EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 10.6.2009 
SEC(2009) 766 final 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSI ON TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EU ROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
JUSTICE, FREEDOM AND SECURITY  IN EUROPE SINCE 2005:  
 
AN EVALUATION OF THE HAGUE PROGRAMME AND ACTION PLAN 
An extended report on the evaluation of the Hague Programme  
 
{COM(2009) 263 final} 
{SEC(2009) 765 final} {SEC(2009) 767 final} 
 
EN 2   EN 1. ABOUT  THIS  DOCUMENT 
1.1. Purpose 
This document evaluates in detail the exte nt to which implementation of the Hague 
Programme1 and the related Action Plan2 has helped strengthen freedom, security and justice 
in the European Union. It forms part of  the Commission communication, 'Justice, Freedom 
and Security since 2005: An evaluation of the Hague Programme and Action Plan', which is 
published together with the Communication on th e future priorities for the next multi annual 
programme ("Stockholm Programme").  
1.2. Background and scope  
The multi-annual programme to strengthen the ar ea of freedom, security and justice – the 
Hague Programme – was endorsed by the Europ ean Council of 4-5 November 2004. It was 
followed by the Action Plan, pr esented by the Commission a nd endorsed by the Council, for 
translating the priorities set out in the programme into concrete actions with a specific timetable for implementation. In presenting this  Action Plan, the Comm ission indentified ten 
main and equally-important priorities on which efforts should be concentrated
3.  
Other plans and strategic papers in specific po licy areas are also covered by this document. 
These include: 
• the EU Action Plans on Drugs of 20054 and 20085, following the European Strategy on 
Drugs 2005-20126;  
• the Communication on perspectives for the development of mutual recognition of 
decisions in criminal matte rs and of mutual trust7; 
                                                 
1 European Council Presidency conclusions 14292/1/04 rev 1, Annex 1 to the Presidency Conclusions of 
the 4-5 November Brussels Eu ropean Council, December 2004. 
2 Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, 
security and justice in the European Union, 2005/C 198/01, OJ C 198, 12.8.2005, p. 1. 
3 COM(2005) 184 final, "The Hague Programme: ten pr iorities for the next five years". The priorities 
identified are: 1) fundamental rights and citizenship: creating fully fledged policies; 2) the fight against 
terrorism: working toward a global response; 3) a common asylum area: establishing an effective 
harmonized procedure in accordance with the European Union's values and humanitarian tradition; 4) 
migration management: defining a balanced approach; 5) integration: maximising the positive impact of migration on our society and economy; 6) internal borders, external borders and visas: developing 
integrated management of external borders for a safer Europe; 7) privacy and security in sharing 
information: striking the right balance; 8) organised crime: developing a strategic concept; 9)civil and criminal justice: guaranteeing an effective European  area of justice for all; 10) freedom, security and 
justice: sharing responsibility and solidarity. Specific emphasis was placed on implementation and 
evaluation. 
4 COM(2005) 45 final, Communication on a EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008); EU drugs action plan 
(2005-2008) endorsed by the Council in 2005, 2005/C 168/01, OJ C 168, 8.7.2005, p. 1. 
5 COM(2008) 567 final, Communication on a EU Drugs Action Plan for 2009-2012; EU Drugs Action 
Plan for 2009-2012 endorsed by the Council in 2008, 2008/C 326/09, OJ C 326, 20.12.2008, p. 7. 
6 EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) endorsed by the Council in 2004, Council Document 15074/04. 
 
EN 3   EN • the Communication “developing a strategi c concept on tackling organised crime”8,  
• the Communication on the common immigration policy9; and  
• the policy plan on asylum10.  
This report also takes account  of the contributions made by the recently created general 
financial programmes on "fundamental rights a nd justice", "solidarity and management of 
migration flows" and "securi ty and safeguarding liberties"11 to help achieve the multi-annual 
policy objectives. 
In 2006, the Commission presented a first interm ediate political assessment of the Hague 
Programme12, which gave fresh impetus to implementation of the programme, proposing 
adjustments on specific issues and highlighting th e principal shortcomings that needed to be 
overcome13.  
Evaluations and implementation reports of specific and indivi dual instruments, scoreboards 
published annually by the Commission since 200614, impact assessments published by the 
Commission for each major initiative, and outcome s of consultations with stakeholders are 
also sources of information for this document.  
1.3. Structure  
This document deals with each of the policy areas  in the order, by and large, in which they 
appear in the Hague Programme.  To aid cross-refere ncing, the corresponding sections of the 
Hague Programme and the Communicat ion are indicated in contents  pages at the end of this 
report. The Communication seeks to  draw out the principal themes from the lessons learned, 
and therefore there is not always a strict correspondence between the structure of this 
document and the communication. 
Each policy area is evaluated in three sections. I. Objectives  set out in the Hague Programme and, where applicable in other relevant 
strategies.  
                                                                                                                                                        
 
7 COM(2005) 195 final, Communication on the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal 
matters and the strengthening of mutual trust between Member States. 
8 COM(2005) 232 final. 
9 COM(2008) 359 final.  
10 COM(2008) 360 final.. 
11 COM(2005) 122 final, 123 final and 124 final respectively. 
12 COM(2006) 331 final. 
13 The sectors concerned were: (1) fundamental rights and citizenship, (2) development of the second 
phase of asylum, (3) migration management, (4) integrated management of external frontiers and 
interoperability of information systems, (5) follow- up of mutual recognition programmes (in civil and 
criminal justice), (6) access to information needed to combat terr orism and organised crime, (7) fight 
against terrorism and organised crime, including the fu ture of Europol, (8) financial perspectives in the 
area of FSJ, (9) external dimension of FSJ, (10) implementation and evaluation of FSJ. In addition, the Commission proposed a "bridging clause" to overcome a number of recurrent problems in the decision-
making process, particularly  concerning Title VI EU. 
14 COM(2006) 333 final, COM(2007) 373 final and COM(2008) 373 final. 
 
EN 4   EN II. Main developments  in terms of implementation at EU or Member State level with 
regard to the objectives, including achieve ments, progress and lessons learnt.  
III. Future challenges which, on the basis of the main developments and future 
projections, are expected to require EU action in the area in the next multi annual programme.  
A final chapter identifies common trends  that should guide future work in all JLS policy 
areas. 
 
 
EN 5   EN 2. GENERAL  ORIENTATION 
2.1. Protection of fundamental rights  
I. Objectives One of the underlying objectives of the Ha gue Programme was to improve the common 
capability of the Union and its Member States  to guarantee fundamental rights. The Hague 
Programme and the Action Plan called not only fo r the full respect of fundamental rights, but 
also for active promotion of those rights. The Programme referred to the incorporation of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitutional Treaty and to the accession to the European Convention for the protection of human  rights and fundamental  freedoms. It also 
recalled the Union's firm commitment to oppo sing any form of racism, anti-Semitism and 
xenophobia and welcomed the Commission's Comm unication on the extension of the mandate 
of the European Monitoring Centre on R acism and Xenophobia towards a Fundamental 
Rights Agency
15. Finally, it referred to the mainstream ing of fundamental rights in certain 
specific JLS areas, such as in the integration of third-country nationals policy, the return and 
re-admission policy, biometrics and informati on systems, exchange of information, fight 
against terrorism and judicial  cooperation in civil matters. 
II. Main developments  
The new EU Fundamental Rights Agency  (FRA) opened its doors in early 2007. It built on 
the existing European Monitoring Centre  on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), whiose 
mandate was broadened to become the FRA. To make the Agency fully operational, a number of measures had to be adopted, in particular  a multi-annual framework that determines the 
thematic areas of its activities
16 and an agreement between the Community and the Council of 
Europe17. 
The same year, in the absence of a multi-annual  framework, the FRA carried out its tasks on 
the same thematic areas as the EUMC, i.e.  fight against racism , xenophobia and related 
intolerance, homophobia and children's rights, fo llowing specific requests from the European 
Parliament and the Commission. The Agency ad opted its first work programme under the new 
FRA multi-annual framework in 200818.  
Since it was only created recently, it is too ear ly to evaluate the work of the Agency. 
However, since its creation, the FRA has al ready provided input on racism, xenophobia and 
homophobia.  
                                                 
15 COM(2005) 280 final. 
16 Council Decision 2008/203/EC of 28 February 2008 implementing Regulation (EC) No 168/2007 as 
regards the adoption of a Multi-annual Framework for the European Union Agency for Fundamental 
Rights for 2007-2012, OJ L 63, 7.3.2008, p. 14. 
17 Agreement between the European Community and the Council of Europe on cooperation between the 
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe, OJ L 186, 15.7.2008, p.7. 
18 FRA Annual Work Programme 2009, available at:  
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/wp09_en.pdf. 
 
EN 6   EN Important work was carried out in the area of data protection19. The first Commission report 
on the implementation of the 1995 data protection directive20 concluded that there was 
considerable scope for improving its implemen tation and included a specific work programme 
for that purpose. An assessment of the work conducted under this programme21 suggests that 
the directive lays down a general legal framew ork which is substan tially appropriate and 
technologically neutral, and outli nes the prospects for the future as a condition fo r success in a 
number of policy areas in the light of Article 8 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which recognise the protection of personal data as a fundamental right.  
The Commission announced that it will continue  to monitor implementation of the data 
protection directive, to work with all stakehol ders to further reduce national divergences, and 
to study the need for sector-specific legislatio n to apply data protection principles to new 
technologies in order to satisfy public security needs.  
The Commission is encouraging the use of  privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs)
22, which 
can help to design information and communica tion systems and services in a way that 
minimises the collection and use of personal data and facilitates compliance with data 
protection rules. The use of PETs should make breaches of certain data protection rules more 
difficult and/or help to detect them. The Comm unication on PETs expres ses the intention to 
continue to promote these tec hnologies and support their devel opment, and to encourage data 
controllers and consumers to use them.  
When adopting the Communication " Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of the 
Child "23, the Commission proposed to es tablish a cross-cutting appr oach to both the internal 
and the external dimension of a wide range of EU  policies (such as civil and criminal justice, 
social protection, development cooperation, tr ade negotiation, education and health). The 
document included specific short-term measur es, such as a single telephone number for 
missing and exploited children and also an anal ysis of possible public-private partnerships 
with the banking and credit card sectors to curb the purchase of im ages on the internet 
depicting sexual abuse of ch ildren. The Communication also  anticipated the need to identify 
priorities for future EU action, to improve the e ffectiveness of EU policie s vis-à-vis the rights 
of the child, to increase co-operation with stakeh olders and to help children to enforce their 
rights. 
Within this Strategy, the European Forum for the rights of the child wa s created with the aim 
of increasing the mainstreaming of childre n's rights in EU legislation, policies and 
programmes. Several meetings took place to discuss possible mechanisms for the future participation of children in the Forum, how to protect children against sexual exploitation, 
child poverty (with special attention on the si tuation of Roma children) and the possible 
introduction of "Child Alert" mechanisms in all Member States. The Forum brings together the Members States, the European Instituti ons, the Council of Europe, UNICEF, the 
Ombudsman and NGOs and is chaired by the Commission.  
                                                
 
19 For personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-opera tion in criminal matters, 
see section 3.1 "Improving th e exchange of information". 
20 COM(2003) 265 final. 
21 COM(2007) 87 final. 
22 COM(2007) 228 final. 
23 COM(2006) 367 final.  
 
EN 7   EN Work has been launched to promote "Child Al ert" systems in the Member States, the aim 
being to involve the pub lic in the search for information about an abducted child. Effective 
trans-border cooperation is possible if national systems are in place, with clear contact points 
and readily transmissible data when trans-bor der cases occur. The Commission presented a 
staff working paper on best prac tices for launching cross-border child abduction alerts to the 
authorities of the Member States24, describing possible ways of cooperation among Member 
States when such situations  occur. The Council's conclusi ons of 28 November 2008 supported 
this initiative25. 
Other measures, such as the hotline for repor ting missing children, were not followed up by 
Member States26.  
The objective of the 2005 Co mmunication on a methodology for systematic and rigorous 
monitoring of compliance with th e Charter of Fundamental Rights27 was to ensure that all 
draft proposals were checked systematically a nd thoroughly for their respect of fundamental 
rights. To achieve this objectiv e, there is systematic monitori ng of the respect of fundamental 
rights during the drafting of le gislative proposals before they  are adoption by the Commission 
(including in the impact assessment, when a ppropriate). Moreover, for the most relevant 
cases, follow-up is provided by the Group of Commissioner on  Fundamental Rights, Anti-
discrimination and Equal Opportunities,  as well as throughout the legislative procedure. 
On 12 December 2007, the Presidents of the Commission, the European Parliament and the 
Council signed and solemnly proclaimed the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the EU in 
Strasbourg. This second proclamation was cons idered necessary since the Lisbon Treaty 
provides for the Charter to have the same legal value as the Treaties and the Charter proclaimed in 2000 required some adaptation for it to have such legally binding effects.  
European funding  was provided to support the EU's and Member States' actions in the area 
of fundamental rights through the specifi c programme on "fundamental rights and 
citizenship"
28, a specific programme within the gene ral programme "Fundamental Rights and 
Justice", which will continue to provide funding for the period 2007-2013. It is premature to 
assess its real impact, as the first set of  projects financed is still ongoing. A mid-term 
evaluation of the programme w ill take place in 2011 to assess asses how well is this 
programme contributed to the achievement of  the overall policy on fundamental rights. 
The Daphne III programme, a specific financial programme on the fight against violence 
against children, young people and women  and to protect victims and groups at risk , 
                                                 
24 SEC(2008) 2912 final. 
25 Council document 16325/1/08 rev 1, p. 34, adopting Council document 14612/2/08. 
26 On 15 February 2007, the Commission adopted the Decision 2007/116/EC on reserving the national 
numbering range beginning with 116 for harmonised num bers for harmonised services of social value, 
to establish a hotline for reporting missing children: 116 000. At today, the numbers is operational in  
10 Member States: Belgium, France , Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, 
Romania and Slovakia. 
27 COM(2005) 172 final. 
28 Council Decision No 2007/252/JHA of 19 April 2007 establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific 
programme Fundamental rights and citizenship as part of the Gene ral programme Fundamental Rights 
and Justice, OJ L 110, 27.4.2007, p. 33. 
 
EN 8   EN was adopted in 200729. This programme follows on from  the Daphne I and II programmes, 
which were also designed to prevent and co mbat violence. Daphne provides for funding on 
the exchange of best practices, protection of victims and data collection. The programme was 
much appreciated by its beneficiaries and other stakeholders since it clearly responded to a 
need and did not duplicate other national, regional or interna tional initiatives . The evaluation 
positively assessed the management of the progra mme and its well established procedures and 
support mechanisms. A mid-term evaluation of  the Daphne III programme will take place in 
2011. 
III. Future challenges 
There is a need to address the increased demand for Commission's action on fundamental 
rights issues within the EU. Since 2005, a number of requests for EU action have been 
addressed to the Commission by the European Parliament30, the Council and civil society.  
Fundamental rights issues are being raised mo re and more by the Court of Justice, in 
particular on issues i nvolving JLS legislation: 
Period ECJ decisions 
referring to Fundamental Rights 
in their reasoning ECJ decisions 
referring to Fundamental rights 
and relating to the 
JLS areas ECJ decisions 
referring to Fundamental rights 
by the Grand 
Chamber 
2000-2005 (i.e. 5 years) +
 36 +  7 +  19 
2005-now (i.e. 4 
years) + 50 +  19 +  23 
In 2006, the European Court of Jus tice referred explicit ly for the first time to the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights in its reasoning concerning th e action for annulment of certain provisions 
of the directive on the right  to family reunification31. Since this ruling, the Court has referred 
to the Charter in its reasoning in more than 10 cases, the majority of which by the Grand 
Chamber.  
The number of citizen's letters complaining ab out alleged breaches of fundamental rights is 
very high. Most of them raises questions of respect for fundamental rights in the Member 
States in areas that do not relate to Community  legislation. According to Eurobarometer, 72% 
                                                 
29 Decision No 779/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 establishing 
for the period 2007-2013 a specific programme to prevent and combat violence against children, young 
people and women and to protect victims and groups at risk (Daphne III programme) as part of the 
General Programme Fundamental Rights and Justice, OJ L 173, 3.7.2007, p. 19. 
30 The number of parliamentary questions whose title refers to "fundamental rights" quadrupled between 
2002 and 2007. 
31 Case C-540/03, European Parliament v. Council of the European Union . 
 
EN 9   EN of EU nationals would favour greater European  influence in the protection of fundamental 
rights, including children's rights, while 18% expressed the opposite opinion32. 
The Commission can only intervene as guardian of  the Treaties if the situation relates to the 
implementation of the EU law. This role w ill become much more important given the 
increasing amount of legislatio n in the JLS domain which has to be implemented by Member 
States. The challenge for the future will be to  address the increasing demand for action in the 
area of fundamental rights. Th ere will be a need to focus fundamental rights policy on 
strategic objectives that can be  achieved within the remit of EU powers. The intervention by 
the Commission is also required in domains out side its competence or following complaints 
based on article 7 of the Treaty on the Eu ropean Union (TEU), which establishes a 
mechanism of last resort that has never b een used by the Commi ssion and the European 
Parliament.  
This high level of expectations re veals that there is a clear need for more explanations of what 
the Commission can do in this ar ea and on the Charter of Fundame ntal Rights. This is shown 
and confirmed by the above-mentioned Eurobarometer survey, according to which, on average, one EU citizen in three would like to  be better informed about the promotion and 
protection of fundamental righ ts, including children's rights (33%). A deeper analysis 
revealed that in 18 of the 27 Member States  the promotion and protection of fundamental 
rights is the aspect on which the largest num ber of European citizens would like greater 
information. Interest in this regard across a ll EU countries varies from 25% in Spain and 
Poland to 55% in Cyprus. Moreover, anothe r survey on citizensh ip concluded that 
“respondents’ awareness of the 'C harter of Fundamental Rights of  the European Union' is far 
from widespread – half of those interviewed have never heard of it”
33. 
No stabilisation of the legislative activity in  the JLS domain was recorded during the Hague 
Programme. In relation to th e 2000-2004 period, the number of adopted instruments in the 
JLS area since 2005 has constan tly increased (since 2005: +  218; between 2000-2004: +  208). 
This trend is expected to  continue the development and implementation of this acquis  will 
require particular atte ntion as regards fundamental rights aspects.. 
As stated earlier, the Co mmission has already adopted  a specific methodology for a 
systematic and rigorous check of legal initiativ es against the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
The practical enforcement of which will need to be strengthened. In particular, it is important 
to ensure that the proposals of the Commission remain comp liant with fundamental rights 
throughout the negotiations in Parliament and Council.  
The Treaty of Lisbon provides the legal basis for accession of the European Union to the 
European Convention of Human Rights. The acce ssion, which will complete the system of 
protection of fundamental rights in the EU, will be an important goal in the years to come. 
The Union's action against racism and xenophobia  should be intensified, in particular in the 
light of the economic crises, whic h spark off bouts of xenophobia.  
                                                 
32 Special Eurobarometer 290, "The role of the Euro pean Union in Justice, Freedom and Security policy 
areas". 
33 Flash Eurobarometer 213, "European Union Citizenship". 
 
EN 10   EN Since 2005, trends reveal that these phenomena ar e still all too present in the EU. According 
to the FRA Agency's 2008 Annual Report34, even if it is difficult to make generalisations 
because of the weaknesses in st atistics, it has to be noted that the majority of the eleven 
Member States collecting data on racist crime experienced a general upward trend in recorded 
crime in the period 2000-2006. Thr ee out of the four Member St ates collecting data on anti-
Semitic crime experienced a general upward tr end between 2001 and 2006;  and two out of the 
four Member States collecting data on crime w ith an extremist right-wing motive experienced 
a general upward trend between 2000 and 2006. 
In addition to this, the 2008 Eurobarometer survey on discrimination in the EU35 shows that 
62% of Europeans think that discrimination due to ethnic origin is widespread in their 
country; 51% due to sexual orientation, 45% due to  disability, 42% due to religion/belief or 
age and 36% due to gender.  
The implementation of the Framework Decision on racism and xenophobia36 will add to the 
existing EU legal framework and offers a new tool for fighting racism and xenophobia. 
Eurobarometer surveys and several studies and discussions at EU level have demonstrated 
that the awareness of data protection  issues and rules need to be enhanced, particularly – but 
not only – in the light of new technol ogies. According to a 2008 Eurobarometer37, a majority 
of EU citizens showed concern about data protection issues: 64% of survey participants said 
they were concerned as to whether organisations  that held their personal data handled this 
data appropriately and not even  half of respondents (48%) thought that thei r data were 
properly protected in their own countries. A majo rity even feared that national legislation 
could not cope with the growing number of people leaving personal data on the internet 
(54%). A vast majority also felt that their fellow citizens had low leve ls of awareness about 
data protection (77%). Most European internet users feel uneasy when transmitting their personal data over the internet: 82% of internet users reasoned that data transmission over the 
web was not sufficiently secure. 
The current legal framework on data protection  is divided among several legal bases, which 
can undermine its effectiveness. How existing secondary law (especially of the data protection directive) operates needs to be examined to improve implementation, interpretative guidelines 
and/or possible amendments to the current framework.  
Against this background, there should perhaps be an open reflection on the data protection 
legal framework in the light of possible developments towards a single regime. The 
Commission has already set up a gr oup of experts (GEX-PD) to help it identify the challenges 
involved in protecting personal data in the EU, bearing in mind the development of new 
technologies, globalisation and matters of public  security, and to put forward proposals to 
successfully address the new challenges.  
                                                
 
34 Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/ar08p2_en.pdf. 
35 Special Eurobarometer 296, "Discrimination in the European Union: Perceptions, Experiences and 
Attitudes". 
36 Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and 
expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 55. 
37 Flash Eurobarometer 225, "Data Protection in the European Union. C itizens' Perceptions". 
 
EN 11   EN In the age of globalisation and enhanced coope ration on law enforcement, there is an ever 
increasing need to exchange personal data with third countries. The EU is faced with growing 
demands from stakeholders to f acilitate international data transf ers from the EU, be it a wider 
use of its adequacy policy or through new instruments for such transfers. Hence, third countries have to deal increasi ngly with the European  data protection syst em. Therefore, there 
is a need to develop a comprehensive approach in this area in our relations with third countries. The EU needs to play a major ro le in developing global standards through 
international instruments. To that end, the EU should be present in inte rnational forums and  
play a leading role in promo ting international standards. 
On totalitarian crimes  – or crimes perpetrated by totalitarian regimes and committed on 
other grounds – and as requested by the Counc il, the Commission is due to report to the 
Council on whether an instrument is needed to cover publicly condoni ng, denying or grossly 
trivializing crimes of genocide, crimes agains t humanity and war crimes directed against a 
group of persons defined by reference to criteria  other than race, colour, religion, descent or 
national or ethnic origin, such as  social status or political co nvictions. The European Union’s 
role can only be to facilitate this process by encouraging discussion and furthering the sharing 
of experiences. It is of course for the Member  States to find their own way forward when it 
comes to dealing with victims' expect ations and promoting reconciliation.  
The situation of children  around the world remains very difficult: the condition of poverty, 
neglect and exploitation in which millions of children live cannot be disregarded. Despite 
major progress in some areas, much remains to  be done. The violence inflicted on children 
both within and outside the EU is varied in nature , such as within their family, at school or by 
organised crime. In the EU, 19% of children are at risk of povert y, which dramatically 
decreases their chances  of having a good life an d increases their risk of exclusion. The 2008 
Eurobarometer on the rights of the child
38 showed that 33% of the children interviewed were 
not aware of their rights and that 82% said that  neither they, nor anyo ne else in their age 
group that they knew, had ever tried to seek he lp when they thought that their rights had been 
violated; moreover, 79% of the respondents w ould not know how to go about defending their 
rights and whom to contact. All this clearly show  the need to step up EU action and to defend 
the rights of children within and outside the EU. 
As regards violence against women , in a study from 2006, the Council of Europe estimated 
that one-fifth to one-quarter of all women in Europe have experienced physical violence at 
least once during their adult lives, and more th an one-tenth have suffered sexual violence 
involving the use of force. Figur es for all forms of violence, including stalking, are as high as 
45%. More significantly, for women – unlike me n, who also encounter a great deal of 
physical violence – the majority of such violen t acts are carried out by  men in their immediate 
social environment, most often by partners and ex-partners39.  
Although the Commission has a limited mandate to  initiate legislatio n in the domain of 
violence against women (restricted to traffick ing and sexual exploitati on), it has shown via a 
number of actions, in particul ar the Daphne Programme, that co mbating violence has become 
                                                 
38 Flash Eurobarometer 235, "The Rights of the Child". 
39 Council of Europe, "Combating violence against women – Stocktaking study on the measures and 
actions taken in the Council of Europe member states", 2006. 
 
