. Moreo ‑
ver, it highlighted that currently 
‘… the number of ICT graduates is 
insufficient in order to fill all the 
vacancies in the ICT sector, where, 
even in times of recent economic 
turmoil, the demand for ICT practi ‑
tioners has been growing at a rate 
of 3 % per year’24. While the Commission raised the 
fact that the Italian and Lithu ‑
anian YGIPs did not contain any 
measures for enhancing ICT/digital 
skills, it did not do so for Ireland 
and Portugal even though the 
reference to ICT/digital skills was 
equally absent in their YGIPs.
 — Mutual obligation : The Coun ‑
cil recommendation recognises 
‘young people’s individual respon ‑
sibility in finding a route into eco ‑
nomic activity.’ In some Member 
States, young unemployed persons 
risk the removal or reduction of 
unemployment or social assistance 
benefits if they do not take up any 
reasonable offer of employment, 
internship, training or education. 
Failure to consider this principle 
risks limiting the effectiveness of 
a Youth Guarantee scheme since it 
has a detrimental effect on partici ‑
pants’ commitment and reduces 
the responsibility of the Member 
States to provide a good qual ‑
ity offer. The presence of mutual 
obligation was not assessed by the 
Commission for any of the YGIPs 
reviewed. The Court found that 
out of the five YGIPs reviewed only 
that from Ireland included a spe ‑
cific reference to this principle.23 COM(2008) 868/3 ‘New skills 
for new jobs, Anticipating and 
matching labour market and 
skills needs’.
24 European Commission Staff 
Working Document, 
SWD(2012) 409 final, p. 21.
22 Observations
 — Mutual learning : The Council 
recommendation calls on Mem ‑
ber States ‘… to promote mutual 
learning activities at national, 
regional and local level between 
all parties involved in combating 
youth unemployment, in order to 
improve the design and delivery of 
future YG schemes’25. The Commis ‑
sion did not assess this relevant 
aspect, which is linked to the cost 
effectiveness of implementation in 
the Member States, and the Court 
found that with the exception of 
the French YGIP the principle of 
‘mutual learning’ is not included in 
any of the reviewed YGIPs.
Not all Member States sub ‑
mitted a revised YGIP fol ‑
lowing the Commission’s 
assessment
38 
During the assessment process, the 
Commission, where appropriate, asked 
all Member States covered by this 
report for further clarification and/or 
pointing out the main weaknesses of 
their draft YGIPs in written feedback. 
The Commission also held bilateral 
meetings with the Member States 
to further discuss the shortcomings 
identified. Moreover, the Commission 
carried out technical visits to certain 
Member States to clarify a number of 
issues and identify outstanding prob ‑
lems in the YGIPs26.39 
A number of important shortcomings 
remained in the YGIPs after the bilater ‑
al meetings and the Commission asked 
for additional information from all 
Member States. For the Member States 
reviewed, the Court’s analysis showed 
that Lithuania was the only one which 
had committed itself to submitting 
a revised version of the YGIP27. France, 
Italy and Portugal, were all invited to 
present a new version of their imple ‑
mentation plans but they declined for 
different reasons. For instance, ac ‑
cording to the Commission, the Italian 
authorities replied that they would 
‘… focus on the careful drawing up 
of relevant OPs rather than rewriting 
a new YGIP’.25 Recommendation 25 to 
Member States.
26 In the sample audited only 
Italy received such a technical 
visit.
27 In addition to Lithuania, 12 
other Member States 
submitted revised YGIPs by 
June 2014 (Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Greece, Spain, Croatia, 
Hungary, Latvia, the 
Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Sweden and Slovakia), 
following the Commission’s 
request.
23 Observations
Commission assessment of 
YGIPs not sufficiently coor ‑
dinated with its assessment 
of the ex ante  conditional ‑
ity for ESF/YEI operational 
programmes
40 
According to the CPR regulation for 
the 2014–20 programming period, 
Member States must fulfil specific 
ex ante conditionalities to ensure an 
effective and efficient use of the EU 
funds. The CPR28 states that ‘the assess ‑
ment of fulfilment by the Commission 
shall be limited to the criteria laid 
down in the Fund‑specific rules and 
in Part II of Annex XI and shall respect 
national and regional competences to 
decide on the specific and adequate 
policy measures including the content 
of strategies’. The relevant investment 
priority for ESF/YEI OPs is the ‘sustain ‑
able integration into the labour market 
of young people, in particular for 
NEETs, including young people at risk 
of social exclusion and young peo ‑
ple from marginalised communities, 
including through the implementation 
of the Youth Guarantee’.
41 
The Commission must assess the 
consistency and adequacy of the 
information provided by Member 
States in relation to the specific ex ante  
conditionality before the adoption 
of an OP29. The ex ante  conditionality 
for YEI is the existence of a strategic 
policy framework for promoting youth 
employment, including through the 
implementation of the Youth Guar ‑
antee30. The Court considers that the 
Commission’s assessment of this spe ‑
cific ex ante  conditionality for YEI and 
the assessment of the YGIP should be 
closely coordinated to ensure that the 
ESF/YEI OP and the Youth Guarantee 
scheme are in line.42 
The Court assessed whether the short ‑
comings identified by the Commission 
during the assessment of YGIPs were 
also addressed by it when drawing 
conclusions on the fulfilment, or other ‑
wise, of the ex ante  conditionalities.
43 
The Court found that the Commission 
considered the ex ante  conditionalities 
related to ESF/YEI OPs as ‘fulfilled’ 
despite the YGIPs being evaluated 
by it as ‘very limited’ or ‘partial’ (see 
Annex III).  The Court considers this as 
a missed opportunity for the Com ‑
mission to ensure that Member States 
introduce a youth employment strat ‑
egy in accordance with their political 
commitment to the Youth Guarantee 
scheme prior to the approval of the 
ESF/YEI OPs for the 2014–20 program ‑
ming period. In addition, the Court’s 
review showed that the checks carried 
out by the Commission for the approv ‑
al of OPs do not cover how the ESF/YEI 
OPs, in particular, will contribute to the 
effective implementation of the Youth 
Guarantee.28 Article 19(3) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1303/2013.
29 Article 19(1) and (3) of 
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013.
30 Annex XI of Regulation (EU) 
No 1303/2013.
24 Observations
The Court identified 
a number of risks to the 
effective implementation 
of the Youth Guarantee 
Scheme
44 
The Court also considered whether 
potential risks to the effective imple ‑
mentation of the Youth Guarantee 
Scheme could be identified when 
reviewing the Commission’s assess ‑
ment. In particular, the adequacy of 
the Youth Guarantee funding, the way 
the good quality offer is defined and 
the monitoring of the Youth Guarantee 
Scheme were considered.
Risk that total funding may 
not be adequate
45 
The implementation of Youth Guar ‑
antee schemes in Member States will 
be a costly measure, especially when 
considering the current scale of youth 
unemployment across the EU. The 
Court considers that a robust global 
estimate of the necessary funding 
for the Youth Guarantee Scheme can 
only be established based on reliable 
figures for the cost of implementing 
the Youth Guarantee in each Mem ‑
ber State. Moreover, there should be 
clarity on the sources from which the 
national Youth Guarantee schemes are 
to be financed.46 
The Court notes that the Youth Guar ‑
antee Scheme aims not only to provide 
financial support to young people 
(unemployed or at risk of being unem ‑
ployed), but also fundamental struc ‑
tural reforms in the medium and long 
term. It is therefore evident that the 
Youth Guarantee will require substan ‑
tial investment.
47 
Moreover, the amount of national 
funding which is made available to the 
Youth Guarantee Scheme has not yet 
been fully determined. According to 
the Commission’s analysis of the YGIPs 
submitted by the Member States, 
nine31 out of 28 Member States have 
not provided any information on the 
envisaged national funding. The re ‑
maining Member States have provided 
information with a varying degree of 
detail.
No impact assessment carried 
out for the Youth Guarantee 
Scheme
48 
In principle all major Commission leg ‑
islative, budgetary and policy defin ‑
ing initiatives with significant impact 
must undergo an IA32. IAs must specify 
the costs and benefits of proposals, 
how they occur and who is affected. 