EN 12   EN an issue of paramount importance.  In particular, one of the pr iority areas for EU action on 
gender equality that the Commission included in  its "Roadmap for e quality between women 
and men (2006-2010)"40 was the eradication of gender-bas ed violence and trafficking. The 
political pressure on the Commission to take co ncrete measures is increasing and calls for a 
clear long-term strategy.  
                                                 
40 COM(2006) 92 final. 
 
EN 13   EN 2.2. Evaluation and monitoring 
I. Objectives In a bid to provide European citiz ens with better and more effective instruments in the area of 
Justice, Freedom and Security, the Hague Prog ramme called for regular assessments of the 
implementation and effects of the measures ad opted. To this end, th e Commission was asked 
to present annual implementation reports on the Hague Programme, along with systematic, 
objective and impartial assessment of the eff ectiveness of those measures and recommended 
solutions to the problems encountered.  
II. Main developments 
The Commission responded in 2006 and pres ented a package of communications on the 
implementation and evaluation of JLS policies. 
The Communication "Evaluation of EU Po licies on Freedom, Security and Justice"
41 
launched a debate on the establis hment of a strategic evaluati on mechanism of JLS policies. 
This mechanism was based on a three-step appr oach: (1) information gathering and sharing; 
(2) analysis of the information and data collected; (3) in-depth specific evaluations of selected areas. This mechanism did not gain the neces sary support within th e Council, as Member 
States perceived it as too demanding and burdensome, and therefore was not fully 
implemented. However, in line with the Co mmission's long-standing commitment to  
evaluation, specific legislation, instruments, actions and programmes have been assessed 
through the period of the Hague Programme, provi ding useful appraisal of how they operate 
and proposing constructive recommendations fo r possible improvements (the evaluation of 
the Dublin regulation and of the EU Drugs  Action Plan 2005-2008 can be mentioned as 
examples).  
The peculiarity of JLS policy, a complex, multilayer and diverse domain, is reflected in the 
way in which evaluations are currently organised: they are very different in objective (internal 
and external evaluations, progre ss reports, peer reviews, etc.) and in scope (evaluation of 
programmes, legislation, policies) and are of ten at a different stage of development. 
Furthermore, it is still difficult and sometimes problematic to collect and compare statistical 
data: improving this situation will continue to be  a priority in the coming years. However, to 
increase the quality, reduce discrepancies and enhance the comparability and usefulness of evaluation results, it is essential to apply clea r and specific horizontal principles to all JLS 
evaluations. 
Finally, the Communication "Rep ort on the implementation of  the Hague programme for 
2005"
42 presented the first yearly implementation report (or "scoreboard") , giving a snapshot 
of the measures implemented both at the EU le vel (whether the EU institutions adopted the 
planned measures on time) and at national level (whether the na tional administrations 
                                                 
41 COM(2006) 332 final. 
42 COM(2006) 333 final. 
 
EN 14   EN implemented the adopted measures in good time).  This kind of implementation reports have 
been published every year since 200643. 
III. Future challenges 
The Commission is willing to maintain the established practice of  presenting an annual 
scoreboard on the implementa tion of the actions foreseen  in the next multi-annual 
programme. 
To make evaluation more systematic and eff ective, the idea of la unching new evaluation 
mechanisms for sectors that still lack sy stematic monitoring and evaluation should be 
considered. This would make for a clearer assessment of the use and impacts of these 
instruments. Sector-based mechanisms (such as  the specific tracking method provided for by 
the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum) can meet the specific needs of each policy 
field more quickly and efficien tly and enhance policy-making.  
The introduction of clear common horizontal prin ciples for all evalua tions should allow the 
comparability of theirs results. New sector-based mechanisms and clear horizontal principles for evaluation should allow for th e evaluation of the impact of  the instruments adopted, of 
each policy area as well as coherence and contri bution to the development of the JLS area. It 
should not add – insofar as po ssible – any unnecessary burden on Member States and existing 
evaluation mechanisms.  
This will help the Commission to  assess the impact of JLS policies in good time, in particular 
before proposing the next multi-annual programme. In return, the evaluation will increase transparency and further contribute to good govern ance, as it will provide European citizens 
and policy-makers with extensive informati on on the implementation and impact of JLS 
policies. 
                                                
 
43 COM(2007) 373 final and COM(2008) 373 final respectively . 
 
EN 15   EN 3. STRENGTHENING  FREEDOM 
3.1. Promotion of European Citizenship 
I. Objectives The Hague Programme and the Acti on Plan underlined that the right s of EU citizens to move 
and reside freely in the Member States is the central right of citizenship of the Union. Full 
implementation of the Directiv e 2004/38/EC, which mainly codi fies legislation and case-law 
in the area of free movement, was considered in the Programme as an important element in 
order to ensure that EU citizens enjoy this  right. The Action Plan also provided for the 
adoption of specific measures on consul ar protection and European elections. 
II. Main developments 
The fifth report on citizenship of the Union
44 shows that, on 1 January 2006, approximately 
8.2 million EU citizens were exercising their right to reside in a Member State of which they 
were not nationals.  
The Commission published a report in 200845 on the control of transposition, compliance and 
correct application of  Directive 2004/38/EC on free movement46. It provides a 
comprehensive overview of how the directive is  transposed into national law and how it is 
applied in everyday life. The repo rt concluded that the overall tran sposition of the directive is 
rather disappointing. Not one Member State ha s transposed the directive effectively and 
correctly in its entirety and not one article of the directive has been transposed effectively and 
correctly by all Member States. No legislative amendments to the directive were proposed in 
the report. Consequently, the di rective still needs to be impl emented more effectively by 
Member States.  
In 2007, the Commission adopted  the Action Plan 2007-2009 on consular protection of EU 
citizens in third countries47, designed to ensure the protection of EU citizens when travelling 
to countries where their Members State is not re presented. It is estimated that 8.7% of the EU 
citizens travelling outside the EU travel to third countries wher e their Member States are not 
represented. Based on the number of trips made annually by EU citizens, it is estimated that the number of "unrepresented" EU nationals trav elling to third countries each year is around 7 
million. It is estimated that around 2 million EU e xpatriates live in a th ird country where their 
Member State is not represented. Around 0.53% of EU citizens who travel to third countries 
need consular assistance, which would amount to approximately 425,000 requests for 
                                                
 
44 COM(2008) 85 final. 
45 COM(2008) 840 final. The third report COM(2006) 156 final on the application of Directives 
90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC on free movement and residence, which were repealed by the 
Directive 2004/38, was adopted in 2006. 
46 Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of 
citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the 
Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 
93/96/EEC, OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77. 
47 COM(2007) 767 final. 
 
EN 16   EN consular services by EU citizens per year in th ird countries. It is esti mated that at least 37,000 
of these cases come from Union citizens whose Member States are not represented in the third 
country. The Eurobarometer on consular protecti on carried out in 2006 showed that only 23% 
of the citizens were aware of this right48. 
As regards the right to vote  for the European Parliament, the Commission used the report on 
the 2004 European elections49 to present a proposal to amend the Directive laying down the 
arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candi date in the European 
elections50. The objective of the proposal was to im prove efficiency and to remove the 
burdensome administrative procedures, to prevent multiple voting and multiple candidacies. This proposal could not be adopted on time fo r the 2009 European elections because there 
was no agreement among the Member States in the Council. 
III. Future challenges 
The focus of the Commission's action on free movement and residence  should be on the 
enforcement of existing legislation, and on en suring that Directive 200 4/38/EC is correctly 
transposed and implemented acro ss the EU and that EU citizens are informed of their rights. 
As a first step in this di rection, the Commission establis hed in September 2008 a group of 
experts from Member States to discuss the ap plication of the Directive. The Commission is 
also preparing interpretative guidelines on the Directive. 
In the year to come, the Commission will continue to remain active on consular protection  
should remain an area of active focus in the years to come. The demand for consular 
protection will almost certainly increase in the future as EU citizens become more aware of their rights under article  20 EC and as more people travel  to third countries. Awareness of 
European consular protection rights need to be raised among citizens and execution of the Action Plan 2007-2009 should be assessed. 
In 2007, 49% of European citizens indicated that they are "not  well informed" about their 
rights, the less well-known rights being electoral rights relating to European Parliament  
elections (54% aware) and m unicipal elections (37% aware)
51.  The Parliament is working on 
a possible amendment of the Act of 1976 on the European elections52. The Commission has 
launched a study on certain issues concerning th e organisation of European elections. The 
Commission will prepare an assessment on the 2009 European elections.  
                                                 
48 Flash Eurobarometer 188, "Consular Protection". 
49 COM(2006) 790 final. 
50 COM(2006) 791 final. 
51 See footnote 48. 
52 Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage, OJ L 
278, 8.10.1976, p. 5. 
 
EN 17   EN 3.2. Asylum, migration and border policy  
3.2.1 Asylum (Common European Asylum System) 
I. Objectives  
In the area of asylum, the Hague programme set the ambitious objectives establishing a 
common asylum procedure and a uniform stat us for those who are granted asylum or 
subsidiary protection. This should have been do ne through the full and inclusive application 
of the Geneva Convention on Refugees and othe r relevant Treaties. The Programme also set 
other objectives, notably the facilitation of practical cooperation involving the national 
asylum services of the Member States, the fu ll implementation and evaluation of the "first 
phase" instruments, the presentation of a numb er of studies on innovative aspects of asylum 
policy, the sound use of existing financial incentives (the Europ ean Refugee Fund in 
particular) and more cooperation with third countries to help  improve their capacity to 
protecting refugees.  
II. Main developments 
The first major achievement in the area of asylum was the adoption of the  asylum 
procedures directive53 in 2005. This was the only part of the "first phase" of the Common 
European Asylum System (CEAS) that had not  been adopted by the end of the transitional 
period established in the Amsterdam Treaty (b efore 1 May 2004). Adoption of this directive 
entailed a shift in the decision-making process in the area of asylum: from that moment on, 
any new legislation would have been adopted  by co-decision between the Council and the 
European Parliament and by qualified majority  voting in the Council. This marked an 
important advance in the construction of the CEAS. 
Given the very late adoption of the asylum pr ocedures directive, the objective of achieving a 
common asylum procedure  before 2010 became difficult to meet. Member States needed 
time to transpose the directive before any amendments to it could be proposed. Such 
amendments, leading to a common procedure, w ill be presented in 2009, which means that the 
instrument defining the common pro cedure could be in place by 2012.  
As far as the establishment of a uniform status  is concerned, the situation is similar to the 
one described above, as the deadline for tr ansposition for the qualification directive54, which 
sets the statuses of refugees and persons enjoying subsidiary protection, only expired in 
October 2006. Amendments to the directive will al so be tabled in 2009 in order to meet the 
uniform status goal.  
Practical cooperation  between national asylum services  has been enhanced. A Commission 
Communication in 200655 put forward ideas on how to facili tate such cooperation. Since then, 
                                                 
53 Council Directive 2005/85/EC of  1 December 2005 on minimum sta ndards on procedures in Member 
States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13. 
54 Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status 
of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need 
international protection and the content of the protection granted, OJ L 304, 30.9.2004, p. 12. 
55 COM(2006) 67 final. 
 
EN 18   EN the Commission has financed a number of pr ojects on practical cooperation issues, e.g. on 
country of origin information (COI) and on a common curriculum (training) for asylum case 
handlers. A pilot project for the establishment of a Common Portal on COI has also been set 
up. All these activities needed structural support, better coordination a nd sustained funding, 
which is why the Commission proposed in Febr uary 2009 the establis hment of a European 
Asylum Support Office (EASO)56, whose tasks will cover all practical cooperation activities. 
The creation of the EASO will also help Member  States faced with particular pressures on 
their asylum systems by coordinating asylum  expert teams, and possibly assisting 
overburdened Member States. 
Full evaluations of the implementation of the Dublin system (Dublin57 and Eurodac58 
regulations) and of the R eception Conditions Directive59 were presented by the Commission 
in June60 and November61 2007 respectively. They provided the basis for the preparation of 
amendments to those instruments, which we re adopted by the Commission in December 
200862. The amendments to the Dublin system set out  to increase the efficiency of the system 
and to enhance legal guarantees and protecti on standards, while the amendment to the 
Reception Conditions Directive were designed  to ensure better and more harmonised 
reception standards across the Union, including the specific needs of vulnerable persons. 
Evaluations of the implementation of two other instruments, notably of the qualification and 
procedures directives, will be  presented by the end of 2009.  
The studies  requested by the Hague programme on jo int processing of as ylum applications 
within and outside the EU were not conducted as the timing was not considered the most 
appropriate. However, with a view of comple ting the second phase of the CEAS, this study 
will be commissioned in 2009-2010. 
As far as the financial support  is concerned, the European Refugee Fund (ERF) was 
amended in 200763 to align it with the three new funds  on integration, border control and 
                                                 
56 COM(2009) 66 final. 
57 Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms 
for determining the Member State re sponsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the 
Member States by a third-country national, OJ L 50, 25.2.2003, p. 1. 
58 Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment of 
'Eurodac' for the comparison of fing erprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention, OJ 
L 316, 15.12.2000, p. 1. 
59 Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of 
asylum seekers, OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18. 
60 COM(2007) 299 final. 
61 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/asylum/studies/doc_asylum_studies_en.htm.  
62 COM(2008) 815 final, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying 
down minimum standards for the reception of asyl um seekers (Recast); COM( 2008) 820 final, Proposal 
for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for 
international protection lodged in one of the Member  States by a third-country national or a stateless 
person (Recast); COM(2008) 825, Proposal for a Re gulation of the European Parliament and of the 
Council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining th e Member State responsible for 
examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (Recast). 
63 Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing 
the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General programme ‘Solidarity 
 
 
EN 19   EN return. The amendment also introduced an increase in financial support for practical 
cooperation activities and the pos sibility of offering additiona l financial incentives for the 
resettlement of refugees in EU  Member States. The resources of  the ERF have been increased, 
reflecting the importance of asylum issues, and have had an impact on improving national 
asylum systems. The ERF also made it possibile  to finance, in parallel with the national 
programmes, actions of Community  interest, and to cover the specific needs of Member States 
faced with particular asylum pressures (eme rgency measures). The 2007 amendment also has 
eased the conditions for triggering these emerge ncy measures. However, it is not possible now 
to assess the overall impact of the ERF: the Commission will submit a final evaluation of the old ERF to the European Parliament  and to the Council by the end of 2009. 
Although not envisaged by the Ha gue Programme, the Commission decided to launch a broad 
consultation of all stakeholders about the future  of the CEAS before presenting proposals for 
the "second phase". This  took the form of a Green Paper issued in June 2007
64 and a public 
hearing in November the same year. The results of the consultation were used to draw up the 
Policy Plan on Asylum  presented in 200865. This Policy Plan contained the Commission's 
ideas about the form that th e second phase of the CEAS s hould take and a roadmap for 
proposals to be submitted in th e coming years. Moreover, it iden tified three main lines of 
action for achieving the objectives of the CE AS: better and more ha rmonised standards of 
protection through further alignment of Member  States' asylum laws; effective and well-
supported practical cooperation;  a higher degree of solidarity  and responsibility between 
Member States, and between the EU and third c ountries. The first concrete proposals were the 
above-mentioned adoption in December 2008 of the amendments to the Dublin system 
(Dublin II and Eurodac Regulations) and to the Reception Conditions Directive. 
III. Future challenges 
While important progress in the area of asylum ha s been already made, work must continue in 
order to complete the CEAS by 2012 and to establish a real le vel playing field across the EU, 
where all asylum seekers will be treated in  the same way, with the same high-standard 
guarantees and procedures, wherever in the EU th ey make their asylum claim. This will also 
help to reduce secondary movements.  
In 2008, the asylum requests introduced in th e EU by third-country national were about 
240,000. Some Member States are more affected then others, either because of the total 
number of requests received, or because of the share of requests received in relation to their 
total population. In 2007, in 25% of first in stance decisions a need for protection has been 
recognised (refugee status or subsidiary protecti on). This average is the results of different 
practices among Member States: so me of them are more reluctant and recognize this status in 
few cases, while others grant the refug ee status to about 50% of applicant. 
For this purpose, specific challenges will need to be tackled in the years to come. First and 
foremost, the potential of the future EASO should be tapped to the maximum, making it a 
useful operational support tool in  the field of asylum. Furthermor e, an efficient asylum system 
                                                                                                                                                         
and Management of Migration Flows’ and repealing Council Decision 2004/904/EC, OJ L 144, 
6.6.2007, p. 1. 
64 COM(2007) 301 final. 
65 COM(2008) 360 final. 
 
EN 20   EN with high quality protection standards throughout  the asylum process will help prevent and 
avoid possible abuse. In this perspective, it must be ensured that legitimate measures and practices against irregular immigration do not  hamper access to protection in the EU for 
asylum seekers.  
The CEAS should help to reduce divergent nati onal practices which can lead to significant 
differences in the recognition of protection in th e Member States, causing inequalities in the 
level of protection across the EU. Moreover, it should increase solidarity and burden-sharing 
among Member States, supporting those countries in particular where asylum systems are 
overburdened, notably because of their geograph ical location and high migratory pressures.  
The idea of harmonising other prot ection statuses should be also  taken into account as people 
are increasingly seeking protecti on for reasons not envisaged in the traditional refugee regime 
(Geneva Convention) and are receiving prot ection statuses with lower guarantees. The 
protection of particularly vulne rable asylum seekers, especia lly minors, should be enhanced 
and the prospects of integration of those in need  of protection in their host societies improved. 
The EU should strengthen its so lidarity towards countries outside  the EU in order to enhance 
their capacity to offer effective protection and la sting solutions, whilst ensuring that the Union 
is ready to assume its fair  share of responsibility. 
3.2.2. Migration 
I. Objectives  
The Hague Programme called for effective manage ment of migration flows. In the area of 
immigration, the Programme call on, the Comm ission to present a Policy Plan on legal 
migration
66 including admission procedures capable of responding promptly to fluctuating 
demands for migrant labour. It also noted that the informal economy and illegal employment 
can act as pull factors for illegal immigration and can lead to exploitation. Finally, it was 
emphasized that a common analysis of up-to-d ate information and data on all relevant 
migratory developments was of key importance to future policy development. 
II. Main developments 
In this area the main objectives have been met. More ambitious and long-term results could 
have been achieved, in particular  in the area of legal migrati on, had there been the co-decision 
procedure in place instead of the exis ting unanimity rule in the Council.  
In 2005, a directive setti ng out a specific procedure for the admission of researchers from 
third countries was adopted67 in a bid to make Europe a more attractive, competitive and 
knowledge-based economy. The directive had to be transposed by October 2007. The 
Commission provided support to th e Member States at various meetings arranged to discuss 
the interpretation of the provisions of the directiv e. It is too early to already assess the impacts 
of the directive. A report on the implementation of this directive will be published in 2009.  
                                                 
66 COM(2005) 669 final. 
67 Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country 
nationals for the purposes of scientific research, OJ L 289, 3.11.2005, p. 15. 
 
EN 21   EN In reply to the call of the Hague programme fo r "admission procedures capable of responding 
promptly to fluctuating demands for migrant labour", a Policy Plan on legal migration was 
presented in 2005 containing a roadmap for a range of initiatives that the Commission 
intended to take in between 2006 and 2009.  
On the back of this Policy Plan, the Commis sion adopted two proposal s for directives in 
2007: a proposal for a directive "on the conditions of entry a nd residence of third-country 
nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment" ("Blue Card")68 and a proposal for 
a directive "on a single application procedure fo r a single permit for third-country nationals to 
reside and work in the territory of a Member  State and on a common set of rights for third-
country workers legally re siding in a Member State"69. The "Blue Card" directive has been 
adopted on 25 May 2009. The result clearly lags  behind the Commission's more ambitious 
proposal and cannot be considered as much more  than a first step towards harmonisation, in 
particular regarding the (limited)  possibility for "Blue Card" holders to move  to and reside in 
other Member States. Two other proposals from the Policy Plan (directives on the entry and 
residence of seasonal workers and intra-corporate transferees) are scheduled for adoption by the Commission in 2009.  
A Communication on "policy priorities in the fight against illegal immigration of third-
country nationals" was presented in 2006
70 and identified a number of measures to fight 
illegal immigration  at all stages of the illegal immigr ation chain, including cooperation with 
third countries, reinforcing external borders and tackling illegal employment. The proposal for 
a directive "providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country 
nationals" of 200771 specifically addressed the pull factor of illegal immigration, in particular 
the possibility of finding illegal work. The di rective has been adopted on 25 May 2009. The 
directive on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally 
staying third-country nationals was tabled in 200572 and was formally adopted by the Council 
and the European Parliament in 200873, as the first legislative inst rument in this area adopted 
under the co-decision procedure. Once transposed, Member States' return policies will be governed by clear, transparent and fair common ru les that allow efficient return procedures 
for illegally staying third-country nationals while guaranteeing them a set of rights. 
In the areas of data collection , analysis and (early) exch ange of information, three 
instruments were adopted: first, the regula tion on Community statistics on migration and 
international protection
74 of 2007 and second, following a broad consultation process 
triggered by a Green Paper in 200575, the Council decision establishing the European 
                                                 
68 COM(2007) 637 final. 
69 COM(2007) 638 final. 
70 COM(2006) 402 final. 
71 COM(2007) 249 final. 
72 COM(2005) 391 final. 
73 Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on 
common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country 
nationals, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98. 
74 Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on 
Community statistics on migration and international protection and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 311/76 on the compilation of statistics on fo reign workers, OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 23. 
75 COM(2005) 606 final. 
 
EN 22   EN Migration Network (EMN) of 200876. The EMN is a crucial element to meeting the 
information needs of Community institutions and of Member States authorities and institutions on migration and asylum. It provides up-to-date, objective, reliable and 
comparable information on migration and asyl um and this contribu tes to support policy-
making in the European Union in these ar eas. Moreover, in 2006 the Council adopted a 
mutual information mechanism on national m easures taken in the areas of asylum and 
immigration, which could affect other Member States
77. This system is currently underused 
by the Member States, unlike the secure web-ba sed information and coordination network for 
Migration Management services (ICONet) established in 200578. 
III. Future challenges 
As a result of diverse shifts in the demogra phic features of the EU population, the working 
age population is projected to decline apprecia bly in the coming years (the loss of working 
age population is estimated to be almost 50 million - or 15% - by 2060 compared to 2008 figures
79). Although, due to the existing economic and fi nancial crisis, it is  difficult at present 
to forecast the precise impact this will ha ve on the labour markets and the employment 
situation in Europe, in the long run it is very li kely to have adverse consequences on pension 
expenses, health spending and long-term care,  the dependency ratio and, more broadly, the 
dynamism of the economy. Immigration can be one of the various responses to this situation. 
The common immigration policy will have to be further developed in the coming years, 
especially with regard to possible EU rules fo r further categories of mi grants, the recognition 
of their diploma and the identification of skills  needs in Europe, taki ng into account that 
Member States have exclusive competence in determining the volume of admissions. 
Despite the important legislative framework and the measures taken at national and European 
level to combat illegal immigration, this phe nomenon is still a major concern across Europe. 
The number of illegally staying persons in the EU  cannot be quantified with precision. It is 
estimated that there were up to 8 million i llegal immigrants within the EU-25 in 2006. An 
estimated 80% were within the Schengen area. It is likely that over half of illegal immigrants 
enter the EU legally but become illegal due to  overstaying their right to stay. In 2006, around 
500,000 illegal immigrants were apprehende d in the EU-27 (429,000 in 2005 and 396,000 in 
2004) and it is estimated that  around 40% of these were removed. In 2006, the EURODAC 
database stored 25,162 fingerprints of people who were detected crossing borders irregularly. 
Data collected at national level indicate that more than 75% of the illegal immigrants that 
were apprehended on the territory of Member St ates in 2006 were from  third countries where 
visas to visit the EU are required. It is theref ore likely that most overstayers originate from 
these third countries. An effective response to  this phenomenon is therefore needed in the 
future to ensure that the instruments on legal migration work properly. 
                                                 
76 Council Decision 2008/381/EC of 14 May 2008 establishing a European Migration Network, OJ L 131, 
21.5.2008, p. 7. 
77 Council Decision 2006/688/EC of 5 October 2006 on the establishment of a mutual information 
mechanism concerning Memb er States' measures in the areas of  asylum and immigration, OJ L 283, 
14.10.2006, p. 40. 
78 Council Decision 2005/267/EC of 16 March 2005 establishing a secure web-based Information and 
Coordination Network for Member States’ Migration Management Services, OJ L 83, 1.4.2005, p. 48. 
79 Eurostat, EUROPOP 2008 Convergence Sc enario; Eurostat, Migration Statistics. 
 
EN 23   EN The Communication on "A Common Immigration Policy for Eu rope: Principles, actions and 
tools"80 and the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum81 laid down the basic principles 
for the further development of the EU's co mmon policy in the area of immigration and 
integration. In the years ahead, therefore, prio rity must be given to  implementing existing 
measures, including monitoring applicatio n of the main legislative framework82 and revising 
it where necessary, in particular as regards family reunification83, the status of long-term 
residents and existing rules for the admission of students and researchers. Moreover, the 
works announced in the 2005 Policy Plan on Legal Migration must be co mpleted by adopting 
and implementing the proposed legislative instruments and setting up the EU Immigration Portal. Further common admission schemes for categories of immigrants other than those 
identified in the Policy Plan need to be examined, it being given that promoting further 
channels for legal immigration s hould match the skills of immi grants against national labour 
market needs. The fight against illegal immi gration must be stepped up by supporting the 
practical cooperation identified in a 2007 Staff Working Document
84 and the exchange of best 
practices at EU level with regard to the il legal employment of th ird-country nationals. 
                                                 
80 COM(2008) 359 final. 
81 Council document 13440/08. 
82 A Communication on a tracking method for monitoring the implementation of the European Pact on 
Immigration and Asylum has been adopted on 10.6.2009. 
83 The Commission presented a report on the application of the family reunification Directive 2003/86 
(COM(2008) 610 final), which revealed a few cross-cutting issues in relation to the transposition or 
application of the directive, such as the provisio ns on visa facilitation, granting autonomous residence 
permits, taking into account the best interest of the child, legal redress and more favourable provisions 
for the family reunification of refugees. 
84 SEC(2007) 596. 
 
EN 24   EN 3.3. Border management 
I. Objectives  The Hague programme set the objective of cons olidating the area wi thout internal border 
controls by ensuring a high level of security at the external borders, while facilitating smooth 
and fast border crossings for legitimate travellers (EU citizen s and third-country nationals 
alike) and ensuring solidarity and a fair sh are of responsibility be tween Member States. 
II. Main developments  
Over 400 million citizens
85 in twenty-five countries can now enjoy the benefit of the 
Schengen passport-free area. Unin terrupted travel is possible from Portugal to Estonia and 
from Malta to Iceland without border checks. Li fting internal border co ntrols needed mutual 
trust and accompanying security measures. Memb er States must be confident in each others' 
ability to guard effectively the external borders on behalf of the whole EU and to issue visas 
valid for the whole Schengen area. The Sc hengen Agreement has benefited from new 
technology for sharing information on individual s who are wanted, missing or barred from 
residence and on lost and stolen property.  
Implementation of the Hague Programme saw the establishment of three fundamental 
components of the EU's border strategy : the consolidatio n of the Schengen acquis , the 
establishment of the Frontex Agency and the launch of the External Border Fund. 
The consolidation of the rele vant parts of the Schengen acquis  on internal and external 
borders in the form of the Schengen Borders Code86 is the first of the three fundamental 
components. In addition, as indicated by the Hague Programme, the local border traffic regulation was adopted in 2006
87. The publication of a report on the implementation of this 
regulation is expected in 2009. 
The Council decision on the full applica tion of the provisions of the Schengen acquis  to 9 out 
of the 10 Member States that joined  the EU in 2004 was adopted in 200788. The evaluations 
for lifting internal border controls with  Bulgaria and Romania will start in 2009. 
The lifting of internal border controls requir ed the use of the Schengen Information System 
(SIS), which was established to maintain public  policy and public secu rity, including national 
                                                 
85 The total population of the 25 Schengen Member States is 411,310,500 (estimation: Eurostat, 2009). 
86 Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 
establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, p. 1. 
87 Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of the European Pa rliament and of the Coun cil of 20 December 2006 
laying down rules on local border traffic at the external land bord ers of the Member States and 
amending the provisions of the Schengen Convention, OJ L 405, 30.12.2006, p. 1. 
88 Council Decision 2007/801/E C of 6 December 2007 on the full app lication of the provisions of the 
Schengen acquis  in the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic 
of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of 
Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, OJ L 323, 8.12.2007, p. 34. 
 
EN 25   EN security, on the basis of  the Schengen Convention89. The second-generation Schengen 
Information System (SIS II) was established in 200690 and the following year a Council 
decision on the establishment, operati on and use of the SIS II was adopted91. The aim of the 
SIS II is to ensure a high level of security w ithin the area of freedom, security and justice of 
the European Union, including the maintenance of public security a nd public policy and the 
safeguarding of security in the territories of th e Member States, and to apply the provisions of 
Title IV of Part Three of the EC Treaty re lating to the movement of persons in their 
territories, using information communicated via this system. These instruments were 
complemented by the regulation on the access to the SIS II by the services in the Member 
States responsible for issui ng vehicle registrati on certificates, which was adopted in 200692. 
Currently, the Schengen States continue to rely on the old SIS 1+. SIS II will become 
operational once all the relevant tests have b een completed, in accordance with the founding 
Council decision and regulation. Two Council Decisions93 were adopted to extend the period 
of the Commission's mandate for developing SI S II until 31 December 2008. In addition, the 
Commission submits a progress report every si x months to the Council and the European 
Parliament on the development of SIS II94. A Council regulation95 and a Council decision on 
the migration from the SIS 1+ to the SIS II96 were also adopted in 2008. Migration to SIS II 
can take place only after completion of all th e technical steps necessa ry, including further 
testing with the Member States. 
The legal instruments governing SIS II were co mpleted by the adoption by the Commission of 
the SIRENE Manual and other implemen ting measures for the SIS II in 200897.  
                                                 
89 Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the 
States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on 
the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, OJ L 239, 22.09.2000, p. 19. 
90 Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on 
the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), OJ L 381, 28.12.2006, p. 4. 
91 Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second 
generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), OJ L 205, 7.8.2007, p. 63. 
92 Regulation (EC) No 1986/2006 of  the European Parliament and of  the Council of 20 December 2006 
regarding access to the Second Generation Schengen Info rmation System (SIS II) by the services in the 
Member States responsible for issuing vehicle regi stration certificates, OJ L 381, 28.12.2006, p. 1. 
93 Council Regulation (EC) No 1988/2006 of 21 December 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 
2424/2001 on the development of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), OJ L 
411, 30.12.2006, p. 1 and Council Decision 2006/1007/JHA of 21 December 2006 amending Decision 2001/886/JHA on the development of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), OJ 
L 411, 30.12.2006, p. 78. 
94 COM(2009) 133 final, Progress Report July – D ecember 2008; COM(2008) 710 final, Progress Report 
January 2008 – June 2008; COM(200 8) 239 final, Progress Report July – December 2007; SEC(2008) 
35, Progress Report January - June 2007; SEC(2007) 408, Progress Report January - December 2006. 
95 Council Regulation (EC) No 1104/2008 of 24 October 2008 on migration from the Schengen 
Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generatio n Schengen Information System (SIS II), OJ L 299, 
8.11.2008, p. 1. 
96 Council Decision 2008/839/JHA of 24 October 2008 on migration from the Schengen Information 
System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), OJ L 299, 8.11.2008, 
p. 43. 
97 Commission Decision 2008/334/JHA of 4 March 2008 adopting the SIRENE Manual and other 
implementing measures for the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), OJ L 123, 
8.5.2008, p. 39. 
 
EN 26   EN In 2008, the Regulation on the Visa  Information System (VIS)98 and a Council Decision 
concerning access for consultation of the VIS99 were adopted. Once opera tional, the VIS will 
allow more accurate checks at external border cr ossing points and within the territory of the 
Member States with the use of biometrics. It will also help to identify any person who may 
not, or may no longer, fulfil the conditions for entry to and short stay on the territory of the Member States. 
VIS will start operations with biometrics fr om the outset. Following the political agreement 
on the VIS legal instruments, a new project schedule has been draw n up, taking account of 
biometrics and the finalised legal requirements.  In the latter part of 2008, Member States 
requested new guidelines on VIS, adding 6 addi tional months to VIS planning and postponing 
the availability of the system for operations  to December 2009. The date for the start of 
operations will depend on the readiness of the Member States.
 
Following the success of Eurodac, the Commi ssion implemented a Biometric Matching 
System (BMS) to be used in VIS. The BMS was built using commonly available standards to 
enable seamless integration with other automated fingerprint identification systems.  
In accordance with the regulation and the decisi on on the SIS II and with the regulation on the 
VIS, the Commission is entrusted with the op erational management of these information 
systems during a transitional period. In joint statements accompanying the SIS II and VIS 
legal instruments100, the European Parliament and the Council called on the Commission to 
make a substantive analysis of  alternatives from a financia l, operational and organisational 
perspective through an impact assessment, and to  present the necessary legislative proposals 
to entrust an agen cy with the long-term operational manage ment of the Centra l SIS II, the VIS 
and parts of the Communication Infrastructure. The Commission is expected to present in 
2009 the legislative proposals to  entrust an agency with  the long-term operational 
management of the Central SIS II, VIS and pa rts of the Communication Infrastructure. At a 
later stage or in parallel, the Agency could pot entially be given respons ibility for other large-
scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice.  
To ensure compliance with the Schengen acquis in its entirety, the Hague Programme had 
provided for the modernisation of the Schengen evaluation mechanism w ith regard to those 
states already fully applying the Schengen acquis  in full. The proposals, covering the whole 
of the Schengen acquis , were adopted by the Commission in early 2009101, and will mark the 
full integration of the Schengen acquis  into the Community framework. 
                                                 
98 Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning 
the Visa Information System (VIS ) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay 
visas (VIS Regulation), OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 60. 
99 Council Decision 2008/633/JHA of 23 June 2008  concerning access for consultation of the Visa 
Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of  Member States and by Europol for the purposes 
of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal 
offences, OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 129. 
100 Joint statement 235/06 on the long-term management of SIS II and VIS. 
101 COM(2009) 102 final, Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of an evaluation 
mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis  and COM(2009) 105 final, Proposal for a 
Council Decision on the establishment of an evaluation mechanism to monitor the application of the 
Schengen acquis . 
 
EN 27   EN The second fundamental component of the border management policy consisted of 
establishing the Frontex Agency for the c oordination of operational cooperation between 
Member States102. Four years after its establishment, the Agency is fully operational and the 
reasons for setting it up are still perfec tly valid, as the 2008 evaluation showed103. The 2009 
external evaluation of FRONTEX104 confirms the positive results achieved by the Agency in 
respect of the main objectives  set in the founding regulation. The regulation setting up the 
Rapid Border Intervention Teams (RABIT) and extending the powers of guest officers taking 
part in joint Fr ontex operations was adopted in 2007105. While the preparatory measures for 
setting up the teams and a number of exercises have been completed, no Member State has as 
of yet requested the depl oyment of such teams. 
Cooperation between the Member States has dram atically grown since the establishment of 
the Frontex Agency. As just one example, the total number of days of joint operations has 
gone up from 613 in 2007 to 1,922 in 2008. In  2006 and 2007, Frontex conducted 33 joint 
operations and 10 pilot projects, with a fu rther 28 operations and projects in 2008. The 
duration of these operations is limited, some la sting a week, others several months. Because 
they were short-term, operations conducted in  high risk areas in 2006 and 2007 were not 
sufficient to ensure effective border control and surveillance, due largely to the lack of human 
and financial resources. As a re sult, joint operations need to be more permanent in nature 
(throughout the year) in specific high-risk areas. Moreover, participation with equipment such 
as vessels and aircrafts is limited, with only 2- 3 Member States providing such equipment for 
individual operations. The example of the "H era" operation, off th e Canary Islands, 
demonstrates that the efficiency of Frontex ope rations is greatly enhanced if combined with 
proactive cooperation with third countries106, and that further efforts are needed in this 
domain with regard to other exposed regi ons at the southern maritime borders.  
The Frontex regulation stipulates  that the Agency "shall provide the necessary assistance for 
organising joint return operations of Member St ates". The Agency has provided this kind of 
assistance on 28 occasions over the past tw o years (2007-2008), involving a total of 1,229 
returnees. These low figures illustrate that ther e is a lack of return  operations involving the 
Agency and that most of the return operati ons are organised by the Member States on a 
                                                 
102 Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the 
Management of Operational Cooperation at the Extern al Borders of the Member States of the European 
Union, OJ L 349, 25.11.2004, p. 1. 
103 COM(2008) 67 final. 
104 Frontex, "External evaluation of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation 
at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union", available at: 
http://www.frontex.eur opa.eu/download/Z2Z4L2Zyb250ZXg vZW4vZGVmYXVsdF9vcGlzeS82Mi8x
LzE/cowi_report_final.doc. 
105 Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 
establishing a mechanism for the creation of Rapid Border Intervention Teams and amending Council 
Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 as regards that mechanism and regulating the tasks and powers of guest 
officers, OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 30. 
106 18 working arrangements have been concluded w ith Third Countries and International Bodies 
(Switzerland, Croatia, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, UHNCR, IOM, Europol, FYROM, Albania, 
Serbia, CEPOL, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Unite d States, Interpol, ICMPD and Montenegro),, 
negotiations with Cape Verde and Turkey are ongoing and in 6 cases a mandate for negotiating working 
arrangements has been given but negotiations have not started yet (Senegal, Mauritania, Libya, Egypt, 
Brazil and Belarus). 
 
EN 28   EN bilateral basis with third countries, or in a joint effort undertaken by a group of Member 
States. In those cases Frontex wa s not involved in those cases.  
It should be stressed in this context that mana gement of the Union's s outhern external border 
has taken on a much greater priority than antic ipated at the time of the launch of the Hague 
Programme, due to increasing migratory pres sure, using mainly unseaworthy means and 
putting migrants' lives at risk. The Commission  responded with a series of measures, in 
particular to reinforce Frontex. Its budget dram atically rose and is already beyond the initial 
forecasts of the financial perspectives. For example, the 2008 budget was € 70 million, which is as high as the 2013 budget initi ally foreseen for the Agency. 
Migratory pressure is expected  to continue, especially at the southern borders, although 
attention should be paid to displ acement effects. The tragic side of these flows, with a number 
of persons drowning at sea before even being de tected and rescued, must be further addressed: 
this is primarily a humanitarian issue, a nd only secondly a border surveillance issue. 
The Commission also issued a study  on the international law instruments in relation to illegal 
immigration by sea
107. The study analyses the current legal framework for the exercise of 
control and surveillance powers at the maritime external border, as well as the main obstacles 
to the effective exercise of th at surveillance, and suggests so lutions that could involve, if 
necessary, the adoption of instruments amending or complementing the existing legal 
framework. 
The third fundamental component of the borde r management policy consisted of launching 
the External Borders Fund108, this policy area being supported  with substantial financial 
means and giving a real meaning to the principl es of solidarity and bu rden-sharing between 
Member States. It supports Member States with  specific requirements regarding checks and 
surveillance of long or difficult stretches of exte rnal borders, or with special and unforeseen 
circumstances due to exceptional migratory pre ssures at their external borders. The annual 
resources available under the fund will rise from € 170 million in 2007 to € 481 million in 
2013, making a total amount of € 1. 82 billions. Since it was only launch recently, it is too 
early to assess the actual  impact of this programme. An in termediate evaluation of the fund is 
planned in 2010.  
III. Future challenges 
Quantifying the situation with regard to external and internal borders is by its nature difficult. 
Passenger flows within the Union ca nnot be estimated due to the ve ry fact that border controls 
have been abolished. However, its symbolic  importance in unifying Europe cannot be 
underestimated, as witnessed by th e Schengen enlargement to nine  of the new Member States 
that joined in 2004.  
At the external borders, passenge r flows are influenced largel y by economic factors: business 
trips and tourism generally incr ease or decrease depending on the overall economic situation 
                                                 
107 SEC(2007) 691. 
108 Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing 
the External Borders Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the General programme Solidarity and 
Management of Migration Flows, OJ L 144, 6.6.2007, p. 22. 
 
EN 29   EN worldwide. No systematic collect ion of data is carried out by Member States, but an estimated 
total of close to 900 million external border crossings took place in 2006. However, the 
experience of the United States  appears to indicate that over ly cumbersome procedures for 
obtaining visas and for crossing the borders can s tifle people flows and the EU will need to 
pay further attention to this issue in the future. 
Flows have been growing in the recent years and are likely to incr ease. Taking into account 
the forecasts for international travel and how it is likely to develop in the medium term, the 
current infrastructure at border crossing points will have to be  adapted to the growing number 
of travellers, which can only be dealt with through new systems and procedures or through 
considerable investment in physical infrastruc ture and human resources. The largest number 
of crossings of external border occurs at ai rports. Land border crossing points are the next 
most frequently used type of border crossing. 
In 2008 the Commission presented a "border package" consisti ng of three communications on 
Frontex109, on the establishment of a European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur)110 and 
on next steps in border management, including an entry/exit system and a registered traveller's 
programme111. The Council welcomed the package in its conclusions of 5-6 June 2008112. The 
first priority in the future will therefore be to ensure the follow-up to this package.  
The main objective will remain to consolidat e the area without intern al border controls, by 
ensuring a high level of security  at the external borders, while  facilitating smooth and fast 
border crossings for legitimate travellers (EU ci tizens and third-country nationals alike) and 
guaranteeing solidarity and a fair share of resp onsibility between Member States. These new 
systems must at the same time also guarantee more security for citizens and a high level of protection of privacy. Technological developm ents and FRONTEX can provide extremely 
constructive support. 
The steadily increasing role of technology and th e gradual establishment of new IT tools may 
call for a more in-depth look at whether the EU should equip itself with an overarching e-
borders strategy to provide a framework at Eur opean level for further developments and to 
promote interoperability and co st-efficiency. Making full use of all IT resources available, 
better coordination between the various European  systems and ensuring the compatibility of 
national systems should be priorities for the fu ture. In the longer run, how to coordinate and 
enhance more effectively the activities of the different authorities at the borders (especially customs and border control) should be considered.  
                                                
 
109 See footnote 129. 
110 COM(2008) 68 final. 
111 COM(2008) 69 final. 
112 Council document 9956/08, p. 34, adopting Council document 9873/08. 
 
EN 30   EN 3.4.  Integration of third-country nationals 
I. Objectives In the area of integration of third-country nationals ,
 the Hague Programme called for the 
establishment of a coherent European framewor k for integration, based on common principles 
that should form the foundation for future initiative s in the EU. It also un derlined the need for 
greater coordination and exchange of experien ces on national integration policies, and EU 
initiatives that should also be suppor ted by an openly accessible website.  
II. Main developments 
A set of Common Basic Principles (CBPs) we re adopted by the Council in November 2004113 
to underpin a coherent European framework fo r the integration of th ird-country nationals. 
These should help Member States to formulat e integration policies by offering them a guide 
against which they can judge and assess their own efforts. 
The 2005 Communication "A Common Agenda for Integration – Framework for the 
Integration of Third-Country Na tionals in the European Union"114 provided a coherent 
common EU framework for integration. It contai ned proposals for concre te measures to put 
the CBPs into practice, together  with a series of EU support mechanisms, such as a network 
of National Contact Points; a Handbook on Integr ation for Policy-Makers and Practitioners; 
an Integration website, which has been set up to  maintain an inventor y of good practices; a 
European Integration Forum; and Annual Re ports on Immigration and Integration. The 
Council approved this proposed framework and agenda in December 2005115, which have 
since formed the generally recognised fram ework for further activities in the area of 
integration at EU level.  
The European Fund for the Integration of th ird-country nationals was established in 2007116. € 
825 million is allocated for the period 2007- 2013. The purpose of the fund is to support 
integration policies and measures in the Member St ates. It is too early to assess the impact of 
this fund; an intermediate evaluation is planned in 2010. 
Work on an EU Integration Forum and on an EU  website on integration (EWSI) started in 
2006. They were both completed in  April 2009, when the first official meeting of the EU 
Integration Forum was held and the EWSI we nt on-line and became publically accessible117. 
In 2006118 and 2007119 two annual reports on integration were adopted and two Ministerial 
Conferences on Integration took place (Potsd am in 2007 and Vichy in 2008). Finally, two 
                                                 
113 Council document 14615/04, p. 15. 
114 COM(2005) 389 final. 
115 Council document 14390/05, p. 36. 
116 Council Decision 2007/435/EC of 25 June 2007 establishing the European Fund for the Integration of 
third-country nationals for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the General programme Solidarity and 
Management of Migration Flows, OJ L 168, 28.6.2007, p. 18. 
117 http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/. 
118 SEC(2006) 892. 
119 COM(2007) 512 final. 
 
EN 31   EN editions of the "Integration handbook for policy- makers and practitioners" were published in 
2004 and 2007120 and the third edition will be presented in 2009. 
III. Future challenges 
The Communication on Common Immigration Po licy for Europe, the European Pact on 
Immigration and Asylum and the Declaratio n of the Vichy Ministerial Conference of 
November 2008 (which were subsequent ly endorsed by the Council as Council 
conclusions121) laid down the basic principles and gui delines for the further development of 
the EU's common policy in the area  of immigration and integration. 
In 2007, 18.8 million third-country nationals were  resident in the EU27, 3.8% of the total 
population122. Although a growing number of Member St ates recognise the vital importance 
of integration policies, which fall within their competence, and despite the increasing 
supporting role played by the EU, many integration challenges remain. 
Mainstreaming integration has become an inte gral part of policy-making and implementation 
across a wide range of EU policies. Howeve r, effective sharing of information and 
coordinating with all tiers of authorities an d stakeholders are st ill major challenges. 
Monitoring and evaluation of integration pol icies and programmes and identification of 
specific indicators have so far not been sufficient. 
The integration of immigrants into the labour market is still a major challenge. The average 
educational attainment of non-natio nals is generally substantially lower than that of nationals. 
In addition, improving immigrants' knowledge of the host society and of its language remains 
a major challenge.  
More should be done to ensure that all reside nts, including immigran ts, understand, respect, 
benefit from and are protected on an equal ba sis by the full range of values, rights, 
responsibilities and privileges established by the EU and Member States' laws. Future 
challenges therefore also include issues meas ures targeting the host society, prevention of 
alienation, developing common modules for th e integration process and, above all, a 
systematic assessment of national integration policies. 
All this argues in favour of continuing work on the implementation and development of the 
Common Agenda for Integration, namely by cons olidating the mainstreaming approach and 
establishing measures to provide further incen tives and support for Member States' action to 
promote integration. 
                                                 
120 Available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/immigrati on/integration/doc_immigration_integration_en.htm. 
121 Council document 16325/1/08 rev 1, p. 19, adopting Council document 15251/08. 
122 See footnote 102. 
 
EN 32   EN 3.5. Visa policy 
I. Objectives  The common visa policy is an essential flanking measure which is needed to maintain the 
integrity of an area without internal border cont rols and ensure a high level of security at the 
external borders while facilita ting legitimate travel and tackli ng illegal immigration of third-
country nationals required to hol d a visa for short stays within the Schengen area. A coherent 
EU approach and harmonised solutions based on biometric identifiers were considered 
necessary to achieve this objective. 
II. Main developments  
Fundamental components of the EU's common vi sa policy were established in the period 
2004-2009 . As previously mentioned, the legislative framework for the implementation and operation of the VIS was adopted in 2008
123. As a system for the exchange of visa data 
between Member States, the VIS will support the implementation of the common visa policy 
and, for example, facilitate checks at external borde r crossing points. 
As regards the widespread use of biometri c identifiers, the Council has adopted the 
introduction of facial image and two fingerpri nts in residence permits for third country 
nationals124 and in Member States' passports and ot her travel documents (except identity 
cards) with a validity of more than 12 months125. Regarding the latter,  in 2007 the 
Commission adopted a proposal for amending the regulation with the purpose of updating 
standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by EU 
Member States and harmonising exceptions to th e general obligation to provide fingerprints 
for the travel documents issued by the Member St ates (will be exempt from the requirement to 
give fingerprints persons who are physically un able to give fingerpri nts and, on a provisional 
basis, children under the age of 12 years)126. The amendment to the regulation has been 
approved by the Council in 2009127. 
In 2006, the Commission adopted a proposal to cr eate the legal basis for Member States to 
take mandatory biometric identifiers (the faci al image and ten flat fingerprints) from visa 
applicants and to provide a legal framework for Member States' consular offices to implement 
the VIS128. In addition to the existing form of repr esentation, the proposal aimed to create new 
forms of consular offices: limited representati on, co-location and common  application centres. 
Moreover, it provided for a legal framework for out sourcing the receipt of visa applications to 
external service providers. Political agreemen t on this proposal has been reached and formal 
adoption is expected in 2009. 
                                                 
123 See footnotes 123-124. 
124 Council Regulation (EC) No 380/2008 of 18 April 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 
laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals, OJ L 115, 29.4.2008, p. 
1.  
125 Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and 
biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States, OJ L 385, 29.12.2004, p. 1. 
126 COM(2007) 619 final. 
127 Not yet published on the OJ. 
128 COM(2006) 269 final. 
 
EN 33   EN The Common Consular Instructions  were recast and incorporat ed together with all legal 
instruments governing the conditions  and procedures for issuing visas into the proposed Code 
on visas129, thereby enhancing transparency and clarifying existing rules, introducing 
measures intended to increase the harmonisation of procedures, and incr easing legal certainty 
and procedural guarantees. 
The Commission has negotiated visa facilitation agreements with Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, 
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Former  Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and 
Montenegro. These agreements provide for simplif ication of the visa pr ocedures for citizens 
of these countries wishing to travel to the EU  for short stays. The agreements entered into 
force in June 2007 with Russia and in Ja nuary 2008 with all the other countries.  
The "visa reciprocity" reports  published by the Commission130 take stock of the approaches 
made to ensure that the citizens of all Member St ates can travel without a short-stay visa to all 
third countries whose nationals ca n travel to the EU without a vi sa. Full visa reciprocity has 
been achieved with Costa Rica, Israel, Malays ia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, 
Paraguay, Singapore, Uruguay and Venezuela. Ma jor progress has also been achieved with 
Australia, Brunei, Canada and the United St ates. However, no progress has been achieved 
with Japan in relation to the visa requirement  for Romanian citizens. Negotiations on a visa 
waiver agreement are ongoing with Brazil. 
One of the outstanding measures envisaged by the Hague programme was the proposal to 
create common visa applicatio n centres, presented in 2006131. The new arrangements on 
consular cooperation on common application centres, which is expected to be adopted in 
2009, could be a first step towa rds an enhanced common vi sa policy with common visa 
offices, without prejudice to the future Europ ean External Action Service. Without awaiting 
the adoption of this new legislation, two common application centres have  already been set up 
as pilot projects (one by Hunga ry in Moldova and one  by Slovenia in M ontenegro). Others 
centres will be financed as Community projects under the External Border Fund. 
Some of these measures will only be implemented towards the end of 2009, including the start 
of operations of the VIS (the gradual regional "ro ll-out" will take at least two years, before all 
the consulates of the Member St ates are connected to this new system), the Visa Code and the 
Instructions on the practical application of the Code.  
III. Future challenges 
The lists of third countries under the visa  obligation and those exempted from that 
requirement should be regularly revised in the light of the assessment of the risks of illegal 
immigration, internal security a nd the results of the ongoing visa dialogues with certain third 
countries. 
The VIS will need to be put into effect, as will the new arrangements provided by the 
regulation amending the Common C onsular Instructions concerni ng biometrics in the visa-
                                                 
129 COM(2006) 403 final. 
130 Four "reciprocity reports" have been published: COM(2006) 3 final; COM(2006) 568 final; 
COM(2007) 533 final; COM(2008) 486 final/2. 
131 See footnote 155. 
 