According to the Commission’s guide ‑
lines, all impacts should be quantified 
and monetised where possible and 
appropriate, based on robust methods 
and reliable data33.31 Estonia, Ireland, Spain,  
Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, 
Finland, Sweden and the 
United Kingdom.
32 Special Report No 3/2010 
‘Impact assessments in the EU 
institutions: do they support 
decision‑making?’, paragraph 
3 (http://eca.europa.eu ).
33 European Commission, 
‘Impact assessment 
guidelines’, SEC(2009) 92.
25 Observations
34 European Commission Staff 
Working Document, 
SWD(2012) 409 final, pp. 11–12.
35 European Parliament Public 
Hearing, Committee on 
Budgets in cooperation with 
the Committee on 
Employment and Social 
Affairs, Tuesday 1 April 2014, 
page 23.
36 ILO, Global Employment 
Outlook, ‘Global spill‑overs 
from advanced to emerging 
economies worsen the 
situation for young 
jobseekers’, September 2012, 
http://www.ilo.org
37 ILO, ‘ Eurozone job crisis: trends 
and policy responses’ , July 
2012.The information was also 
published on the Commission 
website http://ec.europa.eu
38 Belgium, Ireland, Spain, 
France, Netherlands and 
Portugal.
39 ILO, ‘ Youth guarantees: 
a response to the youth 
employment crisis?’ , 2013 
(http://www.ilo.org ).49 
The Court notes that the Commis ‑
sion, before proposing the Youth 
Guarantee scheme, did not carry out 
any impact assessment. The Commis ‑
sion’s staff working document (SWD) 
which accompanied the Proposal for 
a Council Recommendation on Estab ‑
lishing a Youth Guarantee only made 
reference to the International Labour 
Organisation (ILO) 2012 estimates (see 
Commission staff working document 
section 2.3) and provided preliminary 
estimates for some Member States 
(Austria, Finland, Sweden and the 
UK)34. As a result, apart from the ILO es ‑
timates, there is no information on the 
potential global cost of implementing 
such a scheme across the EU.
The ILO presented different 
estimates, in 2012 and 2013, of 
annual funding requirements for 
the implementation of a Youth 
Guarantee
50 
In February 2015, the Commission 
estimated that for the entire 2014–20 
programming period, 12.7  billion  euro 
of EU funding will be allocated to 
finance the schemes. Previously, in 
April 2014 the Commission estimated35 
that this would be complemented by 
national, regional and even private 
resources of 4 billion euro. This total 
of 16.7 billion euro amounts to around 
2.4 billion euro per year.51 
In 2012, the ILO reported that the 
estimated annual cost of effectively 
implementing the Youth Guarantee in 
the euro area would be 0.2 % of GDP36 
or 0.45 % of government spending, 
which amounts to 21 billion euro37. 
ILO cost estimates published in 2013 
based on six countries of the euro 
area38 ranged between approximately 
0.5 % and 1.5 % of GDP39. According 
to ILO, these implementation costs 
differ depending on the availability of 
the administrative infrastructure for 
the implementation of guarantee on 
a larger scale and the size of the eligi ‑
ble population.
No robust estimate of costs for 
specific measures of the Youth 
Guarantee schemes
52 
In 2013, the Commission request ‑
ed Member States to provide a cost 
estimate of the planned measures and 
the related sources of funding when 
submitting their YGIPs. In particular, 
Member States were asked to set out 
the sources of funding and its alloca ‑
tion to the different key reforms and 
measures/initiatives in a financing 
plan, and to provide specific informa ‑
tion on each of the measures (such as 
the cost per measure, the expected 
number of beneficiaries per measure, 
the percentage of the target popula ‑
tion to be reached by each measure, 
the additional cost of new measures 
and the expected outcomes).
26 Observations
53 
This would have allowed the Commis ‑
sion to assess if adequate resources 
were allocated for the Youth Guar ‑
antee scheme. For example, ‘Lack of 
complementary national funding, 
which could undermine the implemen ‑
tation of the Youth Guarantee in the 
short ‑ and long‑term’40 was identified 
by the Commission as one of the most 
important challenges of delivering 
a Youth Guarantee in Spain. Therefore 
the Court reviewed the YGIPs submit ‑
ted by the five Member States covered 
by this report (Ireland, France, Italy, 
Lithuania and Portugal) and checked 
whether any information was provided 
in relation to the estimated costs of 
the planned measures and the related 
sources of funding.
54 
The Court found that generally Mem ‑
ber States provided estimates for the 
cost of measures aimed at individuals. 
For some Member States, however, 
the YGIPs submitted lacked relevant 
information such as costs per bene ‑
ficiary related to the offers (Ireland 
and France), the participation targets 
per measure and the percentage of 
the target population expected to be 
reached by the YG (France). As a result, 
the absence of such information does 
not allow early identification by the 
Commission of possible shortfalls as 
envisaged.
55 
Moreover, none of the five Member 
States provided information on the 
estimated implementation cost of the 
structural reforms required for the de ‑
livery of an effective Youth Guarantee 
in their YGIPs.56 
For three of the five Member States 
reviewed, the national allocation 
specified in the YGIP is significantly 
less than that of the various EU funds, 
varying between 13 % (for Portugal) 
and 35 % (for Italy and Lithuania) of 
the total amount. For Ireland, the na ‑
tional allocation exceeded that of the 
EU while for France, the data available 
did not allow for such comparison. In 
addition, with the exception of Lithu ‑
ania, the Member States declared the 
EU sources of funding related to the 
measures globally (under the same 
heading EU/ESF/YEI). Due to the lack 
of complete and accurate information, 
it was therefore not possible for the 
Commission to assess the suitability of 
the funding source for the measures or 
to conclude on the overall feasibility 
and sustainability of the Youth Guaran ‑
tee financial plans.40 European Commission Staff 
Working Document, 
SWD(2014) 410 final, p. 25.
27 Observations
41 Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1304/2013.
42 Council Recommendation for 
a Quality Framework for 
Traineeships, Brussels, 
10 March 2014 ( http://www.
consilium.europa.eu ).
43 Council Declaration “European 
Alliance for Apprenticeships”, 
Employment, Social Policy, 
Health and Consumer Affairs 
Council, Luxembourg, 
15 October 2013.
44 FAQs on the Youth Guarantee, 
question 6 ( http://www.
ec.europa.eu ).Specific challenges in verifying 
the regularity of YEI expenditure
57 
According to the ESF regulation41, the 
programming arrangements of the YEI 
may take one or more of the following 
forms (see paragraph 17):
 — a dedicated operational 
programme;
 — a dedicated priority axis within an 
operational programme;
 — a part of one or more priority axes.
The Court considers that there is a spe ‑
cific challenge (as compared to stan ‑
dard ESF expenditure) for the Member 
States and the Commission to effec ‑
tively verify the regularity of YEI ex ‑
penditure declared. This is due to more 
stringent eligibility requirements, 
the possibility to declare expenditure 
incurred since September 2013 and, 
particularly in the last case above, the 
absence of co‑financing for YEI.
Lack of definition of good 
quality job offer may ham ‑
per the effectiveness of the 
Youth Guarantee
58 
The Court recalls that the Youth 
Guarantee aims to offer young people 
a genuine opportunity to increase 
their employability with a view to sus ‑
tainable and rewarding labour market 
integration, and to consequently boost 
overall youth employment rates. The Council recommends therefore 
that Member States ensure that all 
young people under the age of 25 
receive a ‘good quality’ offer within 
4 months of becoming unemployed or 
leaving formal education. The Council 
recommendation, however, does not 
indicate what a ‘good quality’ offer is, 
or specify who should provide such 
a definition.
59 
A number of EU documents (such 
as the Council Recommendation for 
a Quality Framework for Traineeships42 
and the Council Declaration ‘Europe ‑
an Alliance for Apprenticeships’43) set 
out non‑binding qualitative minimum 
standards of good quality for trainee ‑
ships and apprenticeships to prevent 
companies exploiting them as cheap 
sources of labour. On the other hand, 
there are no equivalent documents 
establishing principles defining a good 
quality job.