EN 34   EN issuing procedure, consular  organisation and cooperation and the Visa Code. A common 
curriculum for the training of c onsular staff on the rules and procedures for issuing visas 
could be considered. 
The external aspects of the common visa polic y should also be further developed through the 
conclusion, where appropriate, of new agreemen ts on visa facilitation and on the exemption 
from visa obligation. Additionally, efforts should be made to promote initiatives designed to 
create common application centres or to encour age Member States to conclude representation 
arrangements. 
In the long term, the implementation of the enhanced harmonisation provided by the Visa 
Code and the development of the different fo rms of consular coopera tion should be assessed, 
with a view to developing a system  for European short-stay visas  
 
EN 35   EN 3.6. External dimension of asylum and migration  
I. Objectives The Hague Programme objectives regarding the ex ternal dimension of asylum and migration 
focused on establishing partnershi ps with third countri es. The EU policy sets  out to help third 
countries in full partnership usi ng existing Community funds, in their efforts to improve their 
capacity for migration management and refugee protection; to prevent and combat illegal 
immigration; to provide information on legal channels for migration;  to resolve refugee 
situations through durable solutions; to enhance the capacities of third countries  to build their 
asylum systems; to build border-control capacity ; to enhance document security; and to tackle 
return and readmission.  
The Programme also called on the EU to continue  the process of fully integrating migration 
into the EU's existing and future relations w ith third countries, intensifying cooperation and 
capacity building with third countries at the southern and eastern bor ders of the EU, and 
developing policies that link migration and developm ent cooperation, including the 
integration of migration into the Country and Regional Strategy Papers of all relevant third 
countries.  
II. Main developments 
Achieving the objectives in the external dimens ion of asylum and migration has been mainly 
carried out through the Global Approach to Migration, which was adopted in 2005
132 to 
establish an inter-sector framew ork to manage migration cohere ntly through political dialogue 
and close practical cooperat ion with third countries. 
Cooperation with third countries  in the area of asylum was boosted by the progressive 
implementation of Regional Protection Pr ogrammes (RPPs), first proposed by the 
Commission in a Communication in 2005133. Two pilot RPPs were set up in two regions: 
Tanzania (as part of the Great Lakes region in Africa) and the Western Newly Independent 
States (Ukraine, Moldova and Be larus). In parallel, the Comm ission and the Member States 
have been working towards the creation of a jo int EU voluntary resettlement scheme with the 
aim to ensure access to protection in Europe es pecially for vulnerable cases, and to enhance 
the impact of RPP in the regions. The first tangible result of this was the commitment by the Council in December 2008 to resettle in the EU about 10,000 Iraqi refugees from Jordan and Syria
134. Concrete proposals on a joint resettlement scheme will be made by the Commission 
in July 2009. The pilot RPPs are currently being evaluated and the results will be available 
before summer 2009. In the light of the pilo t experience, the Com mission will consider 
expanding RPPs to other regions. 
                                                 
132 Council document 15914/1/05 rev 1,  Presidency Conclusions of th e 15-16 December 2005 Brussels 
European Council.  
133 COM(2005) 388 final. 
134 Council document 16325/1/08 rev 1, p. 23. 
 
EN 36   EN In the period 2005-2008, the Global Approach wa s the subject of four specific Commission 
Communications135 and it was also covered by several sp ecific and thematic communications. 
The Global Approach to migration was gradually integrated into the EU's external policies 
with the aim to address migration and asylum  issues in a comprehensive and balanced 
manner. The European Union gradually develo ped and defined the Global Approach, which 
was both thematic and geographical in scope and incorporated a number of innovative tools.  
Initially applying the concept of "migratory rout es", the Global Approach first focused on the 
South, and particularly on Sub-Saharan Africa.  New forms of dialogue and cooperation were 
established, both at ministerial and practitioners level, which had hardly existed before. Migration was included in the political dialogue and cooperation with th ird countries, such as 
the Rabat Process, the EU-Africa Partners hip on Migration, Mobility and Employment, 
Euromed and Regional and Country Strategy Papers. In 2007, the Global Approach was 
extended to the Eastern and S outh-eastern regions neighbouri ng the European Union, with 
consideration to certain Middl e Eastern and Asian countries of origin along the migratory 
routes. Achievements in these regions were less  visible since the Globa l Approach priorities 
for these regions were in line with already es tablished cooperation frameworks, such as the 
European Neighbourhood policy, the pre-accession strategy and the enlargement process. The 
Global Approach to migration also inspired the EU/Latin American-Caribbean dialogue on 
migration called for by the Lima Summit in May 2008. 
Thematically, the Global Approach has three key priorities: managing legal migration more 
effectively, preventing and reducing illegal migr ation, and promoting the positive and curbing 
the negative aspects of the relation between migration and development. 
In terms of migration and development, much has been done to encourage a positive impact 
on development from the transfers of migrants' remittances: reducing transfer costs, engaging diaspora members in development, sharing in formation on legal migration opportunities and 
exploring circular migration, facilitating migration observato ries and reduci ng the negative 
effects of the brain drain, in particul ar regarding healthcare professionals.  
As regards labour migration and mobility, the EU has supported third countries' efforts to 
better manage legal migration. This has taken the form of strengtheni ng the capacities of the 
national services or of autonomous centres  responsible for informing and counselling 
potential migrants and/or their nationals abro ad and exploring ways of developing labour-
matching mechanisms and circular migration sche mes. Much has also been achieved in the 
fight against illegal immigration through assistan ce for strengthening border management in 
third countries, enhancing cap acity building for border guard s and migration officials, 
developing the use of biometric technologies an d making travel and identity documents more 
secure, informing on the risks related to irre gular migration, supporting the improvement of 
reception conditions, fighting against trafficki ng and smuggling of human beings, and setting 
up an Immigration Liaison Officers Networks. Progr ess in this regard is described in three 
annual reports on a common po licy on illegal immigration
136. As called for by the Council, a 
Commission Special Repr esentative for a common readmissi on policy was appointed in 2005. 
                                                 
135 COM(2005) 621 final, COM(2006) 735 final, COM(2007) 247 final/2 and COM(2008) 611 final. 
136 SEC(2004) 1349, SEC(2006) 1010 and SEC(2009) 320. 
 
EN 37   EN Since 2004, 11 readmission agreemen ts have been concluded and have entered into force: 
Hong Kong, Macao, Sri Lanka, Albania, Russi an Federation, Montenegro, the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Bosn ia and Herzegovina, Ukraine and Moldova. 
Negotiations with Pakistan were successf ully completed in September 2008 and the 
agreement is in the process of ratification by both sides. The negotiations with Morocco and 
Turkey are still ongoing while the negotiations with China and Alge ria have not been initiated 
yet due to the refusal to enga ge from those two countries. The Commission also presented 
recommendations to the Council for obtai ning negotiating guidelines for readmission 
agreements with Cape Verde. 
The tools of the Global Approach  to migration have also been developed. These tools include 
migration missions, mobility partnerships, co operation platforms, circular migration and 
migration profiles. While the to ols still need to be  further developed and made broadly known 
among partners and stakeholde rs, they translate into a promising overall framework for 
external migration cooperation. In addition, a more innovative approach to readmission 
agreements, linking them to these tools and to clear political leverage  that can be obtained 
with a more flexible visa policy, coul d further increase the rate of success. 
The most promising tool – mobility partnershi ps – brings all migration and asylum-related 
issues together in a package deal with third country partners, in which Member States can 
participate on a voluntary basis. This mechanism is still in an early exploratory phase, and 
will need to be further teste d. Pilot mobility partnerships we re agreed in June 2008 between 
Moldova and 15 Member States and betwee n Cape Verde and 5 Member States; the 
Commission has subsequently been requested, together with the Council Presidency and 
interested Member States, to take explorator y talks forward with Senegal and Georgia.  
Cooperation with third countries has been facilitated by a number of EU financial 
instruments. More than 100 projects were co-funded under the AENEAS programme and 54 
new ones are now funded under the Thematic Progr amme of cooperation w ith third countries 
in the areas of migration a nd asylum. In addition, the "so lidarity and management of 
migration flows" financial pr ogramme also addresses issu es relating to return and 
readmission. 
Other funds were provided th rough the geographic instrument s, such as the MEDA, CARDS 
and the TACIS programmes, now replaced by the European Neighbourhood and Partnership 
Instrument (ENPI), the European Development Fund (EDF) for Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific region and the Development Cooperati on Instrument (DCI) for South Africa, the 
Middle east and Asian countries not cove red by the ENPI, and Latin America.  
Mobilisation of the various sources of f unding was of key importa nce to achieving the 
objectives set by the Hague programme. There is t hus a need to consider  how best to combine 
in future these various  resources in future (including funding from EU Member State and 
other outside sources). 
III. Future challenges 
Overall, the various instruments and tools of the Global Approach to Migration will need to 
be further consolidated as part of a compre hensive and balanced political and institutional 
framework of dialogue and cooperation. One of th e main institutional challenges will be to 
integrate migration more deeply into the overall  external relations of the European Union and 
the Member States. Another important challeng e is to enhance the methods through which 
 
EN 38   EN development cooperation funding are used for migra tion-related initiatives, in particular with 
regard to their complia nce with DAC/ODA criteria. Migration will also need to be integrated 
in a sustainable and coherent manner into other policy areas, such as trade, agriculture, 
employment, research and education and continue  to be further integrated into development 
policy. 
The Commission, the Member States and third- country governments should further enhance 
their capacity to implement th e large number and diverse ra nge of migration cooperation 
initiatives. Close coordination and synergies are crucial in order to ensure complementarity 
and avoid duplication of work.  
New issues and challenges need to be tackle d systematically. These include the long-term 
changes in the relationships be tween the European Union and other world regions that may 
affect migration and mobility, the effects if global population ageing and demographic 
challenges, global labour market dynamics  and the changing power balances through 
emerging markets and new major players, recu rrent political and eco nomic crises, climate 
change and migration. 
 
EN 39   EN 4. STRENGTHENING  SECURITY 
4.1. Improving the exchange of information 
I. Objectives The Hague Programme underlined the importance of  strengthening security as part of a major 
general programme to set up an area of freed om, security and justice. To this end, the 
programme called for an innovative approach to the cross-border  exchange of law 
enforcement information. It identified the "princip le of availability" as the guiding principle to 
achieve this goal, while fully protecting fundament al rights, such as the right to protection of 
personal data. In particular, the Programme se t out a number of specifi c actions including the 
retention of electronic comm unications data, simplifying the exchange of information and 
criminal intelligence between law enforcemen t authorities of the Member States, and 
exchange of information in specific areas such  as DNA and fingerprints.  The Action Plan also 
identified the exchange of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data as a specific means of 
strengthening security.  
II. Main developments 
The information-sharing priorities identified in  the Hague Programme led to the adoption of a 
number of legislative instruments and internat ional agreements, of which the main ones are 
listed below. 
Principle of availability 
The "principle of availability" implies that a law enforcement officer from one Member State 
can obtain information in the course of his dutie s from another Member State, and that a law 
enforcement agency in another Member State will make that information available for the 
stated purpose. 
In 2005, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Framework Decision on the exchange of 
information under the "principle of availability"
137. It laid down an approach whereby 
information, wherever available in the EU, can  be obtained by law enfo rcement officials to 
exercise their tasks under the same conditions as their peers in the Member State that controls 
the information. However, the proposal was ne ver adopted by the Council, as it coincided 
with the Prüm Treaty, which establishes meani ngful (albeit less wide) forms of online access 
to data, and in particular the intention of its  signatories to bring this Treaty within the 
framework of the EU. 
Exchange of information in specific areas (Prüm package) 
                                                 
137 COM(2005) 490 final. 
 
EN 40   EN Hence, the Commission supporte d the initiative of Germany138 and other signatories of the 
Prüm Treaty to transform the Treaty into a Council decision, which was adopted in 2008139 
after political agreement was r eached in a record time within the Council in June 2007.  
The Prüm Decision established the possibility fo r law enforcement authorities to gain direct 
access on a "hit/no-hit" basis to  decentralised DNA and fingerpr int databases, enabling them 
to find out whether DNA or fingerprint records ex ist, and to have full online access to vehicle 
registration databases. The Pr üm Decision is a general fr amework that needs to be 
implemented by further measures, as laid down in the accompanying implementing decision
140. In addition, the Commission carried out preparatory work and analysis on the 
establishment of an EU Criminal Automated Fi ngerprint Identification System (CAFIS). This 
kind of system could support and add to the Prüm  approach, in particular with a view to 
expanding the exchange of fingerprint data to  all 27 Member States, where a centralised 
system would be more effective and simpler to use. Europol has set up a pilot project with 4 
to 5 Member States to demonstrate the validity of the concept. 
Simplifying the exchange of information and criminal intelligence (Swedish Initiative) 
The above-mentioned proposal for a Framewor k Decision on the implementation of the 
"principle of availability" was drafted against the background of a legislative initiative that 
Sweden presented in 2004 to simplify the exchange of information and intelligence141. This 
so-called "Swedish initiative" was adopted by the Council in 2006142 and had to be 
implemented by 19 December 2008. This instrument  replaces the information exchange on 
the basis of articles 39 and 46 of the Schengen Convention, introduces an obligation to answer 
a request for information even if there is no information to be provided, and makes it possible 
to streamline procedures that require intervention by judicial authorities.  
Because the Prüm package and the "Swedish initi ative" were only recently adopted, it is too 
early yet to assess the impact on the exchange of information between Member States under 
the "principle of availability". The "Swedish initiative" is in the process of being implemented and its impact on enhancing information excha nge between Member States can only be fully 
assessed in the years to come.  
                                                
 
138 Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to the adoption of a Council 
Decision 2007/…/JHA of … on the implementation of Decision 2007/…/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime, OJ C 267, 
9.11.2007, p. 4.   
139 Council Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in 
combating terrorism and cross-border crime, OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1. 
140 Council Decision 2008/616/JHA on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up 
of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border, OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 12. 
141 Initiative of the Kingdom of Sweden with a view to adopting a Framework Decision on simplifying the 
exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of 
the European Union, in particular as regards seri ous offences including terrorist acts, OJ C 281, 
18.11.2004, p. 5. 
142 Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA of 18 December 2006 on simplifying the exchange of 
information and intelligence between law enforcem ent authorities of the Member States of the 
European Union, OJ L 386, 29.12.2006, p. 89. 
 
EN 41   EN As a result of the Prüm Decisi on and the "Swedish in itiative", the Council revived the ad-hoc 
group on information exchange, giving it a mandate to discuss implementation of those instruments. Member States are considering extending the mandate of this group to discuss 
the wider issue of information exchange in the area of police and judi cial cooperation. Within 
this group, the Commission will monitor and part icipate in the implementation of the Prüm 
Decision and the "Swedish initiative" in the years to come. 
Access to visa data (Visa Information System)  
The Council decision laying down the conditions  under which Member States' authorities 
responsible for internal security and Europol may access the VIS
143 was in response to the 
Council conclusions on this  issue of March 2005144. Member States' authorities responsible 
for internal security are given acc ess to the VIS in the course of their duties in relation to the 
prevention, detection and invest igation of criminal offences , including terrorist acts and 
threats, subject to compliance with the ru les governing the protection of personal data. 
Because the VIS package was only recently adopted, it is too early yet to assess its impact on 
the exchange of information between Member States  as part of the "princ iple of availability". 
Protection of personal data145  
In 2005, the Commission submitted a proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the 
protection of personal data processed in the fr amework of police and judicial co-operation in 
criminal matters. This proposal for a framework decision was adopted in 2008146 and is in 
response to the increased exchange of inform ation between EU Member States, notably under 
the "principle of availability", and to more re quests from Member States for law enforcement 
agencies to have access to immigration databa ses. The framework deci sion seeks to strike a 
balance between the necessary investigative tools of law enforcement in the fight against serious crime and the necessary protecti on of the private sphere of citizens. 
This instrument is applicable to cross-border exchanges of personal data as part police and 
judicial cooperation. Member States have to im plement the instrument within a period of two 
years following its adoption in November 2008; he nce it is too early yet for an assessment. 
Because of the sensitivity of access to an d use of personal data by law enforcement 
authorities, and also because this is the firs t instrument regulating this issue EU-wide, 
particular care has to be given to how it is implemented.  
The Commission will present an evaluation report five years after adoption of the instrument, 
which will allow sufficient experience to be gain ed with application of the instrument within 
the EU. One of the important issues to be looke d at will be whether this instrument should be 
applied also in future to domestic handling of personal data, its current scope being limited to 
cross-border data exchange.  
                                                
 
143 See footnote 124. 
144 Council document 6811/05, p. 15. 
145 On data protection in general, see section 2.1. 
146 Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data 
processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, OJ L 350, 
30.12.2008, p. 60. 
 
EN 42   EN Access to commercial data 
Data collected for commercial purposes that contain real-tim e and other information about 
travel and other trends have been identified by law enforcement agencies in the EU as 
providing additional information to help them in preventing and investigating terrorism and other serious crime. Similar trends can be observed outside the EU. So far three types of commercial data have been iden tified as enhancing law enforcem ent's capacity to protect the 
EU's internal security more effectively.  
Retention of electronic communications data  
Following the Madrid bombing, th e EU identified the collection of electronic communications 
data as a means of stepping up its internal security. Hence, the Action Plan required a 
legislative instrument to be adopted on the rete ntion of data processed in connection with the 
provision of public electronic communication services for the detection, investigation and 
prosecution of criminal offences.  
The Data Retention Directive
147 was adopted in 2006 following a Commission proposal148, 
and largely harmonised Member States' prov isions on the processing and retention of 
electronic communications traffic and location data, to the eff ect that data can be made 
available to police and judicial  authorities for the purpose of  the prevention, investigation, 
detection and prosecution of serious crime. It requires Memb er States to oblige providers of 
public electronic communications services and netw orks to retain communications traffic data 
for a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of 2 years. 
To date, all but 4 Member States have transpos ed the Directive. Member States had the right 
to opt to delay implementation of the directive's provisions relating to Inte rnet access, Internet 
telephony and internet e-mail until 15 March 20 09. Eighteen Member States have elected this 
option. The directive is at an advanced stage of implementation, but its impact on enhancing 
security can only be fully assessed in the year s to come because of the complexity of the 
retention of data, especially data transmitted via the Internet. 
The recitals to the directive implicitly acknow ledge that a number of areas addressed by the 
directive will require further cl arification, not least due to ra pidly developing technologies. 
For this reason, the Commission set up a data re tention experts group, which met for the first 
time in 2008. 
The Commission will continue to seek the advi ce of the experts group and work closely with 
Member States to ensure that this instrument has a positive effect on the instruments available 
to law enforcement authorities without jeopardis ing the functioning of the internal market and 
without impinging on data pr otection. An evaluation re port by the Commission on the 
application of the directive and its impact on operators and consumers is scheduled for 
September 2010.  
                                                 
147 Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention 
of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communicati ons networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, 
OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, p. 54. 
148 COM(2005) 438 final. 
 
EN 43   EN Access to Passenger Name Record data 
The Hague Programme asks the Commission “t o bring forward a proposal for a common 
approach to the use of Passe nger Name Records for law enforcement purposes”. A coherent 
legal framework is needed at EU level regard ing the obligation of ai r carriers to transmit 
passenger information to the rele vant law enforcement authorities for the purposes of the 
prevention, investigation, detection and pr osecution of organised crime and terrorism. 
Following an in-depth impact assessment, the Commission submitted a proposal for a 
Framework Decision in 2007149, which covers only international air travel. This instrument is 
still being discussed within the Council. 
Access to financial transactions data 
In June 2007, the United States Treasury Depart ment gave a set of Representations to the 
European Union in which the Treasury Departme nt undertook to process EU-originating data 
accessed from SWIFT by virtue of the US Tr easury's Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme 
(TFTP). The Representations established that SWIFT data will be processed exclusively for the fight against terrorism, that such data wi ll be deleted where they  are no longer necessary 
for the fight against terrorism and that in any event they will not be retained for longer than 
specified periods. The United States also acc epted that the Commission may appoint an 
"eminent European person" to verify its compliance with these unilateral commitments. The 
Commission designated the former French coun ter-terrorism Judge Je an-Louis Bruguière for 
this role. Judge Bruguière completed his firs t report in December 2008, which demonstrates 
that the United States Treasury Department  has implemented effective controls and 
safeguards which ensure protect ion of personal data subpoenaed  for the purpose of the TFTP 
Representations. Following his review of the TF TP and its privacy-related safeguards, Judge 
Bruguière formulated a series of recommenda tions to ensure that these measures are 
continued and, where possible, enhanced. As a result of the information Judge Bruguière had 
had access to during discussions with the US Tr easury Department, it can be concluded that 
since its inception the TFTP has been and conti nues to be of significa nt value in the fight 
against terrorism in  the United States, in Europe and beyond.
 
Strengthening external action  
EU-US PNR agreements In 2005, an EU team undertook a re view of the 2004 PNR agreemen t with the United States 
on the transfer of PNR data. The EU team conc luded that the US authorities had applied the 
agreement satisfactorily, in particular their U ndertakings to processing PNR data from the EU 
under certain conditions, and made a number of recommendations.  
Following the ruling of the Court of Justice of May 2006
150, in which the Court annulled the 
Council and Commission decisions (2004/ 496/EC and 2004/535/EC) allowing the 2004 
agreement to enter into force, the EU decide d to negotiate an interim agreement, which 
                                                 
149 COM(2007) 654 final. 
150 Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04, Parliament v. Council . 
 
EN 44   EN became applicable in October 2006 and expired at the end of July 2007151. A long-term PNR 
agreement was signed with the United States in July 2007, thus ensuring that there was no loophole once the 2006 interim PNR agreement expired
152. It is provisionally applicable and 
will enter into force as soon as all the Memb er States have fina lised their domestic 
consultation procedures. The agreement strikes a reasonable balance between the fight against 
terrorism and the data protection and preser vation of transatlantic passenger flows. The 
agreement provides for the United States to keep  EU-originated PNR data for 7 years, while 
allowing a further 8 years of retention on a "dor mant" basis (i.e. access after the 7 years will 
be much more restricted that during the first 7). In exchange, the United States accepted a 
joint review of the operation of the agreemen t by the Commissioner res ponsible of Justice, 
Freedom and Security and his US  counterpart, and gran ted EU citizens the possibility of filing 
complaints and having access to their own PNR da ta if so requested. The Agreement will be 
valid for seven years. 
A review of the 2007 US PNR agreement is scheduled for early 2009.  
Other PNR agreements 
An agreement on PNR has also  been signed with Canada153. A joint review of the operation of 
the agreement was carried out in November 20 08. The results of the joint review will be 
presented in 2009. The PNR agreement with Canada will expire on 22 September 2009. 
Canada has expressed its wish to continue its  co-operation with the EU on this matter.  
An EU-Australia PNR agreement became provisionally applicable in June 2008154. It only 
applies to EU-sourced PNR data for passengers tr avelling to, from or via Australia. Under the 
Agreement Australia undertakes to ensure that  the Australian Customs Service complies with 
its commitments regarding the processing of EU  PNR data. The Agreement will be valid for 
seven years. No joint review to assess implem entation of the Agreement has been held yet.  
A common feature of these PNR agreements is that  they provide legal ce rtainty for air carriers 
and EU-based reservation systems to transf er EU PNR data to third countries' law 
enforcement agencies in full compliance with EU data protection law. They also provide for the possibility of assessing implementation by means of a joint review. 
EU-US High Level Contact Group 
The EU-US High Level Contact Group on data  sharing and data protection for law 
enforcement purposes, set up in November 2006, assesses a more permanent solution to data 
                                                
 
151 Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and 
transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by  air carriers to the Unite d States Department of 
Homeland Security, OJ L 298, 27.10.2006, p. 29. 
152 Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and 
transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by  air carriers to the Unite d States Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) (2007 PNR Agreement), OJ L 204, 4.8.2007, p. 18. 
153 Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Canada on the processing of 
Advance Passenger Information and Passenger Name Record data, OJ  L 82, 21.3.2006, p. 15. 
154 Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of European 
Union-sourced passenger name record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian customs service, OJ 
L 213, 8.8.2008, p. 49. 
 