60 
In December 2013, the Commission 
issued guidance according to which 
a ‘good quality’ offer is an offer which 
is expected to result in ‘sustainable 
labour market attachment’ and which 
should not ‘only have as an immediate 
effect to reduce the statistics of youth 
unemployment for a while’ 44.
28 Observations
61 
Based on a review of relevant studies45 
in this field, the Court considers that 
there may be a combination of attri ‑
butes which are relevant for defining 
whether a job offer should be consid ‑
ered to be ‘good quality’: namely dura ‑
tion of the contract (fixed duration or 
open‑ended contract), type of contract 
(part‑time voluntary‑involuntary/
full‑time); remuneration level linked 
to the cost of living of the Member 
State in question; the skills content of 
jobs and the related level and type of 
qualification required, and availabil ‑
ity of additional job‑related training. 
Within the principle of subsidiarity 
a minimum set of attributes could 
have been defined at EU level while 
leaving Member States the flexibility 
to establish their own standard values 
for each of these.
62 
The Court found for example that 
the Commission, when assessing the 
draft YGIPs submitted by Italy, would 
consider an offer of temporary em ‑
ployment (5 to 6 months) to be ‘good 
quality’ even if the salary is below the 
monthly income poverty threshold in 
most parts of the country, based on 
data from the Italian National Institute 
of Statistics (ISTAT)46. No other qualita ‑
tive elements were taken into account 
by the Commission.63 
The absence of a set of qualitative 
attributes for a good quality job offer 
leads to the risk that the Youth Guar ‑
antee schemes might be implemented 
inconsistently and ineffectively across 
Member States or even within an 
individual Member State. While it is 
obviously possible to check the quality 
of offers being made in the different 
Member States ex post (i.e. through 
evaluations), by that time most of the 
YEI budget would be already com ‑
mitted and/or spent (in view of the 
frontloading of funds in 2014 and 2015) 
and any shortcomings impacting the 
effectiveness of the YEI expenditures 
would not be addressed.
64 
The Court notes that in July 2014 the 
Commission provided specific guid ‑
ance to be used for the evaluation of 
the YEI47, foreseen in the ESF regula ‑
tion48 for the end of 2015 and end of 
2018, which requires the evaluators to 
report on the quality of employment 
offers received by YEI participants, also 
taking into account qualitative criteria 
such as those set out above.45 European Parliament, 
‘Indicators of Job Quality in 
the European Union’ , 
PE429.972, 2009 (http:// www.
europarl.europa.eu ); CSES, 
‘Study on Measuring 
Employment Effects’ , June 
2006; OECD, ‘ Local 
Implementation of Youth 
Guarantees: Emerging Lessons 
from European Experiences’ , 
2014.
46 Italian National Institute of 
Statistics (ISTAT) ‘Calcolo della 
soglia di povertà assoluta’ 
(http://www.istat.it ).
47 European Commission, 
‘Guidance on Evaluation of the 
Youth Employment Initiative’ , 
July 2014.
48 Article 19(6) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1304/2013.
29 Observations
Comprehensive Youth Guar ‑
antee monitoring and report ‑
ing framework still being 
developed
65 
The Court considers that an ongoing 
assessment of measures under the 
Youth Guarantee is crucial to ensure 
that funds are invested wisely and 
measures are implemented in ways 
that will make a real difference for 
young people. Robust monitoring 
mechanisms should therefore be built 
into the design of Youth Guarantee 
measures from the beginning49. This is 
the basis for effective, evidence‑based 
policymaking which should alert the 
European Parliament and the Council 
when objectives are not being reached 
or when the efficiency of the measures 
is not satisfactory, allowing them to 
improve the design or the implemen ‑
tation of the measures.
66 
The Commission monitors the imple ‑
mentation of the Youth Guarantee 
Scheme within the framework of the 
European Semester, and it is asked to 
analyse the impact of the policies in 
place, and to address, where appro ‑
priate, CSRs to Member States, on the 
basis of the guidelines for the employ ‑
ment policies of the Member States50.67 
The Court assessed the framework 
established to monitor the implemen ‑
tation and results of both the Youth 
Guarantee as a whole and also in 
relation to those actions financed by 
the YEI.
Comprehensive monitoring and 
reporting arrangements not 
built into design of the Youth 
Guarantee scheme from the 
beginning
68 
Through its recommendation, the 
Council entrusted the Commission 
with monitoring the implementa ‑
tion of the Youth Guarantee through 
the multilateral surveillance of the 
Employment Committee51 (EMCO) 
within the framework of the European 
Semester (see Box 5) . According to the 
Council recommendation, however, 
it is not planned to report the results 
of this monitoring to the European 
Parliament.
Role of the Employment Committee (EMCO)
EMCO’s primary role is as an advisory committee for Employment and Social Affairs Ministers in the Employ ‑
ment and Social Affairs Council (EPSCO). EMCO’s multilateral surveillance helps to assess implementation com ‑
prehensively across Member States with similar challenges, together with assessing policy options and plans. 
It monitors Member States’ progress in implementing reforms prompted by the CSRs. One of its subgroups is 
mandated to select and develop indicators to monitor the employment strategy, which includes monitoring 
the Youth Guarantee.Box 549 European Commission, ‘ The 
Youth Guarantee: Making It 
Happen’ , 2014, p. 3.
50 Council Recommendation of 
22 April 2013 on establishing 
a Youth Guarantee, 
Recommendation 6.
51 The EMCO was created by 
Council Decision 2000/98/EC 
of 24 January 2000 
establishing the Employment 
Committee (OJ L 29, 4.2.2000, 
p. 21) on the basis of article 150 
of the TFEU. Each EU Member 
State and the Commission 
nominate two members to 
EMCO.
30 Observations
69 
Progress on the implementation of 
the Youth Guarantee was reviewed 
by EMCO in May 2014, along with an 
assessment of Member States’ employ ‑
ment situation and national reform 
programmes. This took the form of 
peer reviews and was intended to offer 
as complete a coverage as possible 
to identify key challenges in Member 
States.
70 
Based on the reports reviewed for the 
Member States covered by the May 
exercise, the Court found that the 
level of detail of this analysis varied 
significantly. For example, whereas the 
examination of Ireland focused exten ‑
sively on the Youth Guarantee, that 
of Portugal did not cover the Youth 
Guarantee at all.
71 
The Court also notes that a sub group 
of EMCO has developed specific indi ‑
cators to monitor the implementation 
and results of the Youth Guarantee at 
EU level52. These are macroeconomic 
indicators that are expected to com ‑
plement indicators that measure the 
direct impact of policy and the speed 
of delivery of offers to young people. 
The indicators were endorsed by the 
Council in December 2014. A pilot 
exercise to test the methodology was 
launched in October 2014 and the 
result will be evaluated during 2015 
which, according to EMCO, may lead to 
some technical revision of the indica ‑
tor framework53.72 
As these indicators are not mandatory, 
relevant information about the success 
of the Youth Guarantee as a whole will 
depend on the continued commit ‑
ment of the Member States to provide 
comprehensive and reliable data. The 
Court also considers that availability 
of these indicators at an earlier stage 
would have allowed Member States 
to include them in their administra ‑
tive system at the design stage of the 
Youth Guarantee scheme.
Long ‑term reforms needed 
to address Youth Guarantee ‑ 
related country‑specific 
recommendations
73 
In the framework of the European Se ‑
mester, the Commission also analyses 
the impact of employment policies 
taking into account data reported in 
the scoreboard (see Box 6)  and, where 
appropriate, points out the weak ‑
nesses to the Member States through 
annual CSRs.
74 
The Court reviewed how the Youth 
Guarantee was addressed in the CSRs. 
In particular, for the sampled Member 
States, checks were carried out on 
whether the recommendations were 
specific, measurable and achievable.52 INDIC/07/13052014/EN  — 
Monitoring the Youth 
Guarantee — Revised Working 
Group note for the IG meeting 
on 13 May 2014.
53 Council of the European 
Union: ‘Implementation of the 
Youth Guarantee and 
monitoring framework  — 
endorsement of the EMCO’s 
key messages’, 
17 November 2014.
31 Observations
75 
The Court found that the 2013 CSRs 
related to youth unemployment were 
in general neither specific nor measur ‑
able (see Box 7).
76 
In 2014, the Commission proposed 
specific recommendations on the 
implementation of the Youth Guar ‑
antee to eight countries (Bulgaria, 
Ireland, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Poland, 
Portugal and Slovakia). The Court 
found that these CSRs provided more 
detail and some of them also included 
milestones.77 
The effective implementation of CSRs 
depends, however, on political com ‑
mitment at national level. According 
to the Commission only 10 % of all 
2013 CSRs have been fully imple ‑
mented while 45 % have seen limited 
or no progress54. This was also ad ‑
dressed by the European Parliament in 
October 201455.
78 
The Court notes that in relation to the 
CSRs addressing the Youth Guaran ‑
tee, considerable reforms are needed 
which are unlikely to be implemented 
in the short term.54 Commission website: 
Country‑Specific 
Recommendations 2013 
(http://ec.europa.eu ).
55 European Parliament 
resolution of 22 October 2014 
on the European Semester for 
economic policy coordination: 
implementation of 2014 
priorities (2014/2059(INI)).Commission scoreboard on Youth unemployment and NEETs indicators
Youth unemployment and NEETs indicators are part of a newly developed Commission scoreboard of key em ‑
ployment and social indicators which identifies the major employment and social imbalances within the EU. 
The first such Scoreboard was published as part of the Joint Employment Report 2014, jointly adopted by the 
Commission and the EU’s Council of Ministers. It is composed of five key indicators and forms the basis of the 
Commission’s proposals for structural reforms.Box 6
Country‑specific recommendations in 2013 — Examples of Lithuania and Italy
The CSR for Lithuania was to ‘Improve the employability of young people, for example through a Youth Guar ‑
antee, enhance the implementation and effectiveness of apprenticeships schemes, and address persistent 
skills mismatches’; for Italy it was to: ‘Take further action to foster labour market participation, especially of 
women and young people, for example through a Youth Guarantee’. Both CSRs made reference to the Youth 
Guarantee scheme, but neither provided details on how the countries should implement the schemes to have 
most impact; nor did either provide any measurable targets, or interim milestones.Box 7
32 Observations
No plans for systematic 
reporting on the Youth 
Guarantee schemes as a whole
79 
The CPR regulation requires the Com ‑
mission to send a summary report of 
the annual implementation reports 
(AIRs) to the European Parliament each 
year, starting from 2016. Moreover, in 
2017 and 2019, the Commission is to 
present to the European Parliament 
strategic reports summarising the 
progress reports of the Member States 
and attend the Parliament’s debate on 
those reports56.
80 
The Court notes that Youth Guarantee 
measures that are not funded through 
the ESF/YEI OPs would not be included 
in these reports since the AIRs cover 
only EU‑funded interventions. As a re ‑
sult, with the exception of the EMCO 
indicators, there is no provision for any 
reporting on the nationally funded 
part of the Youth Guarantee scheme at 
EU level. This carries the risk that stake ‑
holders will not have a clear overview 
of how and to what extent the Youth 
Guarantee as a whole contributes to 
tackling youth unemployment.The new performance framework 
for ESF/YEI focuses on results
81 
ESF/YEI‑funded Youth Guarantee ac ‑
tions are to be monitored according to 
the legal framework of the Euro ‑ 
pean Structural and Investment 
Funds57. The ESF regulation contains 
specific provisions for monitoring, 
reporting and evaluating the YEI to 
ensure that its impacts and contribu ‑
tion to the Youth Guarantee can be 
measured and made visible. In par ‑
ticular, it requires that ‘At least twice 
during the programming period, an 
evaluation shall assess the  effective ‑
ness, efficiency and impact of joint 
support from the ESF and the specific 
allocation for YEI including for the im ‑
plementation of the Youth Guarantee. 
The first evaluation shall be completed 
by 31 December 2015 and the second 
evaluation by 31 December 2018’58.
82 
In addition, as from April 2015 and for 
subsequent years, the Member States 
must send structured data related to 
common indicators to the Commission 
for EU‑supported actions togeth ‑
er with the annual implementation 
reports (AIRs). These reports must 
also set out and assess the quality of 
employment offers received by partic ‑
ipants as well as their progress in con ‑
tinuing education, finding sustainable 
and decent jobs, or moving into ap ‑
prenticeships or quality traineeships59.56 Article 53 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1303/2013.
57 Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 
and Regulation (EU) 
No 1304/2013.
58 Article 19(6) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1304/2013.
59 Article 19(3) and 19(4) of 
Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013.
33 Observations
83 
The ESF regulation provides for man ‑
datory common output and results 
indicators  for all actions supported 
by an operational programme (OP)60. 
For the OP activating the YEI it also 
requires that Member States detail 
specific result indicators.
84 
The Court has examined the relevance 
of the YEI result indicators as set out in 
the ESF regulation and identified that 
the following result indicators could 
be more detailed when approving 
future ESF/YEI OPs or when making 
amendments to existing OPs:
 — the YEI‑specific results indicators 
‘Unemployed/Long ‑term unem ‑
ployed/Inactive participants who 
receive an offer of employment, 
continued education, apprentice ‑
ship or traineeship upon leaving’ 
does not require Member States to 
provide data which differentiate 
between the four different offers 
which participants can receive un ‑
der the Youth Guarantee scheme. 
The absence of such a require ‑
ment means that details will not 
be available on the types of Youth 
Guarantee offers taken up by 
young people and consequently 
whether corrective actions will be 
necessary to improve the effective ‑
ness of the measures;
 — the YEI longer‑term result in ‑
dicators measure the situation 
of young people just 6 months 
after the intervention has ended, 
whereas measuring over a longer 
time lag would facilitate drawing 
conclusions on the sustainability of 
certain offers (e.g. job offer); — the regulation allows Member 
States to extend, on a voluntary 
basis, the YEI target group to peo ‑
ple over 25 but under the age of 
30. However, none of the YEI result 
indicators cover the 25–29 age 
group, making it difficult to assess 
the effectiveness of measures for 
this age group. While the Commis ‑
sion guidance strongly encourages 
Member States to develop their 
own output indicators (such as 
participants in YEI‑funded actions) 
for the 25–29 age group, it makes 
no reference to the related result 
indicators. The Court found that of 
the four Member States examined 
which chose to extend the YEI 
scope (France, Italy, Lithuania and 
Portugal), none has established ad ‑
ditional programme‑specific result 
indicators, and two (France and 
Portugal) have not even set the ad ‑
ditional output indicators to cover 
the extended target group.60 Annex II of Regulation (EU) 
1304/2013.
34
 Conclusions and 
recommendations
85 
The Youth Guarantee recommenda ‑
tion was formally adopted by the EU’s 
Council of Ministers on 22 April 2013 
on the basis of a proposal made by 
the Commission in December 2012. 
This recommendation made specific 
recommendations to both Member 
States and the Commission for the 
implementation of the scheme. In par ‑
ticular, the Commission was entrusted 
with assessing the available Member 
States’ Youth Guarantee implementa ‑
tion plans so that feedback could be 
provided to Member States during the 
European Semester bilateral meetings.
The Commission provided 
adequate and timely support to 
the Member States in setting up 
the Youth Guarantee scheme
86 
Overall, the Court concludes that the 
Commission provided adequate and 
timely support to the Member States 
in the process of setting up the Youth 
Guarantee. In particular, the Commis ‑
sion issued guidance on designing 
Youth Guarantee schemes in Septem ‑
ber 2013, i.e. only 5 months after the 
adoption of the Council recommenda ‑
tions in April 2013 (paragraphs 29 to 31).
87 
The Commission carried out a com ‑
prehensive and timely assessment of 
the draft YGIPs submitted by Member 
States and successfully identified 
several shortcomings. However, the 
Commission did not thoroughly and 
consistently assess the following as ‑
pects: ICT/digital skills, mutual obliga ‑
tion and mutual learning. The Court 
also found that not all Member States 
submitted an updated YGIP following 
the Commission’s assessment (para ‑
graphs 32 to 39).Risks to an effective 
implementation of the Youth 
Guarantee schemes have been 
identified by the Court
88 
Based on the Court’s review of the 
Commission’s assessment of the Youth 
Guarantee implementation plans, 
a number of risks have been identified 
relating to the adequacy of the total 
funding and the nature of a ‘good 
quality offer’, as well as monitoring 
and reporting arrangements for the 
Youth Guarantee scheme.