EN 45   EN protection issues re lating to the US-EU exchan ge of information. Since its was established, 
discussions have focused on identifying common data protection principles. The results of 
these discussions were set ou t in a final report of May 2008155 endorsed by both parties listing 
common language on 12 data protection principles. Th e report also stated that an international 
agreement is the best way forward to endorse these principles in US-EU data exchanges and identified a number of outstanding issues, includ ing judicial redress. The results of further 
expert talks were embodied in a declarati on adopted at the 2008 D ecember JHA Ministerial 
meeting in Washington
156. Talks are continuing on outstandi ng issues relating to the wider 
international relationship. Should these discu ssions come to a successful conclusion, 
negotiations could be opened between the EU and th e US to translate the results of these talks 
into a framework agreement on data protection . 
III. Future challenges 
Most of the instruments adopted under the "princ iple of availability" are of recent date and 
will be implemented over the coming years. This will be an important starting point for shaping an EU-wide policy on exchange of and access to information in the area of police and 
judicial cooperation, which will c ontinue to be a high policy prio rity for the EU. In addition, 
the external component of this po licy is likely to continue to play  a major role, not in the least 
because of the global scope of terrorist thr eats and organised crime, which call for ongoing 
interaction between the Europ ean Union and key partners. 
As regards the "principle of availability", the focus in the coming years must be on ensuring 
the effective implementation of the Prüm packag e and the "Swedish initiative". At the same 
time, however, there is a pressing need to esta blish an overarching strategic approach to law 
enforcement information exchange within th e EU. This strategy on information exchange 
should include an assessment of operational needs of Member States' law enforcement 
authorities and identify the most effective ways of delivering those information needs. This also implies an assessment of data protection ru les in the context of information exchange to 
ensure that these provide the requisite safe guards for citizens w ithout unduly restricting 
exchange of information.  
As regards requests for access to commercial data focus on electronic communications, PNR 
and financial transactions data, negotiations have to continue in the Council on the draft 
framework decision on establishing an EU PN R system. Depending on the outcome of these 
negotiations, the Commission will consider fu rther action within the framework of the 
information strategy.  
In the field of access to commercial data, prio rity should be given to implementing the Data 
Retention Directive, in particular by ca lling upon the expertise of the expert group 
accompanying this process and, if need be, the us e of infringement procedures in cases of 
non-compliance. 
The Framework Decision on data protection in  police and judicial cooperation provides many 
of the safeguards needed for efficient exchange of information. It remains to be seen whether 
                                                
 
155 Council document 9831/08. 
156 Council document 16477/08. 
 
EN 46   EN a more fundamental review of the current EU approach to data protection should also be 
undertaken. 
As part of the implementation of the Framew ork Decision, thought should be given to the 
manner in which the European Institutions and especially the Commi ssion should be advised 
on data protection in the area of  police and judicial cooperati on and on how to efficiently 
organise oversight.  
In the absence of a horizontal European Union instrument on the protection of personal data 
in police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the current approach is of the case-by-case variety and lacks harmonisatio n: data protection requirements  have been laid down in a 
variety of legislative texts and the scope a nd nature of these requirements depend on the 
specific objective the legislativ e texts aim to regulate and on the personal data exchanged. 
Apart from the Prüm decision, and the legislat ion on the SIS and the VIS, there are several 
other legislative texts that cont ain data protection requirements
157. In many of the above cases, 
more time is needed to observe the level a nd quality of the implementation by the Member 
States of these instruments, before consid ering whether harmonisation beyond the Framework 
Decision on data protection is necessary. To this  end, the following prio rities should be taken 
into account: 
• Monitoring the application of data pr otection requirements laid down in the 
relevant legal instruments, in particul ar the Framework Decision on the protection 
of personal data, with the aim to working towards furt her strengthening this policy 
area. In particular the Commission will issue an evaluation report on implementation.  
• Depending on how the EU's constitutional framework evolves, starting a more 
fundamental review of the existing EU approach to data protection. 
• Developing a new system of oversight a nd advice for the protection of personal 
data in the area of police and judicial cooperation. 
In terms of external action, in the light of the experien ce gained since 2003 with the 
negotiations of a number of PNR agreements with third countries, the time has come to draw 
lessons from those negotiations and to further deve lop the EU policy in this area. To this end, 
an EU strategy on the exchange of PNR data with third countries should be formulated. 
                                                
 
157 In this context, reference should be made in particular to: the Convention on the use of information 
technology for custom purposes related to the Customs Information System (CIS); the Convention on mutual assistance and cooperation between customs administrations; the Convention on Mutual 
Assistance in criminal matters of the European Union; Council Deci sion concerning arrangements for 
cooperation between financial intelligence units of  the Member States in respect of exchanging 
information; Council Decision on the exchange of information extr acted from the criminal record; 
Council Framework Decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings; Council Framework Decision on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement 
authorities of the Member States of the European Union; Council Decision setting up Eurojust; Council 
Decision establishing the Euro pean Police Office (Europol). 
 
EN 47   EN 4.2. Terrorism 
I. Objectives  The Hague Programme underlined the importan ce of effectively preventing and combating 
terrorism while fully respecti ng fundamental rights. To this  end, the Programme put strong 
emphasis on stepping up cooperation between the Member States with a view to protecting 
citizens and addressing the secur ity of the Union as a whole. Underlining the importance of 
implementing the EU and Action Plan
158 on combating terrorism, th e Programme identified a 
number of specific priorities for action includ ing preventing radicalisation and recruitment, 
combating the financing of terrorism, improv ing the security of explosives and their 
precursors, ensuring a high level of exchange  of information between security services, 
ensuring adequate assistance to victims of te rrorism and consolidati ng external action.  
II. Main developments  
The counter-terrorism priorities identified in the Hague Programme have led to significant 
progress on addressing the threat  of terrorism thr oughout the European Un ion. This process 
has included the adoption of numerous bindi ng and non-binding measures designed to 
enhance the capacity of all Member States to prev ent and combat terrorism. This effort is still 
in progress, however. Many159 of the tools developed have be en a success. Nevertheless, the 
emergence of new forms of terrorism, the n eed to make better use of new information 
technologies and security research, the full implementation of existing counter-terrorism 
measures and the identification of new tools will require a renewed dedication and commitment. 
The period of implementation of the Hague Progr amme has seen greater EU cooperation in 
the fight against terrorism and in particular be tter use of Europol and Eurojust. Both Europol 
and Eurojust have set up dedicated means to facilitate the exchange of counter-terrorism-
related information and increase operational co operation on the threat posed by transnational 
terrorism.  
In line with the EU Counter-Te rrorism Strategy of December 2005
160, the EU has focused its 
efforts on four main objectives: preventing, protecting, pursuing and responding. The main 
developments outlined below are complemented by other initiatives of relevance to the fight against terrorism, such as on crisis manage ment, civil protection, critical infrastructure 
protection, access to PNR and the external dimens ion, which are covered in  other sections of 
this chapter. 
Preventing radicalisation and recruitment 
Preventing radicalisation that can lead to acts of terrorism and recruitment is at the core of the 
"preventing" strand of the European Uni on's counter-terrorism policy. Following the 
                                                
 
158 Council document 10586/04. 
159 See also European Counc il "Declaration on combating terrorism", available at: 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms _Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/79637.pdf. 
160 Council document 14469/4/05 rev 4. 
 
EN 48   EN Communication on terrorist recruitment161, the Commission undertook a series of initiatives 
to deepen its knowledge of the radicalisati on processes and to identify good practices in 
tackling this phenomenon. 
The Commission set up an Expert Group on violen t radicalisation in 200 6, which produced a 
report in 2008 on the state of play of academic research in the field. The Commission also 
contracted four comparative studies162 on factors that could possibly trigger or affect violent 
radicalisation processes: the beliefs, ideologies  and narrative of violen t radicals; the methods 
through which violent radicals mobilise support for terrorism and find new recruits; and on 
best practices in cooperation in itiatives between authorities and civil society designed to 
prevent and respond to violent radicalisation. 
The studies provided an important backdrop fo r discussion surrounding the update of the EU 
Strategy163 and Action Plan at the end of 2008 by th e Council and constitute an important 
starting point for further discussions in th e field within the network of experts on 
radicalisation set up by the Commission.  
The Commission also held a conference in 2007 on the role of education in preventing 
radicalisation, which brought t ogether educators, religious leaders and policy-makers. An 
analysis of the responses to a questionnaire sent  to the Member States to map out policies to 
address violent radicalisation was also shared with the Member States. 
Through its funding programme on "Preve ntion of and Fight Against Crime"164, the 
Commission has given financial support to projects that tack le radicalisation leading to 
terrorism. An intermediate evaluation of this fund will be finalised in 2010. A joint Austrian-
French-German project produced in the produc tion of a "Handbook of Good Practices" to 
tackle radicalisation within prisons, which will se rve as a basis for more work at the EU level. 
Another six projects ar e currently underway.  
Radicalisation leading to acts of terrorism is  a non-linear and multi-stag e process of varying 
duration. There are multiple pathways to the proc ess and no single root cause for it. However, 
a number of contributing factors ma y be singled out as facilitato rs. Individuals who have been 
involved in terrorist activities exhibit a diversity of social backgrounds and have been 
influenced by various combinations of motiv ations during their di verse radicalisation 
processes. The studies contracted by the Commission and other recent research165 reveal that 
                                                 
161 COM(2005) 313 final. 
162 Compagnie Européenne d'Intelligence Stratégique (CEIS), Paris, "Les facteurs de création ou de 
modification des processus de radicalisation violente, chez les jeunes in particulier"; The Change Institute, London, "Beliefs, ideology and narratives"; King's College, London, "Recruitment and 
Mobilisation for the Islamist Militant Movement in Europe"; The Change Institute, London, "Study on 
best practices in cooperation between authorities a nd civil society with a view to the prevention and 
response to violent radicalisation". These studies are available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/terrorism/prevention/fsj_terrorism_prevention_prevent_en.htm.  
163 Council document 15175/08. 
164 Council Decision 2007/125/JHA of 12 February 2007 establishing for the period 2007 to 2013, as part 
of the General Programme on Security and Safeguar ding Liberties, the Specific Programme ‘Prevention 
of and Fight against Crime’, OJ L 58, 24.2.2007, p. 7. 
165 Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/terrorism/prevention/fsj_terrorism_prevention_prevent_en.htm. 
 
EN 49   EN radicalisation is a social phenomenon and does not normally take place in isolation. Despite 
the diverse social contexts within which radi calisation takes place, which should always be 
kept in mind, the studies also reveal that the trends, manifestations and dynamics of 
radicalisation leading to act s of terrorism exhibit striki ng similarities across Europe. 
In parallel with this non-legislative wor k, in 2007, the Commission proposed an amendment 
to the Framework Decision on combating terrorism166 designed to incorporate the specific 
offences of public provocation, training and re cruitment to terrorism as criminal offences, 
following the ground-breaking Convention on the pr evention of terrorism  of the Council of 
Europe. This amendment was adopted by the Council in 2008167, and thus it is too early to 
assess its impact. 
That said, Member States' implementation of the original Framework Decision on combating 
terrorism168 has been assessed twice: the first evaluation report  was adopted in 2004 and 
covered Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France,  Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, 
Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom169; and the second report wa s adopted in 2007 and 
covered all Member States except Romania and Bulgaria170. The last report concluded that 
implementation is generally sati sfactory, despite a numbe r of major issues concerning specific 
Member States. In particular, it was stated that  the definition of terrorist offences raised 
concerns in some Member States , such as a catalogue  of terrorist offences was missing, only a 
very general definition was applicable, and ev en the definition of a terrorist offence was 
completely lacking in one Member State. A staff working paper accompanying this report171 
contains a detailed analysis of national m easures taken to comply with the Framework 
Decision, plus a table specifying, in accordance with the information received by the Commission, the national provisions tr ansposing each of the articles.  
Since terrorism affects the secur ity of all EU citizens, and si nce both radicalising efforts and 
planning of violent activities ar e often coordinated across differe nt countries by individuals or 
groups espousing a similar ideo logy, EU action that  is complementary to Member States' 
efforts should be beneficial and is likely to reduc e the threat of radicalisation that may lead to 
acts of terrorism.  
Combating the financing of terrorism  
The Hague Programme emphasised the importance of measures to combat the financing of 
terrorism. It called for existing instruments to be made more efficient, such as the monitoring 
of suspicious financial flows and the freezing of  assets, and for new tools dealing with cash 
transactions and the institutions involved in them. In addition, the Action Plan stressed the 
importance of preventing the misuse of charitabl e organisations for the financing of terrorism. 
                                                
 
166 COM(2007) 650 final. 
167 Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28 November 2008 amending Framework Decision 
2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism, OJ L 330, 9.12.2008, p. 21. 
168 Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism, OJ L 164, 
22.6.2002, p. 3. 
169 COM(2004) 409 final. 
170 COM(2007) 681 final. 
171 SEC(2007) 1463. 
 
EN 50   EN A broad range of instruments have been adopte d. In terms of the impact of these measures, 
the Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money 
laundering and terrorist financing172 helped to improve the detecting of suspicious financial 
flows as it extended the obliga tion to report on suspicious  transactions beyond financial 
institutions also to designate d non-financial businesses and pr ofessions, such as casinos, 
lawyers and others. Better monitoring of fi nancial flows was also  facilitated by the 2006 
regulation laying down rules for payment servic e providers to send information on the payer 
throughout the payment chain173. This is done for the purposes  of prevention, investigation 
and detection of money launderi ng and terrorist financing. The regulation transposes Special 
Recommendation VII (SRVII) of the Financial Acti on Task Force (FATF) into EU law and is 
part of the EU Plan of Action to Combat Te rrorism. In terms of legislation concerning the 
freezing of funds of suspected terrorists, th e Commission made suitable amendments to 
ensure that the lists of persons and entities whose assets have to be frozen are kept up-to-date. 
As regards new tools de signed to combat the risks caused by cash transactions, a regulation 
on controls of cash entering or leav ing the Community was adopted in 2005174. Under this 
legislation, travellers enteri ng the EU from or leaving th e EU for a thir d country with  € 
10,000 or more  in cash are required to make a written declaration. 
Finally, progress has been made on preventing the misuse of ch aritable organisations for the 
financing of terrorism. In 2005, the Commi ssion submitted a Communication on this issue175, 
which contained a code of conduct for non- profit organisations plus a number of 
recommendations. In December 2005, the Council ag reed on five principl es that should be 
taken into account when implementing measures  aimed at preventing te rrorist abuse of the 
non-profit sector176. These principles, together with the FATF Interpretative Note to Special 
Recommendation VIII adopted  in 2006, provide a basis fo r further Commission policy 
development. In addition, the Commission has launc hed two studies in this context and held 
two important meetings, in April 2008 and Fe bruary 2009, with non-pr ofit organisations and 
representatives from public authorities to di scuss the outcome of th ese studies, which will 
serve as a basis for future  proposals in this area. 
The 2004 EU Strategy Paper on the Fight agains t Terrorism Financing was revised in 2008 
and endorsed by the Council in 2008177. This revised strategy aligns  the core objectives of the 
EU and Commission’s work in th e fight against terrorist financing with current terrorist 
financing trends and threats. Some of the key issues in this regard include: 
• Making efficient use of financial intellig ence in terrorism-related investigations.  
                                                 
172 Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the 
prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 15. 
173 Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 
on information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds, OJ L 345, 8.12.2006, p. 1. 
174 Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on 
controls of cash entering or leaving the Community, OJ L 309, 25.11.2005, p. 9. 
175 COM(2005) 620 final.  
176 Council document 14390/05, p. 31. 
177 Council document 11778/1/08 rev 1. 
 
EN 51   EN • Promoting the use of financial investigati on as a law enforcement technique in the 
EU-27 through common minimum training standards. 
• Continuing to address the potential misuse of non-profit organisations for terrorist 
purposes. 
Improving the security of explosives and their precursors  
A major landmark in the area of security of explosives wa s the adoption by the Council in 
2008 of the Action Plan on Enhanci ng the Security of Explosives178, following a 2007 
Communication179. The Action Plan contains some 50 spec ific measures to be taken and is 
builds on the work of the Explosives Security  Experts Task Force (ESETF), a forum of 
around 100 experts representing public and privat e stakeholders that was convened by the 
Commission in 2007.  
In order to reduce the availability and accessibi lity of chemical precursors to explosives, a 
Standing Committee on Precursors,  composed of experts from both the public and the private 
sector, was established. The Co mmission will use the Committee' s conclusions as a basis for 
suggesting new concrete measures.  
Priorities identified in the Action Plan on Enha ncing the Security of Explosives are in the 
process of being implemented, many of them funded from the 2008 "Prevention of and Fight 
Against Crime" financial programme. Closer cooperation on response to  incidents involving 
explosives will be enhanced through the European Explosive Ordnance Disposal Network set up in 2008. Response to incidents involving explos ives will also be improved through better 
information exchange via the European Bomb Data System, currently under development by 
Europol, supported by EU funding. Funding was also provided for the inst allation of an EU-
wide Early Warning System, which will serve to notify the authorities of any potential threats 
following missing or stolen explosives. Work on detection-related issues at EU level will be 
enhanced by contributions from a Network on the Detection of Explosives, which will provide expertise and support the Commission in its initiatives and activitie s in this sphere.  
A number of other initiatives have also grea tly contributed to enhancing the security of 
explosives. In particular, better identification and traceability of explosives has been enabled 
by the adoption of a Commission Directive
180, security of the transport of explosives has been 
enhanced by a 2008 Directive181, and the risk related to certai n precursors has been decreased 
by the amendment of the old Council Directive 76/769/EEC, which limits sales of highly concentrated ammonium nitrate fertiliser to the general public
182.  
                                                 
178 Council document, 8311/08. 
179 COM(2007) 651 final. 
180 Commission Directive 2008/43/EC of 4 April 2008 setting up, pursuant to Council Directive 
93/15/EEC, a system for the identification and traceab ility of explosives for civil uses, OJ L 94, 
5.4.2008, p. 8. 
181 Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on the 
inland transport of dangerous goods, OJ L 260, 30.9.2008, p. 13. 
182 Decision No 1348/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 
amending Council Directive 76/769/EEC as regards restrictions on the marketing and use of 2-(2-
methoxyethoxy)ethanol, 2-(2-butoxye thoxy)ethanol, methylenediphenyl diisocyanate, cyclohexane and 
ammonium nitrate, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 108. 
 
EN 52   EN Other measures  
A significant effort has been made to provid e support for victims of terrorist acts through 
funding of projects geared to th e protection of terrorism victims. The specific impact of these 
measures will be assessed in due course as most of the projects are still ongoing. Most 
projects achieved their aims  and helped to increase the capacity of victims’ support 
organisations and, directly or i ndirectly, the victims of terrorist  act themselves. These projects 
have successfully demonstrated the case for Co mmission involvement in this field and the 
scope for an enhanced engagement in this respect. 
III. Future challenges 
Despite the efforts made, the number of terrorist attacks co ntinues to increase in the EU183. 
According to Europol, 583 terrorist attacks were  recorded in the EU in 2007, 91% of which 
were perpetrated by separatist terrorists. Th e use of home-made explosives continues to 
increase and there is a rapidl y growing amount of terrorist pr opaganda being distributed over 
the Internet; the number of suspect terrorist arre sted in the EU is also on the increase. These 
figures confirm that renewed commitment is n eeded to addressing the terrorist threat.  
Priorities in the area of prevention of radicalisation and recruitment  should focus on 
devising long-term strategies that make ex tremist ideologies unapp ealing, targeting those 
actively promoting the ideology and the place s where it is propagated including on the 
internet.  
The EU must help to engage with civil society and thus to establish st able, genuine and lasting 
partnerships to address the phenomenon. As the EU continues to deepen its knowledge and 
understanding of the phenomenon, through linking up more with academics and experts in the 
field, policies must continue to be de vised and updated accordingly. The use of 
communication strategies as and enabling tool for delivery will continue to be a crucial aspect in successfully countering this phenomenon. 
Combating the financing of terrorism  continues to be a high prio rity. In this context, the 
Commission has commissioned two studies on non-profit organisations, one on their 
vulnerability in terms of financial crime, including terrorist financing, and one on their 
transparency and accountability. Working in cl ose cooperation with th e Counter-terrorism 
Coordinator, the Commission will use the results of these studies to guide further actions.  
The EU still faces a number of challenges with regard to the security of explosives and their 
precursors .  
Implementation of the Action Plan on Enhancing the Security of Explosives by all parties 
involved (European Institutions, Me mber States, private actors) should remain a priority. The 
challenge will be to support and supervise implementation by appropriate means, including 
financial support via the "Prevention of and Fight Against Crime" financial programme.  
                                                
 
183 Europol, EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report TE-SAT 2008, available at: 
http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/E U_Terrorism_Situation_and_Trend_Report_TE-
SAT/TESAT2008.pdf. 
 
EN 53   EN A harmonised framework for regulating precursors to explosives should be considered. On the 
one hand, the work of the Sta nding Committee on precursors has shown so far that there is a 
high need and demand for better regulation of pr ecursors to explosives. On the other hand, it 
has also shown that whilst effective and accepta ble regulation would increase the security of 
precursors not creating disproportionate burdens on industry pos es a challenge.  
 
EN 54   EN 4.3. Police cooperation  
I. Objectives  The Hague Programme placed strong emphasis on improving law enforcement cooperation 
and developing the Schengen acquis  in the field of cross-borde r cooperation. It underlined the 
importance of a specific programme of exchange  of law enforcement officers and identifying 
actions to improve operational cooperation.  
The Programme also stressed the need for inte nsified practical coope ration between Member 
States' police and customs authorities as well as  with Europol and Eurojust. Joint customs, 
police and/or judicial operati ons should become a frequent tool of practical cooperation.  
II. Main developments  Improvement of law enforcement cooperation and development of the Schengen acquis  
in respect of cross-border operati onal law enforcement cooperation  
Europol has become a key contributor to this  kind of cooperation. Customs co-operation in 
the 3
rd pillar has also been strengthened. 
Europol has made for a better understanding of organised crime in Europe through its annual 
"European Organised Crime Threat Assessment"184 (OCTA). The priorities established by the 
Council every two years on the basis of the OC TA conclusions help to improve how police 
forces operate within the EU. Putting these prio rities into practice was the subject of a report 
by the Council General Secretariat in 2007185. Europol has also developed specific 
cooperation tools, such as the Information Syst em and the Analytical Work Files (AWF). The 
Information System was based on Member States  and Europol contributions (the latter, for 
data originating from third pa rties and AWF) and can be dire ctly consulted by authorised 
national units, liaison officers a nd Europol officers. The number  of record introduced is 
constantly growing but still below the actual cap acity of the system, which limits the chances 
of finding useful matches. Evalua tion tools have been introduced  to help increase the quality 
and level of the use of the Information System. 
The Analytical Work Files provide police servi ces in Member States with data on specific 
categories of crime. Currently there are 18 AW P focusing on different crime phenomena, such 
as credit card fraud or synthetic drugs tra fficking. The transfer of AWF should reduce the 
processing time up to 90% and improve Europol's analytical capabilities. A protocol to the 
Europol Convention entered into force in 2007186 and allows Member States representatives 
and third organisations with which Eur opol has concluded operational cooperation 
agreements to exchange personal data and pa rticipate to the AWF system. Eurojust is 
associated to 12 of the 18 AWF. 
                                                 
184 Available at: http://www.europol.eur opa.eu/index.asp?page=publications. 
185 Council document 8102/3/08 rev 3. 
186 Council Act of 27 November 2003 drawing up, on the basis of Article 43(1) of the Convention on the 
Establishment of a European Police Office (Eur opol Convention), a Protocol amending that 
Convention, OJ C 2, 6.1.2004, p. 1. 
 
EN 55   EN Europol is consequently at th e heart of the exchange of in formation within the EU, which 
means that Member States should he lp it run smoothly and efficiently. 
A 2005 Council decision187 designated Europol as the central office for combating Euro 
counterfeiting. In fulfilling this  mandate, Europol closely coope rates with EU Member States, 
Europol’s partners and the European Central Bank (ECB). This status also qualifies Europol 
as the worldwide contact point for combating euro counterfeiting. 
In May 2007, Europol joined forces with th e ECB in the Hague to organise the first 
international conference on the protection of the Euro against count erfeiting. The project on 
euro counterfeiting spawned several initiativ es focusing on operational action inside and 
outside the European Union and the Euro area. A number of operations carried out by the law 
enforcement authorities responsible were c oncluded with the support of Europol. For 
example, the largest ever seizure of counterfeit  Euro banknotes outsid e Europe was made on 
28 August 2008 in the capital of Colombia, Bo gota. The police operatio n was carried out by 
the Colombian National Police jointly supported  by officers from the Spanish Brigada de 
Investigacion del Banco de Espana and Europol: counterfeit money with a face value of more 
than € 11 million was seized. 
The Council Decision establishi ng Europol and replacing th e Convention will give the 
European Police Office greater operational flexib ility to respond more ra pidly to trends in 
crime188. It will extend Europol's powers to all serious cross-border crime phenomena and 
give it the status of a European Agency. Th e role of the European Parliament will be 
strengthened since its budgetary powers will ma ke it possible to exert stricter control on 
Europol's activities. 
The new Europol Decision will also improve Eu ropol's effectiveness in supporting Member 
States' police forces and thus step up police c ooperation and the fight against certain forms of 
serious crime and terrorism. A revised Coopera tion Agreement between Eurojust and Europol 
has been approved by the Council in June 2009189, replacing the old 2004 agreement. This 
agreement establishes and reinforces the close cooperation between the two bodies in order to 
increase their effectiveness in combating serious  forms of international crime which fall in the 
respective competence, and to avoid duplication of  work. In particular, this will be achieved 
through the exchange of operational, strategic,  and technical information, as well as the 
coordination of activities.  
Europol currently produces an annual activity re port, which is sent to the Council and is 
publicly accessible on the internet; the last version covers 2007 activities190. The new Council 
Decision provides for the Europol management board to request an independent external 
                                                 
187 Council Decision 2005/511/JHA of 12 July 2005 on protecting the euro against counterfeiting, by 
designating Europol as the Central Office for combating euro counterfeiting, OJ L 185, 16.7.2005, p. 
35.  
188 Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 esta blishing the European Police Office (Europol), OJ 
L 121, 15.5.2008, p. 37. 
189 Not yet published on the Official Journal. 
190 Available at: 
http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/A nnual_Reports/Annual%20Report%202007.pdf. 
 
EN 56   EN evaluation of the implementation of the Europol decision and activ ities every four years. This 
report will be addressed to the European Parl iament, to the Council and to the Commission.  
9 operational cooperation agreements191 and 19 strategic agreements192 are in force between 
Europol and third parties. 10 op erational cooperation agreements193 and 1 strategic 
agreement194 are under negotiations. 
Police – customs cooperation 
The Council approved three Actions Plans for the strategy for customs cooperation in the 
third pillar195. 40 actions have been carried out in th e implementation of the customs strategy 
in the third pillar. These cen tred on new forms of coopera tion and improving the existing 
cooperation processes. The Customs Cooperatio n Working Group – where the Commission is 
fully associated – introduced a new kind of working method to implement the Action Plan, 
based on "project groups". The Commission took part  in most part of the project groups and 
funded some of them.  
A report on the implementation of the work  programme concerning customs cooperation 
during the period 2004-2006 was presented to the Council in 2007196. It concluded that this 
has made a significantly contribu tion to efforts in the customs domain to boost the area of 
justice, freedom and security within the EU.  
Joint operational police and customs actions focuse d on different threats, some of them more 
customs-orientated but often the police forces  involved. 13 Joint Custom s Operations (JCOs) 
mainly targeted smuggling and criminal groups i nvolved in illicit activit ies concerning drugs, 
weapons, cigarettes and other highly taxed goods . The basic aim of JCOs is to improve the 
fight against smuggling drugs and other sensitive goods, and to step up operational cooperation between customs administrations. The vast majority of these JCOs have been 
funded by the EU programmes AGIS and its successor ISEC ("Prev ention of and fight against 
crime"), managed by the European Commission. 
Operations "Conquest 2" (targeting heroin, co caine and others drug smuggling in maritime 
transport of containers, bulk goods  and single consignments), "Fireball" (countering firearms 
smuggling) or "Red Nose"(fight against smugg ling of cocaine by air passengers) are only a 
few of the success stories. The Commission also  provided technical s upport and Europol is 
also becoming increasingly involved.  
                                                
 
191 Interpol, Norway, Iceland,  USA, Eurojust, Canada, Switzerland, Croatia, Australia. 
192 EMCDDA, USA, ECB, WCO, European Commissi on, Russia, UNODC, OLAF, Turkey, Colombia, 
SitCen, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, Moldova, FYROM, Frontex, Cepol, Montenegro, Serbia (the last two still to be ratified), ESDP civilian missions. 
193 Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Colombia, ESDP  EuLex Kosovo civilian missions, FYROM, Israel, 
Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Russia. 
194 Ukraine. 
195 Implementation and evaluation of the work programme concerning customs cooperation approved by 
the JHA Council on 30 March 2004 following the Council Resolution of 2 October 2003 on a strategy 
for customs cooperation (2004-2006). The Article 36 Committee approved the first 3–year Action Plan 
in December 2003 (Doc. 15315/2/93 rev 2.) In 2 006 and 2008, the Article 36 Committee approved the 
second and third action plan (Doc. 13424/2/06 rev 2 and 8284/1/08 rev 1) for periods of 18 months: 
2007-first half 2008 and second half 2008/2009). 
196 Council document 5674/07. 
 
EN 57   EN It is important to continue to support the setting-up and development of Joint Police and 
Customs Co-operation Centres (PCCCs) through funding and awareness -raising initiatives. 
Sharing of best practices to  specify further needs for im provement, and the creation and 
maintenance of a common methodology manual for setting up of joint customs and police operations should also be encouraged. 
Exchange programmes between law enforcement agencies 
The European Police College (CEPOL) began to operate as a European agency in 2006 and in 
the first year organised 62 tr aining-related activities (i.e. courses, seminars, exchange 
conferences) with 1,368 participan ts; in 2007 the number of these activities rose to 85 with 
1,922 participants. In 2007 the attendance was only 70% of the planned rate.  
The first exchange programme on a European scale was carried out by means of an AGIS 
funded project of which CEPOL was the benefi ciary. The project be gan in 2006 and was 
completed in 2008, and benefitted from a to tal grant of € 1.6 million. It involved 135 
participants (police officers a nd trainers) from 20 countries in 2006 and 25 countries in 2007.  
Assessments of the final results and outcomes of the exchange project will be essential to 
gauge the effectiveness of this kind of action and whether they should be promoted along the 
same lines in future. In the meantime, the Commission has agreed to co-fund CEPOL on this 
initiative – for 2009 only – to the tune of € 510,000.  
As regards Europol, the training programme needs to be continued in order to improve police 
officers' knowledge of how CEPOL works and what its potential is.  
The Commission will need to review the financi ng processes of its Programme to ensure that 
EU funds are more readily available and th erefore to provide a quicker response to 
operational needs (such as setting up Joint Investigation Teams or JITs). 
Improving operational cooperation 
The financial programme "Preven tion of and Fight against Crime" is a major tool for carrying 
out exchange programmes. Furthermore, the programme introduced a new form of 
cooperation based on larger, multi- annual projects with broader impact at EU level.  
In particular, in 2007 € 3.5 million was allocate d to law enforcement cooperation to set up 
JITs and to support Comprehensive Operationa l Strategic Planning fo r the Police (COSPOL). 
Initiatives to support cooperation with Eu ropol had an € 800,000 budget. In 2008, the budget 
for implementation of the Prüm Treaty was € 3.8 million and for the fight against crime and 
supporting cooperation € 4 million. The same budget also set aside € 4.6 million in support of 
law enforcement cooperation. In 2009, the Commission has earmarked € 40.6 million for co-financing transnational and na tional projects and € 8 million for framework partners to 
enhance operational cooperation and cooperation with Europol. 
About 40 JITs have been the set up during the Hague Programme. Currently, Europol is 
associated to 3 JITs and took pa rt to 5 JITs, now closed. Moreove r, 8 "threat assessments" on 
different subjects (drugs, cigarett es and mineral oils, firearms, pr ecursors, etc.) were delivered 
by customs administrations within the rem it of the Customs Cooperation Working Party. 
Further work is needed to improve the use of JITs and the potential of existing bodies should 
be tapped more fully. Europol and Eurojust should be more clearly involved in the 
 
EN 58   EN investigation phase of cross-bo rder organised crime cases and in JITs. Joint customs, police 
and/or judicial operations should become a fr equent tool of practic al cooperation, and how 
JITs operate, in legal and operatio nal terms, should  be evaluated to them an every-day tool in 
the cross-border fight against crime. This ge neral assessment was also confirmed by a study 
conducted by the Europ ean Parliament in 2009197, which also stressed the need for Member 
States to make more extensive use of this instrument.  
The Task Force of EU Police Chiefs was established in 1999 as an operational liaison 
mechanism for European police forces to exchan ge, in cooperation with  Europol, experiences, 
best practices and information on cross-bor der crime trends, thereby improving the 
organisation of police operations . Since its first meeting, 45 items have been put on the 
agenda of the strategic and/or operational meetings. Following these discussions, various 
initiatives were launched, which were then e ndorsed by the Council and le d to the adoption of 
legal acts, the establishment of experts netw orks and to the opening of COSPOL projects, 
some of which registered good results. The COSPOL project on illegal immigration, for 
example, was supported by the AWF CHECKPOINT , has been the basis for many operations, 
including the "Trufas" operation that led to the arrest  of 65 people, and the "Pigeon" operation 
that led to the arrest of 21 people. The quasi-systematic ali gnment of Europol AWF and the 
Task Force of EU Police Chiefs' COSPOL project s gave the Task Forc e better analytical 
support to coordinate operations and dismantle organised crime networks. Currently, the Task 
Force of EU Police Chiefs ma nages 7 COSPOL projects.  
The alignment effort between COSPOL and AW F should be continued, either by changing 
the action plan in support to this COSPOL pr oject, or by changing the opening order of the 
corresponding AWF, or even by creating new AWFs (a AWF on organised crime making use 
of ICT technologies has been established in 2009). 
The minimum standards for the cross-border use of  investigation techniques, mentioned in the 
Action Plan, were not drawn up because consulta tions with MS did not  show any immediate 
interest in taking this  project forward.  
III. Future challenges 
In a Europe there are no longer any internal  borders, the Commission aims to prevent and 
fight against all forms of cross-border crime. This  objective is translated into measures to help 
Member States combating the threats to civil society more effectively.  
Since operational activities fall under Member Stat es' responsibility and legal instruments in 
most cases already exist, the role of the Commission will ma inly consist of supporting and 
catalysing Member States' resources and initiati ves and helping to build  their capabilities, 
notably by establishing  networks and providing financial support for transnational projects. 
The Commission will also monitor the implementa tion of the EC instruments, facilitate access 
to information and shelp increase cross-border cooperation. 
                                                 
197 European Parliament, "Implementation of the European Arrest Warrant and the Joint Investigation 
Teams at EU and National level", 2009, available at: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/s tudies/download.do?language=en&file=24333. 
 
EN 59   EN The Commission should make full use of the secu rity research agenda, and push for an ever 
more innovation in security appl ications and systems in a bi d to understand the problems and 
how best to respond to them. These efforts shoul d be made in close cooperation with both the 
private and public sectors. Ne w technology has a key role to play. Police cooperation based 
on new technologies is the cornerstone for su ccessful cooperation among Member States. 
Efficient and effective use of technologies in al l areas of justice, freedom and security policies 
should be at the heart of our approach to security , in combination with greater use of results of 
socio-economic research in the field. 
Developing Europol' s role to provide intelligence-led law enforcement at European level is 
crucial.  
An open reflection should be launched on the ove rall architecture of internal security to 
counter existing needs and threats. The scaling-up  of threats and the development of European 
means of internal security highl ight the need for be tter coordination and for more thought tobe 
put into this. 
As regards training, extending CEPOL courses to specialized middle rank police officers 
could further spread the cultu re of cooperation in Europe. Following on from the Erasmus 
programme for university students, a situation might also be envisaged whereby every police 
officer who is a candidate for an internati onal cooperation position w ould have to spend a 
period in a law enforcement department of anot her Member State. Following the evaluation of 
CEPOL's performance to be carried out by 2011, it could be envisaged the regrouping of all 
police and customs' training activities at European level within Europol.  
 
EN 60   EN 4.4. Management of crises within th e EU with cross-border effects  
I. Objectives  The Hague Programme emphasised the importance of effective management of crises with 
cross-border effects on citizens,  critical infrastructure and public order and security. The 
Programme specifically addressed the issue of strengthening civil pr otection and critical 
infrastructure and called for the establishment of integrated and coordinated EU crisis-management arrangements. 
II. Main developments  Critical infrastructure protection 
Implementation of the Hague Programme incl uded the establishment of the European 
Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP)
198, which provided a horizontal 
platform for critical infrastructure protecti on activities in the Eur opean Union. The EPCIP 
policy package included a numbe r of interlinking initiatives  aiming at enhancing the 
protection of critical infrastructure in the EU, in particular measures designed to facilitate the implementation of EPCIP, including an EPCI P Action Plan; the Critical Infrastructure 
Warning Information Network (CIWIN); the use of CIP expert groups  a t  E U  l e v e l ;  C I P  
information-sharing processes and the identification and analysis of interdependencies; the 
identification and designation of European Critic al Infrastructure and the assessment of the 
need to improve protection of such infrastructu re (addressed in detail by way of a proposed 
Directive); optional support for Member States concerning National Critical Infrastructures 
(NCI); contingency planning; and an external dimension. 
The process of identifying and de signating European Critical Infrastructure in specific sectors 
was put forward in a 2006 proposal for a direc tive on the identificatio n and designation of 
European Critical Infrastructure
199, which was adopted by the Council in 2008200. This 
directive focuses in the first phase on two key sectors: energy and transport. Other sectors 
(including the ICT and financial sectors) ma y be included in the future, following an 
assessment of the impact of the directive.  
The first evaluation on threats, risks and vulnera bilities encountered in each European Critical 
Infrastructure sector will be done in 2010-2012. It will show whether other measures are needed at the EU level. Work has also adva nced on the establishment of the CIWIN system, 
which will facilitate the exch ange of information concerni ng EU trans-boundary critical 
infrastructures. A proposal for a decisi on establishing CIWIN was adopted by the 
Commission in 2008
201.  
                                                 
198 COM(2006) 786 final. 
199 COM(2006) 787 final. 
200 Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European 
critical infrastructures and the assessment of th e need to improve their protection, OJ L 345, 
23.12.2008, p. 75. 
201 COM(2008) 676 final. 
 
EN 61   EN Good progress was recorded in mo st areas of work of the EP CIP and the CIP Expert groups 
started their work. Two new expert groups ar e planned to be created in 2009, which will 
establish criteria for the identification of criti cal infrastructures in the financial and chemical 
sectors. The first results of the work of the three expert groups are expected by the end of 
2009.  
Assessing the impact of a policy designed to increase the resilience and the protection of 
infrastructure is clearly very difficult. It will ne ver be possible to completely eliminate the risk 
of serious disruptions to services provided by infrastructures. Nevertheless, the EPCIP has 
taken a significant step toward s minimising the risk of such disruptions and adverse cross-
border effects.  
It is still too early to perform a comprehensiv e evaluation of the success of EPCIP. It should 
be noted, however, that the process of deve loping EPCIP already produced several positive 
results. The broad consultations  undertaken among all stakeholde rs resulted in a higher level 
of awareness of critical infras tructure protection issues. Mee tings of national CIP Contact 
Points upped the exchange of information betw een Member States. The associated financial 
programme provided considerable funding fo r CIP-related activities, including the 
identification of good practices that could be shared among Member States. Finally, 
discussion on the EPCIP helped to establish na tional CIP strategies in a number of Member 
States. Implementation of the dire ctive on European Critical Infrastructure will add to this 
positive process. 
Among the financial programmes, the "Pre vention, Preparedness and Consequence 
Management of Terrorism and other Security related Risks" specific financial programme 
provides financial support for critical infr astructure protection. Projects under the 2007 
Annual Programme are currently ongoing, and the first results should be available in 2009. 
The Commission has also contracted 4 studies  under the 2007 Work pr ogramme, which will 
help to develop this policy field further (criti cal dependencies of energy, finance and transport 
on ICT infrastructure; risk governance of Europ ean critical infrastructure in the ICT and 
energy sector; feasibility study on the European network of Secu re test Centres for Reliable 
ICT – Controlled Critical Energy Infrastructu res (SCADA); stocktaking of existing Critical 
Infrastructures Protection activities). The first results of the studies will be available in 2009.  
Civil protection  
The Community Civil Protection Mechanism202 has developed into a genuine multi-threat 
instrument for helping participa ting States to respond to major disasters, and to prepare for 
them. Furthermore, the Commission has launched activities designed to integrate aspects of 
disaster prevention into an overall approach to disaster management. 
Some 20 requests for assistance are received yearly by the Commission and the Mechanism is 
tasked with coordinating and facilitating the pa rticipating States' response to natural and man-
made disasters (including acts of terrorism) bot h within the EU and world-wide. The EU's 
collective preparedness is being enhanced by an extensive programme comprising training 
                                                 
202 The Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom of 8 November 2007 establishing a Community Civil 
Protection Mechanism (recast), OJ L 31 4, 1.12.2007, p. 9, brings toge ther 30 participating States (27 
EU Member States and EEA countries). 
 
EN 62   EN courses, exchange of experts, simulation exer cises and cooperation projects financed through 
the Civil Protection Financial Instrument203 adopted in 2007.  
As called for by the European Council204 and the European Parliament in 2005205, measures 
have been taken to develop a ra pid response capability, notably by: 
• Creating civil protection modules. Standard s have been developed for these task-
oriented, autonomous, inter operable and rapidly deployabl e assets of one or more 
Participating States206. Over 80 have been regi stered covering Chemical, 
Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN) detection and sampling, search and 
rescue in CBRN conditions, pumping and purification of water, aerial fire 
fighting, urban search and rescue, me dical assistance including medical 
evacuation and emergency shelter. 
• Setting up the Common Emergency Comm unication and Information System 
(CECIS), to make for secure exchanges of information with the Participating 
States. 
• Developing a logistical support role for the Monitoring and Information Centre 
(MIC) to help Participating States to acce ss transport resources of other States and 
on the commercial market. 
The new Mechanism's legal basis makes explicit reference to responding to terrorism threats, 
including CBRN, which has allowed the Commission to develop a number of activities in the areas of training, large-scale exercises and specia lised exchange of expe rts. In autumn 2008, it 
funded a specific real-scale exercise on CBRN involving several participating States. The 
Commission also conducted an analysis of data provided by the participating States 
concerning the assistance that could be made ava ilable in the participating States in the event 
of a terrorist attack. 
The Mechanism currently faces four main challenge s: enhancing the availability of assistance, 
moving to contingency planni ng, improving the effectiveness of Europe's response and 
ensuring an integrated appro ach to disaster management: 
The Council has called on the Member States to commit themselves to enhancing the 
availability of their civil pr otection modules and other interv ention capabilities. Furthermore, 
projects launched under the Preparatory Actio n on a rapid response capability for testing 
various types of arrangements fo r enhancing the availability of response resources should 
allow the Commission to identify directions for future action in this area. 
                                                
 
203 Council Decision 2007/162/EC, Euratom of 5 March 2007 establishing a Civil Protection Financial 
Instrument, OJ L 71, 10.3.2007, p. 9. 
204 Council document 10255/1/05 rev 1, Presidency Conclusions of the 16-17 June 2005 Brussels European 
Council. 
205 European Parliament document RSP/2005/2500, "Resolution on the recent tsunami disaster in the 
Indian Ocean and Union's aid for victims". 
206 Commission Decision 2008/73/EC, Euratom of 20 December 2007 am ending Decision 2004/277/EC, 
Euratom as regards rules for the implementation of Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom 
establishing a Community civil protection, OJ L 20, 24.1.2008, p. 23. 
 
EN 63   EN Contingency planning for disa sters needs to be improved. The Commission's ongoing work 
on scenarios for major disasters should provid e a basis for moving to genuine contingency 
planning. 
The effectiveness of Europe's  civil protection response need s to be constantly improved, 
notably by enhancing the interoperability of modules through training, exercises and use of 
standard operating procedures. Developing assessment and coordi nation teams to the sites of 
disasters needs to be speeded up, and the MIC needs to be upgrad ed into a genuine operations 
centre with a proactive profile. 
Finally, an integrated approach to disaster management needs to be established by building 
links between the Community's various tools and programmes. 
Integrated and coordinated EU cri sis-management arrangements  
In response to the crisis-man agement objectives set out in the Hague Programme, the Council 
approved Emergency and Crisis Coordina tion Arrangements in Brussels (CCA)207. Without 
prejudice to existing crisis management systems (national, EU and international), the CCA take a cross-pillar approach to crisis manageme nt and are relevant both to external crises and 
to crises within the EU. They will provide Me mber States' Permanent Representations with a 
platform to exchange information and su pport political coordi nation during severe 
emergencies that have such wide-ranging impact or political significance that they require an 
exceptional response at EU level. The crisis coordination arrangements have been regularly 
tested by way of exercises and are continually  being improved in a bid to respond more 
rapidly and more effectively to evolving threats. 
The Commission added to its own crisis manageme nt procedures and system by setting-up  
ARGUS
208, which allows the Commission to launch a robust response to emergencies and to 
play a fully part in CCA activities. The ARGUS  system involves a quick consultation process 
for major crises. Following the adoption of the Communication on Reinforcing the Union's 
Disaster Response Capacity209, the Commission is trying to  generate synergy between 
existing instruments. 
The procedures and the adequacy of the CCA ha ve been regularly tested and refined though 
lessons leaned process. The mechanics of it  (technical aspects, consultation process, 
information flow, format of the meeting) were  shown to work well. However, the exercises 
highlighted the need to further ev aluate the arrangements, and espe cially to clarify the roles of 
the CCA groups and non-affected Member States to make for enhanced strategic thinking and 
political advice. 
A Situation Map has been proposed to facilitate  the work of the Council Presidency when 
drawing up proposals for action. It rapidly iden tifies the relevant sectors, instruments and 
actors for possible actions at EU level and pinpoints actions that requires a political impetus.  
                                                 
207 Council document 16642/06. 
208 COM(2005) 662 final. 
209 COM(2008) 130 final. 
 
EN 64   EN III. Future challenges 
Work on Critical Infrastructure Protection  should build on the ach ievements of the Hague 
Programme and on the first evaluation of threats,  risks and vulnerabilities  encountered in each 
European Critical Infrastructure protection se ction (2010-2012). This wi ll lead to a detailed 
examination of whether further measur es at the EU level are necessary.  
Most of the work within the EPCIP has concentrat ed so far on internal EU issues. The future 
will require a greater commitment to the external dimension of CIP, as the geographical and 
cross-sector interdependencies ex tend beyond the borders of the EU. 
Despite marked progress, continued effort will  be needed to implement the EPCIP in its 
entirety, and thus to address all the relevant  sectors of economic act ivity and to eliminate 
potential weak links. 
The Commission's objective for the period 2010-2014 in the field of civil protection  is to 
ensure that the Mechanism is increasingly effec tive in helping participating States to prepare 
for and respond to large-scale disasters, in cluding a Chemical, Bi ological, Radiological, 
Nuclear (CBRN) terrorist attack. This should be pa rt of an integrated approach to disaster 
management that ties disaster prevention and effective coordination to other Community tools 
and policies.  
The Commission will continue to help participating States to organise their civil protection 
assets more efficiently, including civil protec tion modules, with a view to enhancing the 
availability of assistance and reducing obstacles to its delivery. Where necessary, the 
Mechanism should complement the resources ava ilable for deployment in major disasters and 
to provide any logistical support that may be needed. 
The Commission will improve its operational contribution by increasing the analytical, 
assessment and planning capacities of the MIC and by reinforcing its assessment and 
coordination teams at the sites of  disaster. In this context, the Commission will look into the 
possibile added value of innovative models fo r organising Europe's ci vil protection response 
as an expression of European solidarity. 
 
EN 65   EN 4.5.  Organised crime, corruption and crime prevention 
I. Objectives  The Hague Programme stressed the importance of developing and implementing a strategic 
concept for tackling organised crime. With this  in mind, a range of political, legislative and 
operational policies have been identified and defined for the years to come. The Hague 
programme also initiated a series of initiativ es resulting in closer cooperation both with 
Europol and Eurojust and with third countries and other intern ational organisations, and in 
better information access and sharing in genera l. One of the areas of special focus was 
acquiring better know-how and unders tanding of the dynamics of various forms of organised 
crime, some of which are developing at high  speed, in line with te chnological developments. 
Finally, acknowledging that an e ffective organised crime policy cannot be based exclusively 
on strengthening tools and ste pping up international cooperati on, crime prevention continued 
to be the focus of attention.  
II. Main developments  Fighting cyber crime 
In 2007, the Commission presented a  general policy on the fight against cyber crime
210. This 
was used in 2007 and 2008 to increase coopera tion between law enforcement agencies and 
private sector. A Commission-le d consultation of experts and stakeholders from both the 
public and the private sector resulted in EU  recommendations on public-private cooperation 
in the fight against cyber crime211. Finally, the Council conclusions of November 2008212 
included an overall strategy on cyber crime. 
European coordination and cooperation between hi gh-tech crime units in the Member States 
was actively supported by the Commission through the organisation of expert meetings and 
the development of the Council of Europe an d G 8 network of contact points. The AGIS 
programme was used to support several cyber cr ime training programme s, including an EU 
cyber crime training curriculum. 
As criminals can not only attack informati on systems or commit crimes from one Member 
State to another, but can easily do so from outsi de the EU's jurisdiction, relations with third 
countries have also been strengthened in th e context of anti-cyber crime activities. The 
Commission has taken part in international foru ms such as the Council of Europe and the G8 
Roma/Lyon High Tech Crime subgroup. Meetings with Russian cyber crime experts were 
organised in 2007 and 2009 and US and Ukrainian experts participated in the expert meetings 
organised by the Commission.  
The financial programme "Prevention of and figh t against crime" was largely implemented in 
this area, in particular in s upport of projects designed to enhance cooperation between all EU 
stakeholders against cyber crime.  
                                                 
210 COM(2007) 267 final. 
211 Press release IP/08/1429; Council conclusions of 27 November 2008 on a concerted work strategy and 
practical measures against cyberc rime, OJ C 62, 17.3.2009, p. 16. 
212 Council document 16325/1/08 rev 1, p. 39, adopting Council conclusions 15569/08. 
 
EN 66   EN Combating trafficking in human beings, ch ild exploitation and child pornography  
Trafficking is considered one of the most se rious crimes world-wide, a gross violation of 
human rights and a modern form of slavery. Unfortunately, it is an extremely profitable 
business for organised crime. In conformity with the internationally agreed legal definition, trafficking consists of the recruitment, transfer or receipt of persons, car ried out with coercive, 
deceptive or abusive means, for the purpose  of exploitation including sexual or labour 
exploitation, forced labour, domestic servitude  or other forms of exploitation. Women and 
children seem to be the mo st affected, but cases of trafficking involving young men, 
especially for the purpose of labour exploita tion, are increasingly be ing reported. Therefore 
trafficking is considered a priority w ithin EU policy and n eeds a robust response
213. 
The Communication "Fighting tra fficking in human beings: an  integrated approach and 
proposals for an action plan"214 formed the basis for the "EU Plan on best practices, standards 
and procedures for combating and preventing  trafficking in human beings", which was 
endorsed by the Council in 2005215. Following the 2008 report on the implementation of the 
Framework Decision on combating trafficking in human beings216, a detailed study of national 
measures has been undertaken, making it possible to  identify the scope fo r further legislative 
and non-legislative actions (i.e. regarding the f acilitation of public-priva te cooperation and the 
involvement of Europol). Both the Communicati on and the report provided the basis for an 
impact assessment of the rece ntly adopted Commission proposal217 amending the 2002 
Framework Decision on combating trafficking of human beings218. 
The first EU Anti-trafficking day was held on 18 October 2007. This has now been confirmed 
as a major annual event to raise awareness of the problems that human trafficking poses. The 
first anti-trafficking day also saw the adoption of the recommendations on the identification of 
and referral to services of the victims of trafficking in human be ings, in which further 
measures to underpin the legal framework for preventing and combating trafficking in human 
organs, tissues and cells are still being looked into, partly because it is particularly difficult to 
find evidence concerning this problem.  
The Commission established a Group  of Experts on trafficking in human beings219 in 2007. Its 
goal as to take account of the changes brought about by enlargement, and the need to provide specific expertise, especially in the field of trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation. 
Trafficking is a priority in the 2007 and 2008 fi nancial programmes "Prevention of and fight 
against crime" and in the Thematic Progra mme on Migration and As ylum. Nine projects 
directly related to tr afficking in human beings have be en selected for funding under the 
                                                
 
213 Patrick Belser, Michaelle De Cock, Fahrad Mehran , "Minimum Estimate of Forced Labour in the 
World", ILO, Geneva, April 2005. 
214 COM(2005) 514 final. 
215 OJ C 311, 9.12.2005, p. 1. 
216 COM(2008) 657 final. 
217 COM(2009) 136 final. 
218 Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA of 19 July 2002 on combating trafficking in human 
beings, OJ L 203, 1.8.2002, p. 1. 
219 Commission Decision 2007/675/EC of 17 October 2007 setting up the Group of Experts on Trafficking 
in Human Beings, OJ L 277, 20.10.2007, p. 29 and Commission Decision 2008/604/EC of 22 July 2008 
on the appointment of members of the Group of Experts on Trafficking in Human Beings, OJ L 194, 
23.7.2008, p. 12. 
 