Adequacy of total funding for 
the Youth Guarantee scheme
89 
The Court considers that, in the ab ‑
sence of an impact assessment by the 
Commission, there is insufficient infor ‑
mation on the potential cost of imple ‑
menting a Youth Guarantee scheme 
in the EU Member States. Moreover, 
at the time of the audit, the Commis ‑
sion did not have a detailed picture of 
the EU and national funding amounts 
allocated by the Member States to 
the different measures of the Youth 
Guarantee scheme, and in particular to 
measures related to structural reforms. 
The Court considers that due to the 
lack of such information there is a risk 
that total funding may not be ade ‑
quate to implement the Youth Guaran ‑
tee scheme (paragraphs 45 to 57).
35 Conclusions and recommendations
Recommendation 1
Member States should provide a clear 
and complete overview of the cost 
of all planned measures to combat 
youth unemployment under the Youth 
Guarantee Scheme in order that the 
Commission can assess the overall 
funding needs.
Nature of a ‘good quality offer’
90 
The ‘good quality’ nature of offers, 
a factor highlighted in the definition 
of what constitutes a Youth Guarantee, 
is crucial for providing young people 
with a genuine opportunity to increase 
their employability with a view to sus ‑
tainable and rewarding labour market 
integration, and consequently boost ‑
ing overall youth employment rates. 
The absence of a set of qualitative 
attributes for a job offer to be consid ‑
ered as being of ‘good quality’ entails 
the risk of inconsistent and ineffective 
implementation of Youth Guarantee 
schemes across (and even within) 
Member States (paragraphs 58 to 64).
Recommendation 2
The Commission should promote a set 
of qualitative attributes that should 
be fulfilled for jobs, traineeships and 
apprenticeships to be supported from 
the EU budget. This could be based 
on the elements which define a good 
quality offer in the Commission Guid ‑
ance for evaluation of the YEI.Monitoring of the Youth 
Guarantee schemes
91 
The Court found that a comprehen ‑
sive Youth Guarantee monitoring and 
reporting framework is still being 
developed. To have a clear picture of 
the implementation of the Youth Guar ‑
antee Scheme as a whole, all measures 
should be monitored to ensure that 
funds are invested wisely and measures 
are implemented in ways that will 
make a real difference for young peo ‑
ple. This should also make it possible 
to react proactively when it becomes 
clear that targets will not be met. This 
information should be reported in 
a way that allows the success (or oth ‑
erwise) of the Youth Guarantee to be 
demonstrated (paragraphs 65 to 84).
Recommendation 3
The Commission should put in place 
a comprehensive monitoring system 
for the Youth Guarantee Scheme, 
covering both structural reforms and 
measures targeting individuals. The 
results of this monitoring should be 
reported to the European Parliament 
and the Council.
36 Conclusions and recommendations
This report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mr Henri GRETHEN, Member 
of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 25 February 2015.
 For the Court of Auditors
 Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
 President

37
 Annexes Annex IYouth unemployment rate (June 2014)
Percentage of labour force
(EU average = 22 %)
< 10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
> 50
10.5
7.8
15.923.3
16.724.0
30.3
23.9
34.743.519.2 43.39.621.224.3
23.623.7
21.821.313.920.1
16.224.112.7
11.350.236.953.4
Source:  Eurostat.
38 Annexes
Countries eligible for YEI funding
Member StateRegion(s) eligible for funding under the 
Youth Employment InitiativeYouth Employment Initiative  
specific allocation  
(euro)
Belgium Yes 42 435  070
Bulgaria Yes 55 188 745
Czech Republic Yes 13 599 984
Denmark No -
Germany No -
Estonia No -
Ireland Yes 68 145 419
Greece Yes 171 517  029
Spain Yes 943 496  315
France Yes 310 161  402
Croatia Yes 66 177 144
Italy Yes 567 511 248
Cyprus Yes 11 572 101
Latvia Yes 29 010 639
Lithuania Yes 31 782 633
Luxembourg No -
Hungary Yes 49 765 356
Malta No -
Netherlands No -
Austria No -
Poland Yes 252 437 822
Portugal Yes 160 772  169
Romania Yes 105 994 315
Slovenia Yes 9 211 536
Slovakia Yes 72 175 259
Finland No -
Sweden Yes 44 163 096
United Kingdom Yes 206 098 124
TOTAL  3 211 215 406Annex II
39 Annexes
Commission assessment of YGIP and YEI ex ante  conditionalities
Member States Outcome of YGIP assessment Ex ante  conditionality
Bulgaria Very limited Fulfilled
Czech Republic Very limited Fulfilled
Greece Very limited Fulfilled
Italy Very limited Fulfilled
Lithuania Very limited Fulfilled
Poland Very limited Fulfilled
United Kingdom Very limited Fulfilled
Belgium Partial Fulfilled
Ireland Partial Fulfilled
Spain Partial Fulfilled
France Partial Fulfilled
Croatia Partial Fulfilled
Cyprus Partial Not fulfilled
Latvia Partial Fulfilled
Hungary Partial Fulfilled
Portugal Partial Fulfilled
Slovenia Partial Fulfilled
Slovakia Partial Fulfilled
Sweden Partial Fulfilled
Note:  The YEI ex ante  conditionalities for Romania were not assessed by the Commission at the time of the audit.Annex III
40
V Third bullet
The Commission accepts the recommendation and 
considers it as partially implemented through the 
indicators framework as endorsed by the EPSCO 
Council, through the relevant arrangements that 
are set out in Article 19 and Annex I and II of the ESF 
regulation and relevant CPR provisions related to 
monitoring and evaluation in the case of measures 
financed from the YEI and through its commitment 
to report on the implementation of the Youth Guar ‑
antee to the European Parliament and the Council 
in 2016.
Monitoring activities will feed into the Commis ‑
sion’s assessment of the Youth Guarantee imple ‑
mentation under future European Semesters. They 
will also inform the Commission’s 2016 report on 
the implementation of the Youth Guarantee, which 
will be formally submitted to the European Parlia ‑
ment and the Council through the appropriate 
channels.
Introduction
15
The Commission notes that a further 11 billion aim 
at measures such as modernisation of employment 
services and self ‑employment measures which will 
also indirectly support youth employment. 
Over 26 billion euros will be spent on educa ‑
tion measures including life ‑long learning where 
young people are likely to be among the main 
beneficiaries. 
Observations
37
The Commission would like to remind that it oper ‑
ates in a soft law environment, based on a Council 
recommendation and that while many sub ‑ele‑
ments of a Youth Guarantee are desirable where 
appropriate, not all of them need to be part of 
a particular national scheme. Executive summary
V First bullet
The Commission notes the recommendation 
addressed to Member States and would indeed 
welcome in some cases a better overview of the 
estimated cost of all planned measures to combat 
youth unemployment.
The template produced by the Commission 
requested Member States to provide information 
on EU, national, regional/local, employer and other 
funding sources thus encouraging the Member 
States to give the complete information on the 
overall costs and funding of a YG (including funding 
gaps).
19 out of 28 Member States have provided this 
information (with different degrees of detail).
V Second bullet
The Commission accepts the recommendation and 
considers it as partially implemented, in particular 
through the Council recommendation on a quality 
framework for traineeships, the European Alliance 
for Apprenticeships and the related Council declara ‑
tion and the monitoring of the quality of employ ‑
ment in the European Semester.
Regarding the promotion of qualitative attributes, 
the Commission will further stimulate the reflection 
around ‘good quality’ offers, taking into account 
the qualitative attributes mentioned in the Guid ‑
ance for evaluation of the YEI. The Commission will 
in particular: animate a debate on the concept of 
‘good quality’ offers in the next meeting of national 
YG coordinators, invite Member States to discuss 
the concept of ‘good quality’ offers in the context of 
the EMCO work, explore the possibility of address ‑
ing ‘good quality’ YG offers under the Mutual Learn ‑
ing Programme (MLP), and provide further guidance 
on ‘good quality’ in the YG FAQ document.