EN 67   EN programme calls for proposals in 2007 and 2008, and another three awarded projects concern 
connected issues. The total amount of allocated funds was around € 3 million.  
A Council Framework Decisi on against sexual explo itation and child pornography220 was 
adopted in 2004. It introduced a minimum of ap proximation of Member States’ legislation to 
criminalise the most serious forms of child sexu al abuse and exploitation, to extend domestic 
jurisdiction and to provide for a mi nimum of assistance to victims.  
The Commission adopted a report on the impl ementation of the Framework Decision in 
2007221, which highlighted that there was still a need for more action in certain areas, in 
particular in IT-related areas such as ‘groomi ng’ through the Internet, and for new methods to 
detect these crimes. However, it also acknowle dged that, while information from the Member 
States was incomplete, the requirements set ha d generally been met. The Commission stressed 
the importance of increasing social protection a nd respecting the rights of child victims, and 
suggested updating the Framework Decision, in  particular regarding offences committed 
using IT. 
However, while there is no doubt that the sexu al abuse and exploitation of children is a 
serious problem, there are no and reliable sta tistics on the nature of the phenomenon and on 
the numbers of children involved, because of di fferences in national definitions of various 
child sexual abuse and exploitation offences, very significant underreporting by victims, and 
inadequate data collection mech anisms. Studies suggest that a significant minority of children 
in Europe, between 10% and 20 % as an informed scientific estimate, will be sexually 
assaulted during their childhood222. Research also suggests that this phenomenon is not 
decreasing over time, that child victims portr ayed in pornography are getting younger, and the 
that images are becoming increasingly graphic and violent223. 
In response to this problem, the Commission presented a proposal in early 2009 for a new 
Framework Decision on comba ting the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children224, 
updating the 2004 Framework Decision on this matter. 
Fight against corruption 
Corruption, traditionally seen as individual behavi our related to carrying out routine tasks in 
public affairs (awarding of contracts, awardi ng of grants, administra tion of public accounts, 
decision-making by agencies responsible for ex ercising executive power, etc.), has changed 
over time. Today, corruption is more widespr ead, its various compon ents, while hiding the 
relationships that bind them together, enco mpass increasingly large areas, such as the 
complex administration of the State, and especi ally of corporate activ ities that go well beyond 
national borders.  
                                                 
220 Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA of 22 Decem ber 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation 
of children and child pornography, OJ L 13, 20.1.2004, p.44. 
221 COM(2007) 716 final. 
222 May-Chahal, C., and Herczog, M., "Child sexual abuse in Europe", 2003. 
223 International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, "Child Pornography: Model legislation and 
global review", 2007. 
224 COM(2009) 135 final. 
 
EN 68   EN There is a broad consensus that corrupti on undermines democracy and good governance, the 
trust in State structures and the overall legitimacy of govern ment. In an economic setting, 
corruption creates distortions and inefficiency, increasing the cost for all economic subjects. 
According to estimates of the World Bank, th e "global corruption i ndustry" costs about 1 
trillion US dollars per year225 and these figures only take acco unt of the bribery – or active – 
aspects of corruption. Therefore it seems reasonabl e to assume that the actual costs are even 
higher226. Corruption is not a victimless crime:  costs are borne by every citizen.  
Estimates made by law enforcement authorit ies and researchers suggest that 90% of 
corruption offences remain undetected, while only 10% of all cases are tr eated by the criminal 
justice systems. Corruption levels in the EU are difficult to measure, especially because 
comparable statistics in all the EU Member States do not exist. However, according to a 
recent Special Eurobarometer survey227, on average three out of f our EU citizens agree that 
corruption is a major problem in their country (75%).  
The Commission's 2007 implementation report on  the Framework Decision on corruption in 
the private sector228, which requires Member States to make active and passive corruption in 
the private sector a criminal offence, found that most Member States have not yet criminalised 
all circumstances in which corruption might occur in the private sector. The Commission 
plans in due course to carry out  a second assessment of the impl ementation of this instrument. 
Following a Council Decision in 2008229, the European Community ratified the UN 
Convention against corruption (UNCAC), the firs t comprehensive piece of  legislation having 
a global scope. The Commission is encouraging Memb er States that have not yet done so to 
ratify the UNCAC. 
In 2009, the network of contac t points against corruption230 should start operating. It links the 
operational expertise of Member States author ities and agencies to prevent and combat 
corruption and to improve coordination in th e field. The Commission, Europol and Eurojust 
are part of the network, which builds on previ ous work of the Europe an Partners Against 
Corruption (EPAC). Furthermore,  the Commission ordered a scientific study into the links 
between organised crime and corruption in 200 8. The results are expected in autumn 2009. 
Finally, research projects have been funded under the 6th and 7th Research Framework 
Programme that also include the cultural aspects of corruption and to provide reliable cross-
country comparisons. 
Fighting financial crimes 
                                                 
225 Available at:  
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEW S/0,,contentMDK:20190295~menuPK:34457~p
agePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html. 
226 Available at: http://www.un.org/events/10thcongress/2088b.htm. 
227 Special Eurobarometer 291, "The attitudes of Europeans towards corruption". 
228 COM(2007) 328 final. 
229 Council Decision 2008/801/EC of 25 September 2008 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European 
Community, of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, OJ L 287, 29.10.2008, p. 1. 
230 Council Decision 2008/852/JHA of 24 October 2008 on a contact-point network against corruption, OJ 
L 301, 12.11.2008, p. 38. 
 
EN 69   EN The Communication on the prevention of and fight  against organised cr ime in the financial 
sector231 states that financial investigations are a useful means of understanding the activities 
and behaviour of organised crime networks. Indee d, financial investigatio ns can play  a pivotal 
role in the strategy to dismantle organise d crime. In the Communication "Developing a 
strategic concept on tackling organised crime"232, the Commission calls for the spreading of 
investigation techniques and legal tools to rapidly identify illicit money transfers. 
The 2008 Revised Strategy on Terrorist Financing233 provides that Member States should give 
priority to financial investigations and to fi nancial criminal analysis in the fight against 
terrorism. Finally, in a 2008 Communication234 the Commission cites financial investigation, 
financial criminal analysis and better training as some of the priorities in the fight against 
crime.  
In an effort to promote financial inve stigation, financial criminal analysis235 and financial 
intelligence, the Commission joined forces with Europol and national experts, sent 
questionnaires to the Member States, and defined the knowle dge financial investigators 
should have and thir level of expertise.  
The Commission encouraged Member States po lice academies, including partnerships with 
universities, to establish sp ecific training programmes with financial support from AGIS and 
the ''Prevention and fight against crime" progr amme. The Commission also  finances training 
programmes to establish common training standards on the basis of 8 themes identified by 
Excellence Centres, and to implement certificat ion schemes for financial investigators.  
In the fight against money laundering, the Co mmission facilitates cooperation and promotes 
the exchange of information between the Financ ial Intelligence Units (FIUs) of the Member 
States through the informal EU FIU Platform and the FIU-NET system.  
The EU FIU Platform is an in formal forum for discussion a nd exchange of best practices 
between FIUs supported by the Commission. The Pl atform has so far produced reports on 
feedback on money laundering and terroris t financing cases and typologies and on 
confidentiality and data protection in the activity of FIUs236. Future reports should address the 
content of suspicious transacti ons and international cooperation.  
FIU-NET is a secure communication channel fo r the exchange of operational information 
between EU FIUs managed by the FIU-NET Burea u, which is hosted within the Ministry of 
Justice of the Netherlands. 17 Member States are connected (or are in  the process of being 
connected) to the system and use of the system  is steadily increasing. A project to further 
improve the FIU-NET system is currently ongoing with the financial support of the 
programme on "prevention of and fight against crime".  
                                                 
231 COM(2004) 262 final. 
232 COM(2005) 232 final. 
233 Council document 11778/1/08. 
234 COM(2008) 766 final. 
235 The Commission funded several projects on improving these techniques between 2002 and 2005. 
236 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/financial-crime/index_en.htm#fiu-platform. 
 
EN 70   EN The Commission issued a repo rt in 2007 on the implementation of Council Decision on the 
exchange of information and cooperation between FIUs237. The report concluded that Member 
States can be largely considered  to be legally compliant with most of the key requirements of 
the decision, but that more needs to be done in terms of operational cooperation. The report 
also underlined the lack of lega l clarity on how data protection rules may affect the exchange 
of information between EU FIUs. It highlig hted the need for possible complementary 
measures, in particular operational guideline s. Many administrative FIUs cannot exchange 
police information or can provide such info rmation only after a long delay. Some law 
enforcement FIUs might not be able to prov ide certain crucial information from their 
databases to administrative entities. There is no common understanding of  what information is 
accessible to FIUs and what "relevant information" is to be exchanged.  
Confiscation and asset recovery 
The 2007 Council Decision on cooperation between Asset Recovery Offices (AROs)238 
requires Member States to set up or designate national AROs, which would then promote the 
fastest possible EU-wide tracing of assets derive d from crime. Some countries still need to 
notify the Commission of their designated authorit ies. At present 20 Member States have set 
up AROs239. These offices differ widely in structure, powers and practices.  
In 2007 the Commission issued a first report revi ewing Member States' implementation of the 
Framework Decision on extended confiscation240. The report shows that most EU Member 
States have been slow to putting in place measur es to allow more widespread confiscation of 
the proceeds of crime. 
In 2008, the Commission adopted  a Communication on the pr oceeds of organised crime241, 
which proposes ten strategic pr iorities to support the fight against organised crime by 
enhancing confiscation and asse t recovery. It reviews exis ting EU legislation and its 
implementation and calls for it to be recast in a bid to increase the effectiveness of 
confiscation. However, on the advice from experts, practitioners and academics, the 
Commission did not propose new legi slation at this stage, but preferred to discuss need for 
new legislation and its possible c ontent with the Member States.  
The Commission also conducted a study in 2007-2008 analysing Memb er States' practices in 
confiscation242, focusing in particular on what has prove n to be effective at national level with 
a view to promoting and exchanging of best practices. The study identif ied several obstacles, 
such as conflicting legal traditions, difficulties in securing and maintaining assets, lack of 
                                                 
237 COM(2007) 827 final. 
238 Council Decision 2007/845/JHA of 6 December 2007 concerning cooperation between Asset Recovery 
Offices of the Member States in  the field of tracing and identifi cation of proceeds from, or other 
property related to, crime, OJ L 332, 18.12.2007, p. 103. 
239 AROs have been established or designated in Aust ria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cy prus, the Czech Republic, 
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary , Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, 
Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom. 
240 COM(2007) 805 final. 
241 COM(2008) 766 final. 
242 Matrix, "Assessing the effectiveness of EU Member Stat es' practices in the identification, tracing, 
freezing and confiscatio n of criminal assets ", not yet published. 
 
EN 71   EN resources and training, limited cross-agency contact s and a lack of statis tical data. It will be 
used as a basis for further initiatives.  
Extensive use of Community funding programmes ha s been made in this area. The activities 
of the CARIN Network243 in particular have been regul arly funded under AGIS and ISEC. A 
high-level pan-European conference funded un der ISEC on establishing Asset Recovery 
Offices in the EU Member St ates took place in March 2008244. Relations with third countries 
have also been extended. The Commission part icipates in the Asset Recovery Working Group 
established under the UN Conve ntion on Corruption (UNCAC), which provides for extensive 
international cooperation on the confiscation, dis posal and return of assets acquired through 
corruption. 
Some Member States do not regularly collect  statistics on the number of freezing and 
confiscation procedures initiated, the orders is sued and the assets recovered. However, at 
present the overall number of confiscation cas es in the EU is relatively limited and the 
amounts recovered from organised crime are m odest, especially if compared with the 
estimated revenues of organised criminal groups245.  
There is evidence that the proc eeds of crime are increasingly ac quired in countries other than 
those where a criminal organisation normally ope rates or where a criminal conviction takes 
place. This will make the identific ation of the proceeds of crime and their seizure all the more 
difficult.  
Europol and Eurojust are increas ingly assisting financial inve stigators and magistrates in 
cross-border cases. In 2007, Europol supported 133 investigations to trac e criminal proceeds. 
In 2007, 30 out of over 1000 cases dealt with by Eurojust related to asset freezing and 
confiscation. Close cooperation is needed not  only within the EU, but also with third 
countries. However, international cooperation is  not always satisfactory due to the varying 
degrees of willingness to cooperate. 
Fight against counterfeiting 
Counterfeiting and piracy involve organised criminal activities th at can have direct effect on 
consumers. The Internet has fostered e-commer ce across the globe. Howeve r, it is also being 
used by criminals as an international market  for the production, sale  and distribution of 
pirated and counterfeit goods that  are easily available to the consumer and often dangerous. 
Different criminal penalties among Member Stat es create an unbalanced enforcement regime 
within the internal market and slow down cross-border po lice cooperation. In addition, 
financial malevolencies attached  to counterfeiting and piracy can also aggravate the current 
financial crisis.  
                                                 
243 CARIN includes experts from 52 countries, includi ng 26 EU Member States. Its objectives are the 
exchange of best practices and the improvement of inter-agency cooperation in cross-border matters. Its 
Secretariat is held by Europol.  
244 Organised by Europol and the Austrian and Belgian governments. 
245 As shown by the statistics on confiscation included in the mutual evaluation reports on money 
laundering published by the FATF or the Council of Europe Moneyval Committee. In a recent study 
carried out in one Member State, the revenues of organised crime were put at around € 130 billion only 
in that country. 
 
EN 72   EN The Hague package referred to the legislativ e package (directive and framework decision) 246 
on counterfeiting. In 2006, this package was translated into an amended proposal for a 
Directive on criminal measures aimed at en suring the enforcement of intellectual property 
rights247. During the first reading, th e proposed directive to st rengthen the criminal law 
framework to combat intellectual property offe nces was amended by the European Parliament 
and transmitted to the Council. Discussion continues between the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the private sector. 
The proposed amendment will help to adapt the EU instrument to the most recent legal and 
international developments, and al so to the evolution of the th reat of organised crime, in 
particular to public health and citize ns' security. To date, only the civil
248 and the customs249 
dimensions of the issue have been the subj ect of Community harm onisation. Counterfeiting 
appears in Europol's and Eurojust's mandate a nd in certain legal instruments, such as the 
European Arrest Warrant, seizure of property or mutual recognition of  financial sanctions. 
In 2008, the Council adopted a resolution250 that mentioned the above-mentioned amended 
proposal of the directive on criminal measur es aimed at ensuring the enforcement of 
intellectual property rights. This resolution ca lls for a European Counterfeiting and Piracy 
Observatory to be set up, for action to be ta ken to raise awareness,  for coordination and 
evaluation of this phenomenon to promote among institutions involved in it and for the 
effectiveness of the legal framework enforcing intellectual property right to be appraised. The resolution welcomed the work on a multi-annual  anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA), 
which includes a criminal enforcement. 
Free trade agreements being negot iated with thirds countries al so include a criminal section 
concerning actual implementation of the provi sions on counterfeiting. The Commission plays 
an active part in the Council of  Europe's drafting of the Conve ntion on criminal proceedings 
on pharmaceutical products counterfeiting. Inte rpol and the WHO coor dinate the IMPACT 
working group with the purpose of building up international strategic and operational 
cooperation. This situation reinforces the ne cessity for harmonised criminal measures. 
Crime prevention  
Although not expressly targeting crime preventi on, many of the EU's policies contribute to 
crime prevention by promoting economic and soci al cohesion, growth and employment and a 
transparent economic environment.  Objectives in the area of justice, freedom and security 
also include cooperation and th e development of instruments and mechanisms to reduce 
opportunities for criminal activitie s, and thus to make crime more difficult and riskier and of 
reduce criminals' profits. Although much has been achieved, further efforts are needed. 
                                                
 
246 COM(2005) 276 final. 
247 COM(2006) 168 final. 
248 Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the 
enforcement of intellectual property rights, OJ L 157, 30.4.2004, p. 45. 
249 Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods 
suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods 
found to have infringed such rights, OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 7. 
250 2008/C 253/01, OJ C 253, 4.10.2008, p. 1. 
 
EN 73   EN The European Crime Prevention Network (EUC PN) was established by the Council in 2001 
to promote and support crime prevention initiative s at local, national an d European level. An 
external evaluation launched in  2008 to assess its effectiveness concluded that the EUCPN 
played a positive role in raising the profile of crime prevention and facilitating networking between Member States. A number of the Netw ork's initiatives, such as the Best Practice 
Conferences, the European Crime Prevention Awa rd and a database on projects and other 
local and national approaches on crime preven tion, contributed to sharing information and 
expertise among practitioners, researchers, polic y-makers and other stakeholders. Given that 
the potential of the EUCPN is far from being r ealised, there is a need for it to be further 
expanded with a renewed political appro ach and organisational improvements.  
The website of the EUCPN has become an effe ctive tool for providing information, both to 
practitioners and the general public, on strategi c and operational developm ents in the field. 
Good progress has also been achieved as re gards the development of a common methodology 
to prepare, implement and evaluate specific  crime prevention projects. The inventory of 
projects put on the website relates to fields such as domestic violence, youth crime, public 
perception of safety, street cr ime and prolific offenders. Th e number of public hits on the 
EUCPN's web pages has been consta ntly on the increase in years.  
Crime statistics  
In an effort to improve the quality and co mparability of data collected on crime, the 
Commission adopted an Acti on Plan on crime statistics
251 and established an Expert group to 
that effect252. A Working group of producers of crime statistics was also subsequently 
established by Eurostat253. 
Since the establishment of the expert gr oup in 2007, much has been done to develop 
indicators in the areas of money laundering, human trafficki ng, and the effectiveness of 
criminal justice systems. Collecting data on identified money laundering began in 2008, and 
will continue throughout 2009. 
These activities have resulted in the establis hment of links between the Commission and the 
Financial Action Taskforce (money laundering),  the International Labour Office (human 
trafficking), the Council of Europe (criminal ju stice systems, judicial  cooperation, juvenile 
justice), and the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (c riminal justice systems, juvenile justice and 
corruption). This has led to a more coordinated approach to the identifying data needs and the 
collecting data from Member States, and should both improve in the quality of data collected 
and minimise the reporting burden imposed  on Member States' administrations. 
In tandem with these actiiti es, the Commission has pursued the development of crime and 
criminal justice survey  instruments and methodologies. Proj ects ongoing in this area include: 
an EU crime victimisation survey; a commercial crime survey; a survey on the efficiency of 
criminal justice; a methodology to estimate the co st of crime; indicators on the confidence in 
                                                 
251 COM(2006) 437 final. 
252 Commission Decision 2006/581/EC of 7 August 2006 setting up a group of experts on the policy needs 
for data on crime and criminal justice, OJ L 234, 29.8.2006, p. 29. 
253 T his group consists of JHA/law enforcement users of crime data from inter alia the EU-27 among 
others. 
 
EN 74   EN justice; and closer links betw een Justice and Home Affairs ad ministrations and the research 
community. 
III. Future challenges Fighting cyber crime 
It is difficult to assess the current situation in detail as comprehensive data are not available. 
Comparable and quality cyber crime statistics s hould be developed at EU level. By way of a 
general indication only, the fo llowing points can be cited: 
• The number of attacks on important information infrastructures in the UK is put at 
several thousand a day
254. 
• The number of images of sexually abused children available on line quadrupled in 
the period 2003-2007255. 
• The numbers of criminal URLs infecti ng PCs with password- stealing codes rose 
by 93% in the first quarter of 2008256. 
It is therefore clear that cyber crime poses an  increasingly significant threat to critical 
information infrastructure, society, business and citizens. It is also marked by rapid changes in 
criminal targets and methods, and by the incr easing involvement of organized crime groups. 
This changing environment requires a constant update of anti-cyber crime policies, both at 
national and at European and international level. 
The 2008 report257 on the implementation of Framew ork Decision on attacks against 
information systems undertook a detailed study of national measures, making it possible to 
identify the scope for further legi slative and non-legislative actions.  
Cooperation with third countries  in the fight against cyber crime should be enhanced, in 
particular by involving third countries authorities in EU anti-cyber crime policies.  
Action will be taken in particular to enhance an d facilitate cross-border investigations and a 
secure exchange of information and cooperati on between national cyber crime units and EU 
authorities (in particular Europol and Eu rojust), for example, through EU funding 
programmes and reinforcement of the functions of existing international 24/7 networks of 
contact points in the EU, the development of a ce ntral platform for fla gging illegal content on 
the Internet, and the establishment of best prac tices on the use of inve stigation techniques and 
tools. Financial programmes are an integral part of Commission's po licy in this area.  
Training programmes for EU c yber crime investigators and pr osecutors should be further 
developed.  
                                                 
254 The Times, 23 August 2008. 
255 Internet Watch Foundation statistics, as reported in the Irish Examiner of 17 April 2007. 
256 Anti-Phishing working group (APWG), "Phishing Activity Trends Report Q1 2008", available at: 
http://www.antiphishing.org/repo rts/apwg_report_Q1_2008.pdf. 
257 COM(2008) 448 final. 
 
EN 75   EN Combating trafficking in human beings, ch ild exploitation and child pornography  
According to estimates provided by the International Labour Organisation258, 12.3 million 
people are subjected to forced labour in the world, among them 1,390,000 in forced labour for 
commercial sexual exploitati on, 7,810,000 in economic explo itation, and 610,000 in mixed or 
undetermined forms of forced labour. Approximately 20% of people in forced labour – around 2.45 million – have been victims of traffi cking. The financial gain of those profiting 
from trafficking is put at more than 30 billion US dollars a year globally.  
Relatively few criminals are prosecuted in this area . The total number of cases investigated in 
the EU was 195 in 2001, 453 in  2003, 1,060 in 2005, and 1,569 in 2006
259. Despite the 
upward trend, the number of criminal proceedings is still not comparable with the presumed 
scale of the crime. Therefore, the problem is th at trafficking in human beings is still a high 
profit and low-risk crime for both trafficking for sexual and labour expl oitation, particularly 
regarding children. There is also a clear lack of effective policies in the field of victims' rights 
and victim support and prevention. 
Action should be taken to enhance the exchange  of information (both operational and strategic 
information, including threat assessments) a nd cooperation between nati onal specialised units 
and EU authorities. The use of joint investig ation teams and similar structures to enhance 
international law enforcement operational coopera tion against trafficking networks must be 
further promoted.  
Training programmes should be de veloped for investigators and pr osecutors as well as for all 
officials likely to come to contact with potenti al and actual victims. National mechanisms for 
identification and referral to services of tr afficking victims, and child protection systems 
designated to detect when trafficking occurs, will continue to be es tablished and expanded. 
Efforts to increase cooperation between all st akeholders (law enfo rcement, information 
security agencies, private sector operators, se rvice providers, etc.) and to improve prevention 
will be continued. These include awareness raising and information targeted campaigns, and initiatives aimed at discouraging demand. 
A new methodology of collecting data on specific  types of trafficking and measuring the 
extent of the crime will be developed and current cooperation projects with third countries 
will be intensified. 
Fight against corruption 
Further action will focus on finding sustainable ways of assessing Member States' 
performances in the field of preventing an d combating corruption. The possibility of a 
comprehensive EU corruption report, allowing a direct comparison of all Member States and 
published periodically, could be envisaged. To this end, comp arable and quality corruption 
statistics should be collected at EU-level.  
                                                
 
258 Patrick Belser, Michaelle De Cock, Fahrad Mehran, Minimum Estimate of Forced Labour in the World, 
ILO, Geneva, April 2005. 
259 The number of sentences is much lower. The total number in 2006 was 284 sentences for trafficking for 
sexual exploitation. See COM(2008) 657 final. 
 
EN 76   EN The Commission will continue to support anti-co rruption initiatives a nd projects via its 
financial programmes, such as  'Prevention and fight agains crime" and the research 
programmes. 
Training programmes for European investigator s and prosecutors dealing with corruption 
could be further developed. Further action shoul d be taken to facilita te cooperation between 
all stakeholders (law enforcement, informati on security agencies, private sector operators, 
etc.) to prevent and combat corruption.  
Fighting financial crimes  
Financial investigation techniques and financial criminal an alysis should be encouraged at 
national level and, where necessary, at the Europ ean level. However, traditional instruments 
must be rethought if the fight agai nst organised crime and how it is financed is to be effective, 
and illicit assets are to be recovered. Widesp read financial investigation would intensify the 
fight against organised crime a nd the financing of terrorism.  
Member States shoul d further reinforce Europol  in order to respond to the evolution of 
financial investigation needs; Eu ropol should be more involved in  financial investigations, in 
parallel with investigatio ns into organised crime. 
A methodology for the regular collection of comp arable statistics on money laundering in the 
Member States should be promoted and impl emented under the EU Action Plan on Crime 
Statistics in order to help assess the effectiveness of the anti-money laundering systems in 
place.  
The exchange of information between FIUs and other parties (law enforcement, other 
authorities, private sector) should also  be stepped up. A recent Commission study260 analyses 
the provision of feedback between the repor ting entities, the FIUs and law enforcement 
authorities. It shows that feedb ack is not provided to the private sector  in good time; that 
structural case-by-case feedb ack is provided only in a limite d number of instances; and that 
more substantial feedback is generally required by the privat e sector. The Commission should 
continue to facilitate a secu re exchange of information be tween FIUs by supporting technical 
improvements to the FIU-NET system and by prom oting broader use of the system by the EU 
FIUs. 
Following on from the work under the SUSTRANS  Analysis Working File, an EU database 
on suspicious transaction reports could be set up to help establish links between suspicious 
transactions reported by a Member State and ongoing investigations carried out by law 
enforcement agencies in other Member States. If necessary new legislation could be introduced requiring Member States  to provide data and allowing the exchange of such data 
between Member States  The €STR project,  which receives financial support from the 
Commission and involves a number of Member States and Europol, is meant to increase the 
                                                
 
260 B&S Europe, "Best practices in vertical relations between the Financial Intelligence Unit and i) law 
enforcement services and ii) money laundering and terro rist financing reporting entities, with a view to 
indicating effective models for feedback on follow-up to and effectiveness of suspicious transaction 
reports", not yet published.  
 