The Commission notes that ex post evaluations will 
provide evidence on the quality of job offers, as 
recommended in the guidance for the evaluation of 
YEI.Reply  of the  
Commission
Reply of the Commission 41
41
In the context of an adoption of an operational pro ‑
gramme containing YEI ‑related measures, ‘a strate ‑
gic policy framework for promoting youth employ ‑
ment’ must be in place before any disbursement 
of funds from the Commission. The Commission’s 
assessment of this pre ‑condition (so called YEI ex 
ante  conditionality) is based on the Member State’s 
self‑assessment and the information provided 
therein. Whenever the Member State has referred to 
additional national strategies on youth employment 
other than the YGIP , the Commission had to base its 
assessment regarding the YEI ex ante  conditionality 
fulfilment on all the strategic documents for youth 
employment referred to by the Member States. Nev ‑
ertheless, when assessing the YEI ex ante  condition ‑
ality, the Commission looks at the consistency with 
the YGIP so that the ESF investments will match the 
policy objectives of the Member State concerned.
42
The Commission notes that the assessment frame ‑
work for YGIP is not the same as for the YEI ex ante 
conditionality, as the two processes are driven by 
different objectives  — respectively policy objective 
(YG) and legal compliance (YEI).
The criteria for fulfilment of the ex ante  conditional ‑
ity do require ‘the existence of a strategic policy 
framework for promoting youth employment 
including through the implementation of the Youth 
Guarantee’. The sub ‑criteria against which this 
‘strategic policy framework’ should be assessed by 
the Commission services were also laid down in the 
regulation. The latter do not make any reference to 
the existence of a YGIP and a fortiori to its positive 
assessment by the Commission. 
Therefore, there is no automatic link between the 
assessment of the YGIP which is done from a policy 
perspective and against the Youth Guarantee 
recommendation and the assessment of the YEI ‑
related EAC which is done through a fixed set of 
criteria detailed in the CPR. Moreover, the evaluation of the submitted YGIP was 
just a first step in a process of continued monitor ‑
ing of the implementation of the Youth Guarantee 
in Member States. The Commission monitors the 
implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes within 
the European Semester. The European Semester 
process covers a broad spectrum of national poli ‑
cies which are linked to the delivery of a Youth 
Guarantee.
37 First indent
In the context of the European Semester, the need 
for enhancing ICT/digital skills is highlighted where 
appropriate.
37 Second indent
The Commission is of the opinion that failure to 
consider a link between the non ‑acceptance of 
a reasonable offer and unemployment or social 
assistance benefits does not necessarily limit the 
effectiveness of a Youth Guarantee scheme. 
The Commission’s staff working document sets 
out that principles of mutual obligation such as 
participation in active labour market policies could 
be considered when designing a Youth Guarantee 
scheme1. 
In the Council recommendation the princi ‑
ple of mutual obligation is called upon in the 
context of early intervention and activation 
(recommendation 10).
While ‘mutual obligation’ may carry important 
benefits, it does not figure in the assessment grid, 
as it would be too prescriptive to judge a scheme 
against its inclusion in case a Member State chooses 
to not base their scheme on it or in case their 
national provisions and practices do not allow it.
Priority was therefore given to assess the main 
building blocks of the Youth Guarantee and the 
intended existence and coverage of offers.
1 European Commission Staff Working Document, SWD(2012) 409 
final, p. 4.
Reply of the Commission 42
47
19 out of 28 Member States have provided informa ‑
tion on the envisaged sources of funding of their 
Youth Guarantee scheme (with different degrees of 
detail). In some cases, the Commission would how ‑
ever welcome a better overview of the estimated 
cost of all planned measures even if it is aware that 
any estimates of the costs of a Youth Guarantee are 
subject to caveats.
49
The Youth Guarantee recommendation does not 
prescribe any precise way in which the Member 
States will implement the Youth Guarantee since it 
will very much depend on the national situation (i.e. 
number of the NEETs they have and their specific 
characteristics). 
The impacts will therefore depend on the choice 
of Member States as regards the targeting and the 
design of the support.
As explained in the Explanatory Memorandum 
of the Commission’s proposal, it is accompanied 
by a staff working document (SWD), which goes 
into more details about what constitutes a Youth 
Guarantee, addresses questions about costs and 
benefits of such schemes, and describes one by 
one the ingredients necessary to make the Youth 
Guarantee a success. Furthermore, in an annex, the 
SWD presents policies supporting youth employ ‑
ment already in place in the 27 Member States and 
Croatia, reflecting the various starting points of 
these countries towards setting up fully ‑fledged 
Youth Guarantee schemes. 
The real cost of a Youth Guarantee will also depend 
on the national circumstances and the way in which 
it is set up and implemented in each Member State. 
As such, any estimates of the costs of a Youth Guar ‑
antee are subject to a number of caveats. 
In that respect, country examples of Austria, 
Finland, Sweden and the UK could be considered 
as an indication of potential costs for the Member 
States intentions about implementing the Youth 
Guarantee. The Commission notes that such a link which would 
have made the existence of a YGIP a legal require ‑
ment for fulfilling the YEI ex ante conditionality was 
proposed by the Commission but rejected by the 
Council during the legislative process. 
43
The Commission refers to its reply to paragraph 42. 
The sometimes nuanced or slightly different 
outcomes of the two processes are explained by 
their different although to some extent interlinked 
nature. 
The sub ‑criteria against which the ‘strategy policy 
framework for promoting youth employment’ 
should be assessed contain also qualitative ele ‑
ments such as the identification of key stakehold ‑
ers, including the public authorities involved and 
the coordinating arrangements with the partners, 
the set ‑up of early intervention and activation sys ‑
tems as well as the monitoring arrangements. The 
assessment of these qualitative elements is going 
beyond a pure formality check. 
Moreover, to the extent feasible, the context of 
the Commission’s assessment of the YEI ex ante 
conditionality fulfilment did serve as a channel for 
requesting certain modifications to the YGIP (for 
example in the case of France).
Common Commission reply to 
paragraphs 55 and 56
The Commission agrees and would like to point out 
that investing in a Youth Guarantee is crucial for the 
EU to preserve its future growth potential. Signifi ‑
cant EU financial support can help — most notably 
from the European Social Fund and in the context 
of the Youth Employment Initiative. But to make the 
Youth Guarantee a reality, Member States also need 
to prioritise youth employment measures in their 
national budgets.
Reply of the Commission 43
57
The Commission notes that regularity of YEI 
expenditure will be subject to verifications as part 
of the normal assurance ‑building process which 
duly takes specific risks into account.
Common Commission reply to 
paragraphs 61 and 62
The Commission agrees that ‘good quality’ is a cru ‑
cial element for implementing the Youth Guarantee. 
The Commission promotes a set of qualitative 
attributes for traineeships (through the Council Rec ‑
ommendation on a Quality Framework for Trainee ‑
ships) and for apprenticeships (through the Euro ‑
pean Alliance for Apprenticeships and the related 
Council Declaration). For jobs, the Commission 
monitors the quality of employment in the Euro ‑
pean Semester, with particular attention being paid 
to school ‑to‑work transitions and issues related to 
labour market segmentation. 
Regarding the quality of employment in the open 
market, the Commission is of the view that any qual ‑
ity assessment will be dependent on the situation of 
the relevant labour market, including aspects such 
as labour laws or the current economic climate.
The Commission will further stimulate the reflection 
around ‘good quality’ offers, taking into account the 
qualitative attributes mentioned in the Guidance 
for evaluation of the YEI. The Commission will in 
particular animate a debate on the concept of ‘good 
quality’ offers in the next meeting of national YG 
coordinators, invite Member States to discuss the 
concept of ‘good quality’ offer in the context of the 
EMCO work, explore the possibility of addressing 
‘good quality’ YG offers under the Mutual Learning 
Programme (MLP), and provide further guidance on 
‘good quality’ in the YG FAQ document.
63
The Commission refers to its common reply to para ‑
graphs 61 and 62.50
The Commission refers to its reply to paragraph 15.
53
The Commission refers to its reply to paragraph 47.
54
The Commission indeed informed France that the 
quantitative overall targets of the plan are not 
sufficiently clear and indicated that doubts remain 
on the qualitative aspects of the offers that Pôle 
Emploi will propose to the NEETs in order to comply 
with the YG. Further follow up is taking place in the 
context of the European Semester. 
In its YGIP , Ireland provided a table which sets out 
information on average participation, inflow of new 
participants, the expected inflow of young people 
and the indicative cost of youth provision. Irish 
authorities are reticent to project future participa ‑
tion numbers until national budget allocations are 
decided and therefore did not provide any figures 
beyond 2014. It was therefore not deemed neces ‑
sary or appropriate to request further information 
from the Irish authorities.
Common Commission reply to 
paragraphs 55 and 56
The Commission considered that it was primarily 
important to be able to see if (sufficient) national 
resources were allocated in addition to the EU 
funds. It therefore provided the Member States 
with a template where they were asked to pro ‑
vide information on the available funding sources, 
i.e. whether it would originate from EU, national, 
regional/local, employer and/or other funding 
sources.
The breakdown between the different EU funds was 
secondary at that stage, since the operational pro ‑
grammes were to follow shortly. The Commission 
considered that a detailed breakdown of EU funding 
sources by ESF/YEI funds would be provided within 
the relevant OPs, especially as the informal negotia ‑
tions on the OP financial plans were still ongoing 
between the Member States and the Commission. 
Reply of the Commission 44
The Commission has regular exchanges with the 
European Parliament on the European Semester 
developments.
Moreover, further to the 27–28 June 2013 European 
Council conclusions, the Commission will report to 
the European Parliament and the Council in 2016 on 
the implementation of the Youth Guarantee and on 
the operation of the YEI.
Common Commission reply to 
paragraphs 69 and 70 
The Commission notes that a second review of pro ‑
gress on the implementation of Youth Guarantee 
schemes in 21 Member States took place in EMCO 
on 3 December 2014 with conclusions for each 
reviewed Member State. These will be followed 
up in May 2015. All December 2014 EMCO reviews 
focused extensively on the Youth Guarantee 
schemes in a consistent manner, according to Work ‑
ing Methods applied to all Member States. Both the 
May and December 2014 reviews were echoed in 
the following EPSCO meetings on Youth unemploy ‑
ment and the Youth Guarantee.
71
The Indicator Framework for Monitoring the Youth 
Guarantee was endorsed by EMCO on 22 Septem ‑
ber 2014. The EPSCO Council endorsed in Decem ‑
ber 2014 the EMCO Key messages on the Indicator 
Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee 
which ask for a strong political commitment to 
overcome the existing obstacles in data collection 
and ensure a sound monitoring system of the Youth 
Guarantee at EU and Member State level, based on 
the proposed framework.
See also Commission reply to paragraph 65.In addition, the Commission considers that a con ‑
sistent implementation of the YG and a ‘one ‑size ‑
fits‑all’ approach is neither possible nor in line with 
the Council recommendation, which clearly indi ‑
cates that YG schemes should be in accordance with 
local, regional and national circumstances. 
However, the Commission agrees that an effective 
implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes is 
crucial. The outcome ‑based approach followed by 
the Commission has precisely many advantages in 
assessing the effectiveness of the measures within 
the YG schemes, as it takes into account the diverse 
labour market situations and the suitability of an 
offer to the individual.
In this regard, the Commission is of the view that, 
in general, an offer is of good quality if the person 
who benefits from it achieves sustainable labour 
market attachment. That is to say, does not return 
to unemployment or inactivity thereafter; a ‘good  
quality’ offer can thus be measured by its outcome. 
As said (cf. common reply to paragraphs 61 and 62) 
the Commission will further stimulate the reflection 
around ‘good quality’ offers.
The Commission notes that offers of apprentice ‑
ships, traineeships and continued education, be 
they subsidised offers — such as those financed 
under YEI/ESF programmes or under national pro ‑
grammes — or not, are already covered by quality 
standards.
65
The Commission would like to point out that 
a lengthy consensus ‑building exercise was neces ‑
sary to define a common monitoring framework. 
This might have delayed the adoption of the Youth 
Guarantee Council recommendation at a critical 
moment and thus hindered swift delivery.
68
The Commission would like to point out that the 
results from the monitoring feed into the key docu ‑
ments adopted by the European Commission in 
the context of the European Semester (Commission 
staff working documents, in ‑depth reviews, propos ‑
als for country ‑specific recommendations). 
Reply of the Commission 45
80
The Commission considers that the YGIP submitted 
by Member States provide already in most cases 
a useful general overview of all Youth Guarantee 
measures. 
Moreover, the Commission has set up a monitoring 
system for the Youth Guarantee. Structural reforms 
are monitored through the European Semester, 
including EMCO. Measures targeting individu ‑
als will be monitored both through the Indicator 
Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee, 
and in the case of measures financed from the YEI, 
through the relevant arrangements that are set out 
in Article 19 and Annex I and II of the ESF regulation 
and relevant CPR provisions related to monitoring 
and evaluation.
84
The Annex II ESF indicators for YEI have been 
designed to follow as closely as possible the ESF 
Annex I common indicators. At the same time, they 
reflect the specific nature of YEI.
84 First indent
For the purpose of ensuring the quality result in 
relation to the (YEI) funding provided, the Commis ‑
sion is interested in measuring the overall outcomes 
in relation to the change in the person’s status — 
namely that from being a NEET at the stage of 
entering the operation to a potential change after 
the YEI support.
The Youth Guarantee has its own monitoring 
requirements which will allow tracking the type of 
offers provided under the Youth Guarantee from 
2016 onwards. 
84 Second indent
The YEI indicators follow the logic and pattern of 
the ESF common indicators.72
The Commission agrees that the continued com ‑
mitment of Member States is needed. The YG 
pilot data collection was launched by the EMCO 
indicators’ group in October 2014. The aim was to 
test the methodology proposed for the regular 
administrative data collection for monitoring the 
implementation of the Youth Guarantee and assess 
the obstacles faced by Member States and how they 
can be overcome in view of launching regular data 
collection in June 2015. By 18 February all Member 
States but three have sent their contributions. The 
remaining contributions are expected soon.
73
The reading of the scoreboard of key employment 
and social indicators is supplemented by the addi ‑
tional information derived from  — inter alia — the 
Employment Performance Monitor (EPM), and the 
assessment of policy measures undertaken by the 
Member States.
Common Commission reply to 
paragraphs 74 to 76 
The Commission emphasises that the formulation 
and adoption of CSR is foremost a political process, 
where on the basis of country ‑specific analysis 
in the staff working documents, the Commission 
makes a proposal which is then reviewed through 
a multilateral surveillance process in Committees, 
Council Groups and subsequently endorsed by the 
European Council. 
The Commission’s proposals for country ‑specific 
recommendations take into account the specifici ‑
ties of each country’s situation.
Box 7
The Commission considers that recommendations 
for both Lithuania and Italy took duly into account 
the specificities of each country’s situation. 
77
The Commission notes that on a whole, the Semes ‑
ter process is leading, over a medium ‑term per ‑
spective, to considerable reform efforts in Member 
States. 
Reply of the Commission 46
The Commission notes that the Council recom ‑
mendation does not prescribe any precise way in 
which the Member States will implement the YG (i.e. 
employment, continued education, apprenticeship 
or a traineeship) since it will depend on the national 
situation (i.e. how many NEETs they have, the struc ‑
ture of NEETs). The targeting and the design of the 
precise support influences the costs and benefits 
and makes it difficult to estimate in advance the 
costs and benefits of all potential options. 
The Commission however agrees that there might 
be a risk that total funding may not be adequate 
to implement the Youth Guarantee schemes and 
has encouraged Member States to prioritise youth 
employment measures in their national budgets.
It should also be recalled that EU funds support to 
the YG goes beyond direct YEI and ESF measures for 
young persons’ training and employment measures. 