EN 77   EN effectiveness of Europol's Analysis Working Fi le SUSTRANS and to enhance its value as a 
basic tool for financial intelligence-led policing 
Confiscation and asset recovery 
Regular meetings of the Informal EU Asset Rec overy Offices Platform should continue to be 
organised in order to ensure effective excha nge of information, coordination and cooperation. 
The Commission has to adopt an implementation report by December 2010 on the Council Decision on Asset Recovery Offices.  
The creation of centralised re gisters and databases (e.g. land and property registers, bank 
account registers, vehicle registers, company registers) in the Me mber States (where 
necessary) should be promoted and supported in order to facilitate the identification and 
tracing of criminal assets.  
Better and comparable statistics on assets frozen, confiscated and recovered should be 
regularly collected and published in order to he lp assess the effectiveness of the confiscation 
systems in place.  
Fight against counterfeiting 
In recent years, the number of confiscated articles at the EU borders has risen by 70%, 
reaching the level of some 130 millions arti cles in 2006 and 79 millions articles in 2007
261. 
Confiscated goods are an increasi ng danger to consumers and citi zens' health and security. In 
2006, more than 2,700,000 articles in the pharmaceu tical sector (+ 400%) were detained, 
more than 4 millions (+51%) in 2007262. 
Cyber counterfeiting will be a ch allenge in the years to come. The criminal dimension of the 
European Counterfeiting and Piracy Observator y should be supported, in  particular to boost 
the role of Europol and Eurojust. 
The Commission hopes that a legislative instrume nt will rapidly harmonise criminal measures 
linked to the protection of inte llectual property rights befo re the 2010-2014 period. In this 
case, the Commission will be able to consider reinforce EU legisl ation, particularly as regards 
penalties to be inflicted and hor izontal and procedural matters, in  order to be better prepared 
to tackle organised crime and health and security threats. 
Intensifying financial investigation and financial crime analysis as a means of fighting 
counterfeiting and piracy  must be a priority. 
Crime prevention 
The above-mentioned 2008 evaluation concluded th at the full potential of the EU Crime 
Prevention Network has not yet been explored and tapped. It proposed a number of 
                                                 
261 Available at:  
 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/custom s_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/index_en.h
tm 
262 Ibidem. 
 
EN 78   EN operational and strategic recomm endations to boost and profe ssionalise the impact of the 
EUCPN on crime prevention.  
The prevention of crime is a multi-faceted task th at must be tackled primarily at local levels. 
However, effective national policies are essent ial to enabling local communities to achieve 
their objectives. Enhancing the exchange of experience and promising practices plays an 
increasingly important role inside the Eu ropean Union and beyond, notably against the 
background of globalisation, borderless mark ets and fast technological developments 
(Internet).  
Crime statistics 
Midway through the Action Plan's 5-year life-cycle, the time ha s come to reflect on the fact 
that in order to produce comparable crime and criminal justice data in the EU 3rd pillar there is 
a need for both policy and operational measures to  address the structural issues of how crime 
data are collected, classified and analysed. The Commission is currently funding initiatives 
and research projects aimed at encouraging co nvergence in the areas of police and judicial 
crime statistics, victim surveys, and an offe nce classification benchmark. The current deficit 
of comparable, reliable statistics at EU level significantly hampers the development of more 
effective policies in this area.  
 
EN 79   EN 4.6. European strategy on drugs 
I. Objectives  The EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012
263, which is an integral pa rt of the Hague Programme, 
aims to protect and improve the well-being of society and the individu al, to protect public 
health, to ensure a high level of security for the general public, and to strike a balance 
between the policy of preventi on, assistance and reha bilitation of drug dependence, the policy 
of combating illegal drug trafficking and precursors and money laundering, and the 
intensification of in ternational cooperation. 
II. Main developments  
The European Drugs Strategy 2005-2012 set the fr amework, objectives and priorities for two 
consecutive four-year Drug Action Plans to be brought forward by the Commission. The first 
Action Plan 2005-2008 was endorsed by the Council in 2005264. It contained over 80 
individual measures and supplemented the Hague  Action Plan. Its impl ementation was closely 
monitored by the Commission, which delivered annual implementation re ports for the years 
2006265 and 2007266.  
In September 2008, the Commission adopted a Communication on an EU Drugs Action Plan 
for the period 2009-2012267, which was accompanied by a fi nal evaluation of the EU Drugs 
Action Plan 2005-2008268. This evaluation was carried out by the Commission with the 
support of the Member States, the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction 
(EMCDDA), Europol and the European NGO netw orks represented in the Civil Society 
Forum. At the same time, an impact assessm ent to determine the most appropriate policy 
option to implement the EU Drugs Strategy was adopted269. The EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-
2012 was endorsed by the Council in December 2008270. 
The final evaluation of the Action Plan 200 5-2008 is considered the most extensive 
assessment of EU drugs policy carried out so  far and has resulted in a number of 
recommendations, many of which have been tran slated into the new EU Drugs Action Plan 
2009-2012. The evaluation showed that the objectives of the Plan have been partly achieved. 
• Although drug use in the EU re mains high, available data suggest that the use of 
heroin, cannabis and synthetic drugs has stab ilised or is declining, but that cocaine 
use is rising in a number of  Member States. The total number of people in the EU 
who have at some time taken drugs (‘lifet ime prevalence’) is put at 71 million for 
cannabis, 12 million for cocaine, 9.5 million for ecstasy, and 11 million for 
                                                 
263 Council document 15074/04. 
264 On the basis of COM(2005) 45 final, the EU drugs action plan (2005-2008) was endorsed by the 
Council in 2004, 2005/C 168/01, OJ C 168, 8.7.2005, p. 1. 
265 SEC(2006) 1803. 
266 COM(2007) 781 final. 
267 COM(2008) 567 final. 
268 SEC(2008) 2456.  
269 SEC(2008) 2455. 
270 2008/C 326/09, OJ C 326, 20.12.2008, p. 7. 
 
EN 80   EN amphetamines, while more that 600 thous and people are known to be receiving 
substitution treatment for drugs like heroin271. 
• Data available for comparison with third countries show that the consumption of 
cannabis, cocaine and amphetamines in the EU is significantly lower than, for 
example, in the United States.  
• Evidence shows that the EU is succeedi ng in at least containing the complex 
social phenomenon of widespread substance use and abuse, and th at it is focusing 
increasingly on measures to address the harm caused by drugs to individuals and 
society. It is important to note that ov er the period under review, world production 
of illicit opiate rose sharply and unpreceden ted traffic in cocaine rolled into the 
EU. 
• In terms of international cooperation, th ere is now better c oordination of EU 
positions in international forums on drugs, but the lack of a focused and structured second pillar remains a weakness. On the other hand, the EU’s balanced approach 
to drugs is being used increasingl y as a model for third countries. 
While progress has been made in many areas, weaknesses have also been identified. In 
particular, policy coordination problems pers ist in many areas, within the Commission, 
between Member States and within  Member States, and even if the quality of information on 
the EU situation regarding dr ug use, prevention and treatment has consistently improved, 
considerable knowledge gaps remain: there is a persistent lack of reliable data on drug supply 
but also on the scope and outcomes of drug -related assistance to third countries. 
The current EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012 take s on board these lessons  learnt and puts 
forward measures to address them. 
During the period covered by the Hague program me, the Commission launched a series of 
initiatives to increase the ro le of civil society in drugs policies. In response to the 
Commission's Green Paper on the role of civil society in drugs policy
272, the Civil Society 
Forum on Drugs is one of the very first attempts to establish a permanent structure for public consultation on drugs in the area of freedom, security and justice. The Civil Society Forum helps to implement the Europ ean Transparency Initiative
273 and reflects the importance of this 
kind of structured dialogue. 
The Council Framework Deci sion on drugs trafficking274 called for a Commission report to be 
submitted to the Council and the European Parliament to assess Member States' compliance with these legal provisions. Th e report is being prepared by the Commission and will be 
presented in 2009.  
                                                
 
271 EMCDDA Annual Report 2008, available at: http ://www.emcdda.europa.eu/events/2008/annual-report. 
272 COM(2006) 316 final. 
273 COM(2008) 323 final. 
274 Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on 
the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, OJ L 335, 
11.11.2004, p. 8. 
 
EN 81   EN III. Future challenges 
Regarding future priorities for  EU Drugs Policy beyond 2012 , a decision will be taken on the 
basis of the evaluation of th e existing EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) as to whether a new 
EU Drugs Strategy for the period post-2012 is needed and in what form. These plans will be drawn up during the last two years of the lif e of the Stockholm Programme. Any potential 
new Drugs Strategy and/or Drug s Action Plan should become an integral part of the 
Stockholm programme exercise. Future plans w ill be drawn up in close cooperation between 
the Commission, the Member States , civil society and the other EU  Institutions, in particular 
the European Parliament. While abiding by the principles that form the basis for the "European Approach" to drugs, the future polic y will very probably take new potential needs 
into account.  
The current and past action plans are main ly conceived as coordination instruments 
containing non-legislative measur es and recommendations for the implementation of drug 
policy.  
The evaluation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) shows that, de spite the non-binding 
nature of the current drug po licy, there is a definite tre nd towards convergence among the 
Member States on this issue, whilst the prin ciple of subsidiarity and the Member States' 
fundamental prerogatives in the field of drugs continue to be observed.  
More substantial involvement of Civil Society at national level, in the formulation and 
implementation of EU policy on drugs should be encouraged. This may entail more structural 
consultation of civil society on drug polic y beyond 2012. This could be achieved by 
encouraging Member States to establish specif ic consultation mechanis ms at national level, 
although resistance should be expe cted here as some Member St ates take a dim view of the 
Commission getting involved in this. The Eu ropean Commission's Civil Society Forum on 
Drugs can play a driving role in this respect, including at national levels.  
The interim evaluation by 2010 of the first two years of activity of the "European Action on 
Drugs" initiative will provide valu able insights into effective me thods of involve civil society. 
The new ‘European Action on Drugs’ initiative aims to mobilise a broad range of civil 
society, stakeholders and citizens, taking concre te steps to raise awareness, in particular 
among young people and increase a general commitment in Eur opean societies to dealing 
with the drug problem. This might consequently be follow up.  
As regards international cooperation, the EU  should continue to "export" its balanced 
approach in third country and to coordinate efforts in the drugs fi eld, including for facing 
threat related to traditional – such Afghanist an – and "new" trafficking routes like West 
Africa.  
 
 
EN 82   EN 5. STRENGTHENING  JUSTICE 
5.1. European Court of Justice 
I. Objectives  Points of laws which arise in the area of fr eedom, security and just ice need to be brought 
before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and d ealt with to as swiftly as possible. This was 
recognised originally in Article III-369 of the Constitutional Treaty, and the Hague 
Programme called on the Commission to consider how requests for preliminary rulings in the 
area might be handled speed ily and appropriately.  
II. Main developments 
Requests for preliminary rulings submitted to the ECJ which concern areas covered by Title 
VI of the EU Treaty or Title IV  of Part Three of the EC Treat y often require a rapid response, 
which is not permitted by the Court's normal preliminary ruling procedure, nor by the accelerated procedure that can be applied onl y in exceptional cases. The Court therefore 
adopted an urgent preliminary ruling proce dure in March 2008, which limits and simplifies 
the stages of the preliminary ruling procedure
275. The application of th is procedure may be 
requested by national courts or, exceptionally, by the ECJ itself where it deems it to be necessary.  
III. Future challenges 
There is currently an anomalous situation in which the Court of Justice does not have full 
jurisdiction in the area of freedom, security and justice. The Treaty of Lisbon would address 
this by giving the Court complete jurisdiction in  this area, including in relation to police and 
judicial cooperation and the general regime of infringements and preliminary rulings The 
Treaty does not extend the Court' s jurisdiction to questions of  the validity or proportionality 
of police operations and other m easures taken by Member States to maintain law and order or 
safeguard internal security. 
The extension of the Court's jurisdiction to pol ice and judicial cooperation, and also of the 
Commission's powers to commence infringement proceedings, will be subject to a transitional 
period of up to five years after the Treaty enters  into force. During the transitional period the 
Court's jurisdiction will remain as it currently is under the Third Pillar and Article  35(2) of the 
TEU. Five years after the Treaty enters in fo rce, the UK will have the option of deciding 
whether to accept the Court's jurisdiction or opt  out completely from the pre-existing Third 
Pillar acquis . If the UK decides to opt out, it will be ab le at any subsequent point to opt back 
in.  
                                                
 
275 OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p. 39. 
 
EN 83   EN 5.2. Confidence-building and mutual trust 
I. Objectives  Mutual trust is a precondition for mutual reco gnition. Only if practitioners trust the legal 
systems in the other Member State and the way it is applied in practice by their colleagues will they be willing to recognise  and enforce foreign decisions without further formalities. 
However, despite good political intentions, in pr actice there appears to be a lack of mutual 
trust and courts or other judici al authorities are sometimes relu ctant or slow to recognise and 
enforce foreign judgments or judi cial decisions. Lack of mutual trust also has negative effects 
on the negotiations of instruments, particular ly in cooperation in criminal matters where 
grounds of refusal and other exceptions or opt-o uts are often introduced to counterbalance the 
obligation of mutual recognition.  
To make it easier to apply the principle of mutual recognition, the Hague Programme 
highlighted the importance of increasing conf idence and mutual trust through an impartial 
assessment of the implementation of EU measures  in the field of justice, the support for a 
network of judicial organisati ons and institutions and exch ange programmes and trainings 
schemes.  
The Programme also underlined the need for citi zens to have access to a judicial system that 
meets high quality standards, and for efforts to improve mutual understanding among judicial 
authorities and different legal systems. 
II. Main developments 
An important tool for improving access to information on the various justice and legal 
systems, for increasing mutual trust and unde rstanding, and for ensuring access to high quality 
justice is European e-Justice . The Member States have been working on e-Justice at national 
level and since 2003 have also started cross-bord er pilot projects, some  of which have been 
partially financed by Community funds (for exam ple, interconnection of criminal records and 
insolvency registers). Followi ng the call from the Council in June 2007 for an overall strategy 
for the use of information and communication technologies (ICT)
276, the Commission issued a 
Communication on e- Justice in 2008277. Also in 2008, the Council adopted the European e-
Justice Action Plan278, which calls for the Commission to launch and manage the European e-
Justice portal in December 2009. In December 2008, the European Parliament adopted a report on e-Justice
279 on which discussions are still ongoing.  
While e-Justice was not explicitly mentioned in the Hague Programme, the respective work 
was based on achievements to date at natio nal level and on decisions by the European 
institutions to use ICT tools to  deal with specific problems in  cross-border cases. European e-
Justice will be essential to achieving the object ives of better access to high quality justice and 
mutual understanding among judicial auth orities and differing legal systems. 
                                                 
276 Council document 10267/07, p. 43. 
277 COM(2008) 329 final. 
278 Council document 16325/1/08 rev 1, p. 31, adopting Council document 15315/08. 
279 European Parliament document INI/2008/2125. 
 
EN 84   EN A systematic evaluation of the EU  policies in the field of Justic e is not in place, but several 
evaluations have already been carried out in the field of justice. Moreover, a Commission 
Communication on the creation of a Forum for discussing EU justice policies and practice  has 
was adopted  in 2008280. The Justice Forum provides a pl atform for a regular dialogue on 
policies and practice in the area of European justice. It aims to increase mutual trust, promote 
best practices and improve mutual recognition an d access to justice. The Justice Forum brings 
together legal practitioners, academics and repres entatives of justice administrations from the 
Member States, who, during thematic meetings , provide the Commissi on with input for new 
initiatives as well as feedback on existing lega l instruments and polici es. In addition, the 
Commission will continue to support the init iatives of the Hague Conference on Private 
International Law aimed at increasing direct communications between judges281.  
In 2006, the Commission has published a Comm unication on judicial training in the EU282,  a 
development based on a pilot project for the exchange of magistrates (2005) and on 
preparatory action (2006).  
In 2008, the European Parliament adopted a repor t on the role of judges in the European 
judicial system283, which shows that the measures curre ntly in place regarding training in 
European matters are insufficient and that ju dges themselves say that they do not know 
European legislation well enough. In November  2008, a resolution calling on Member States 
to promote continuous training of the legal pr ofessions and additiona l language training was 
adopted by the Council284. 
Practitioners say that they have insufficient knowle dge of EU instruments, to what extent they 
are transposed into national legisl ation and how to use them. Studies285 show that national 
judges are in favour of more trai ning on EU law and that they n eed to improve their linguistic 
skills. In the area of criminal law, insuffi cient knowledge of the na tional law implementing 
the EU instruments is also a problem. If a practitioner want s to know the rules in another 
Member State regarding a specific EU instrument he needs to access the national implementing legislation, which is often drafte d in a language that he does not understand. In 
general, the lack of sufficient knowledge of foreign languages among judges and prosecutors 
poses a problem for judicial cooperation. The Commission has therefor e financed training 
programmes for the legal professions  throughout the Hague Programme   
Exchanges of judges and public prosecutors betw een Member States was considered to be a 
good way to provide training on cross-border issues while deve loping mutual trust through 
personal contacts and better knowledge of anothe r judicial system. Following several years of 
financing and an external assessment of  this pilot project, the above-mentioned 
                                                
 
280 COM(2008) 38 final. 
281 In January 2009, for example, a Joint conferen ce with the European Commission on Direct Judicial 
Communications on Family Law Matters & the De velopment of Judicial Networks took place. 
282 COM(2006) 356 final. 
283 European Parliament document INI/2007/2027. 
284 Council document 14667/08, p. 22. 
285 The European Parliament's report on the role of the national judge in the European judicial system, 
previously mentioned, and the study conducted by the Université Libre de Bruxelles on behalf of the European Commission, "Analysis of the future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the 
European Union", available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/crimin al/recognition/docs/mutual_recognition_en.pdf.  
 
EN 85   EN Communication on judicial trai ning launched a larger-scale pr ogramme. Exchanges began in 
2007 and have involved around 400 judges and prosecutors. These programmes need 
substancial support from Member States to be sustainable.  
The European Judicial Training Network, founded in 2000 and supported by the EU, 
promotes training in EU law by networking amon gst national training inst itutes and organises 
exchange programmes for judges and prosecu tors. The Commission has funding programmes 
for civil and criminal justice aimed at impr oving mutual recogniti on by fostering mutual 
knowledge of legal and judicial systems.  
Further to the establishment of the European Ru le of Law Initiative for Central Asia by the 
Commission and the Member States in 2007 and of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership in 
2008, cooperation on judicial traini ng between Member States and third countries is regarded 
as an important tool for establishing and unde rscoring the rule of la w in all countries. 
Other training programmes on environmental law,  the fight against corruption and maritime 
law have targeted specific legal profe ssionals such as administrative judges. 
Dissemination of information and knowledge to national judges and public prosecutors is a 
task within the remit of the national contact points of the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters (EJNCCM)
286 and the European Judicial Network in Criminal 
Matters287. They assist national judges and public  prosecutors by providing them with 
essential information on cross-border procedures. In addition, the websit es and atlases of the 
two networks provide precise information on cro ss-border issues, and are used more and more 
extensively by the judiciary. An Internet-based  information system for the public has been 
gradually established (hosted on the Europa website), wh ich averages 100,000 visits per 
month. The European Judicial Atlases play a ve ry practical role in helping individuals and 
businesses to access the information the need to initiate legal proceedings in another Member 
State (the civil Atlas averages 1,700 visitors  per month, the criminal Atlas just under 8,000). 
Both these Networks link to the European Ju dicial Atlases, information technology tools 
developed to improve access to justice in cr oss border-cases and judicial cooperation, by 
allowing individuals and practitione rs to find out which court or judicial authority to contact 
and to fill in the relevant forms on line and send them electronically. 
III. Future challenges 
Mutual trust is a precondition for mutual re cognition to work. Knowing whether and how 
procedural rights are protected in other Member States may help to improve mutual trust. The 
Commission is currently preparing an instrument on procedural rights in criminal matters and 
will commission a study on minimum standa rds in civil procedural law.  
                                                 
286 Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and 
commercial matters, OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 25. 
287 Council Decision 2008/976/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the European Judicial Network, OJ L 348, 
24.12.2008, p. 130, whic h replace Joint Action 98/428/JHA of 29 June 1998 adopted by the Council on 
the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the creation of a European Judicial 
Network, OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 4. 
 
EN 86   EN The e-Justice portal288 is designed to improve judicial cooperation and facilitate access to 
justice by citizens and busine sses across Europe. Work on the European e-Justice portal  has 
started. The target date of December 2009 for th e first release is ambitious and will focus on 
information for citizens and businesses. Func tions – for judicial authorities and legal 
professionals – developed by the Member States in the context of pilot projects funded by the 
"Civil Justice"289 and "Criminal Justice"290 programmes are expected to  be integrated if they 
are mature and technically ready. As from  2010, functions will be added to the portal 
incrementally. The potential offered by e-Justice mu st be fully tapped in order to facilitate and 
support citizens' access to justice. 
The Commission should continue to  request independent studies on specific topics  in order to 
evaluate the extent of the problems in the jus tice area. Apart from quantitative evaluations, 
thorough and structural qualitative  evaluations of the application of existing instruments will 
also be necessary. Community instruments usua lly contain evaluation obligations, calling on 
the Commission to assess their effectivenes s and to report on the application of the 
instrument. Constructive and timel y reactions on the part of the Member States to requests for 
information for such reports will be crucial to  ensuring that these repor ts are of the highest 
quality and can act as a basis for discussions on the instrument in que stion. The peer review 
system291 is another method already commonly used for evaluation, like in the case of the 
European Arrest Warrant. Peer review make s it possible for an evaluation team to use 
questionnaires and interviews with stakeholders  to assess the performance of each Member 
State. At present, there is no coherent method of collecting data on justice, which makes it 
difficult to assess the effectiv eness of EU instruments. Mechanisms and methodologies for 
collecting and comparing data should therefore be developed. The EJNs could provide useful 
support for data collection and national ministries  of justice should also  play a more active 
role in compiling statistics.  
Although a systematic evaluation of EU policie s in the field of Justice with a view to 
improving mutual trust and enhance the functioni ng of the European Justice Area is not in 
place, the Commission has launched a debate – following up a Dutch initiative – on the possible developments of this option in the future. 
Exchange programmes, such as those arranged by the European Judici al Training Network, 
and networking are excellent ways of im proving mutual knowledge and understanding of 
other Member States' judicial systems work. In itiatives for these programmes targeting public 
prosecutors and judges should be further enco uraged and financiall y supported by the EU. 
Funding will be available for the European J udicial Training Network and its training 
activities, as well as for training courses for judges on specific topics, such as those at the 
                                                
 
288 COM(2008) 329 final.  
289 Decision No 1149/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 September 2007 
establishing for the period 2007-2013 the Specific Programme Civil Justice as part of the General 
Programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice', OJ L 257, 3.10.2007, p. 16. 
290 Council Decision 2007/126/JHA of 12 February 2007 establishing for the period 2007 to 2013, as part 
of the General Programme on Fundamental Rights and Justice, the Specifi c Programme Criminal 
Justice, OJ L 58, 24.2.2007, p. 13. 
291 Joint Action 97/827/JHA of 5 Decem ber 1997 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the 
Treaty on European Union, estab lishing a mechanism for evaluating the application and implementation 
at national level of international undertakings in the fight against organized crime, OJ L 344, 
15.12.1997, p. 7. 
 
EN 87   EN European Law Academy in Trier. In additio n, the Criminal and Civil Justice financial 
programmes make it possible to fund other initiatives in this area. 
With regard to judicial training, as necessary  as European-level programmes are for legal 
professionals, they cannot enable  all legal professionals to be  trained at European level. 
Discussions regarding the promo tion of "train the trainer" programmes or e-learning tools 
have begun and need to be encour aged. Training a restricted numb er of legal professionals to 
fulfil a training role at nationa l level is the preferred met hod. E-learning tools are not yet 
completely adapted to the needs of legal pr ofessionals but an ove rall strategy on training 
should include such tools.  
Action should be also ta ken to help national legi slative officers to implement EU instruments: 
information seminars and/or country-specific he lp can be set up during the period between the 
adoption of the instrument and the date from wh ich it must be applied. These seminars would 
also allow legislative officers of different Memb er States to meet and share their experience 
and best practice. 
It is important that practitioners should have  easy access to legislative texts and manuals. The 
websites of both Judicial Networ ks play an important role in  improving the dissemination of 
information and should be further supported. Fu rthermore, the Commission should continue 
to contribute to drafting pract ice guides and manuals, where a ppropriate in cooperation with 
the EJNs. 
 
EN 88   EN 5.3. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters  
I. Objectives  The Hague Programme set ambitious objectives in  the field of criminal justice cooperation, 
calling for the completion of the programme of  mutual recognition an d the development of 
equivalent standards for procedural rights in criminal proceedings; the approximation of substantial and procedural criminal law in or der to facilitate mutual recognition; and the 
consolidation and further development of Eu rojust in order to improve cooperation and 
coordination of investigations. In addition, the Hague package al so envisaged the adoption of 
other instruments for strength ening judicial cooperation in  criminal matters and the 
participation in and conclusions  of internati onal conventions. 
II. Main developments Mutual recognition in criminal matters 
The mutual recognition programme in cr iminal matters was launched in 2000
292 and 
consolidated in 2005 by the Communication on mu tual recognition of decisions in criminal 
matters and reinforcement of mutual trust between Member States293. It has been partially 
achieved, as some of its measures have been  more successfully implemented and have had 
greater impacts then others. This overall assessme nt of developments in the field of criminal 
justice cooperation is also supported by a study comm issioned by the European Parliament on 
the issue294. 
Implementation of