The ESF also supports labour market services mod ‑
ernisation, self ‑employment, education and social 
inclusion measures — which partly also support 
youth employment from a structural reform point 
of view.
Recommendation 1
The Commission notes the recommendation 
addressed to Member States and would indeed 
welcome in some cases a better overview of the 
estimated cost of all planned measures to combat 
youth unemployment.
The template produced by the Commission 
requested Member States to provide information 
on EU, national, regional/local, employer and other 
funding sources thus encouraging the Member 
States to give the complete information on the 
overall costs and funding of a YG (including funding 
gaps).
19 out of 28 Member States have provided this 
information (with different degrees of detail).Subsequent monitoring for former participants 
in YEI measures places additional burden on the 
participants and administrative resources. For 
some of the measures such extensive obligatory 
monitoring might be seen as costly and excessive. 
Effects observed after prolonged time also decrease 
causality linking observations to the interventions, 
decreasing the value ‑added of these observations.
However, Member States can in addition to compul ‑
sory monitoring decide to have additional longer 
term indicators, for example to repeat a survey after 
6 months. Also, Member States have an obligation 
to carry out impact evaluations, which will provide 
insights on long ‑term effects of interventions such 
as income differentials for subsequent year and 
similar indicators in addition to the indicators pre ‑
sented in Annex II.
84 Third indent
Whenever a Member State has stated in its OP 
that it plans to extend the target group to below 
30 years, the Commission has requested that the 
Member State includes additional programme ‑spe ‑
cific indicators to cover the 25–29 group.
Result indicators are not age specific as such and do 
not cover any age group such as 15–18, etc. How ‑
ever, Member States are asked by the Commission 
to include programme ‑specific output indicators for 
YEI age group 25–29, if they decide to target them. 
Such indicators will allow assessing effectiveness of 
interventions when crossed with YEI Annex II Result 
indicators.
Conclusions and recommendations
87
See Commission reply to paragraph 37.
89
The Commission refers to its reply to paragraph 47.
Reply of the Commission 47
Recommendation 2
The Commission accepts the recommendation and 
considers it as partially implemented, in particular 
through the Council Recommendation on a Quality 
Framework for Traineeships, the European Alliance 
for Apprenticeships and the related Council Decla ‑
ration and the monitoring of the quality of employ ‑
ment in the European Semester.
Regarding the promotion of qualitative attributes, 
the Commission will further stimulate the reflection 
around ‘good quality’ offers, taking into account 
the qualitative attributes mentioned in the Guid ‑
ance for evaluation of the YEI. The Commission will 
in particular: animate a debate on the concept of 
‘good quality’ offers in the next meeting of national 
YG coordinators, invite Member States to discuss 
the concept of ‘good quality’ offer in the context of 
the EMCO work, explore the possibility of address ‑
ing ‘good quality’ YG offers under the Mutual Learn ‑
ing Programme (MLP), and provide further guidance 
on ‘good quality’ in the YG FAQ document.
The Commission notes that ex post  evaluations will 
provide evidence on the quality of job offers, as 
recommended in the guidance for the evaluation of 
YEI.
91
The Commission monitors the implementation of 
the Youth Guarantee within the European Semester, 
including through bilateral meetings with Member 
States, and through fact ‑finding missions. 
Through its membership in the Employment Com ‑
mittee (EMCO) — in its preparation of Council 
deliberations  — the Commission also contributes 
to the multilateral surveillance on Youth Guarantee 
implementation. Dedicated multilateral surveillance 
reviews were held by EMCO in this regard once in 
2013 and twice in 2014. Both the May and December 
2014 reviews were echoed in the following EPSCO 
meetings on Youth unemployment and the Youth 
Guarantee.90
The Commission considers that a consistent imple ‑
mentation of the Youth Guarantee and a ‘one ‑size ‑ 
fits‑all’ approach is neither possible nor in line with 
the Council recommendation, which clearly indi ‑
cates that YG schemes should be in accordance with 
local, regional and national circumstances. 
The Commission agrees that an effective implemen ‑
tation of Youth Guarantee schemes is crucial. The 
outcome based approach followed by the Commis ‑
sion has precisely many advantages in assessing 
the effectiveness of the measures within the YG 
schemes, as it takes into account the diverse labour 
market situations and the suitability of an offer to 
the individual.
In this regard, the Commission is of the view that, 
in general, an offer is of good quality if the person 
who benefits from it achieves sustainable labour 
market attachment. That is to say, does not return 
to unemployment or inactivity thereafter; a ‘good  
quality’ offer can thus be measured by its outcome.
The Commission notes that offers of apprentice ‑
ships, traineeships and continued education, be 
they subsidised offers — such as those financed 
under YEI/ESF programmes or under national pro ‑
grammes — or not, are already covered by quality 
standards.
In this regard, the Commission promotes a set of 
qualitative attributes for traineeships (through the 
Council Recommendation on a Quality Framework 
for Traineeships) and for apprenticeships (through 
the European Alliance for Apprenticeships and the 
related Council Declaration). For jobs, the Com ‑
mission monitors the quality of employment in 
the European Semester, with particular attention 
being paid to school ‑to‑work transitions and issues 
related to labour market segmentation. 
Regarding the quality of employment in the open 
market, the Commission notes that any quality 
assessment will be dependent on the situation of 
the relevant labour market, including aspects such 
as labour laws or the current economic climate.
Reply of the Commission 48
Monitoring activities will feed into the Commis ‑
sion’s assessment of the Youth Guarantee imple ‑
mentation under future European Semesters. They 
will also inform the Commission’s 2016 report on 
the implementation of the Youth Guarantee, which 
will be formally submitted to the European Parlia ‑
ment and the Council through the appropriate 
channels.The Commission, where appropriate, proposes 
country ‑specific recommendations to Member 
States. The conclusions of the EMCO multilateral 
reviews feed into the final CSR negotiations.
EMCO endorsed an Indicator Framework for Moni ‑
toring the Youth Guarantee on 22 September 2014, 
based on macroeconomic, implementation and 
follow ‑up levels indicators which, taken together, 
will aim to provide a holistic view of Youth Guaran ‑
tee schemes’ impact on the labour market situation 
of young people across Europe. The administra ‑
tive data necessary for the ‘implementation level’ 
is currently tested through a pilot data collection 
exercise in all 28 Member States, with regular data 
collection due to start in 2015. Key messages on the 
Indicator Framework were endorsed by the EPSCO 
Council on 11 December 2014, highlighting Mem ‑
ber States’ political commitment to providing the 
necessary data.
Measures targeting individuals will be monitored 
both through the Indicator Framework for Monitor ‑
ing the Youth Guarantee, and in the case of meas ‑
ures financed from the YEI, through the relevant 
arrangements that are set out in Article 19 and 
Annex I and II of the ESF regulation and relevant 
CPR provisions related to monitoring and evalua ‑
tion. Regarding specifically the YEI, the Commis ‑
sion has set up a framework for monitoring the 
YEI actions implemented within YG framework, by 
setting common indicators in its ESF regulation. 
Recommendation 3
The Commission accepts the recommendation and 
considers it as partially implemented. through the 
indicators framework as endorsed by the EPSCO 
Council, through the relevant arrangements that 
are set out in Article 19 and Annex I and II of the ESF 
regulation and relevant CPR provisions related to 
monitoring and evaluation in the case of measures 
financed from the YEI and through its commitment 
to report on the implementation of the Youth Guar ‑
antee to the European Parliament and the Council 
in 2016.
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• one copy: 
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
•  more than one copy or posters/maps:  
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or  
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Youth unemployment is a huge challenge facing Member 
States across the EU. In this regard an initiative, the Youth 
Guarantee, was launched by the European Council in 2013. 
Under this scheme, all young people under 25 should 
receive a ‘good quality’ offer of employment, continued 
education, apprenticeship or traineeship within 4 months of 
becoming unemployed or leaving formal education. It will 
be financed partly from the EU budget and complementary 
national funding will be required.
With this report, the Court assessed whether the 
Commission has provided timely and appropriate support to 
the Member States in developing their Youth Guarantee 
Implementation Plans. In addition, the Court examined 
whether potential risks to the effective implementation of 
the scheme could be identified.
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS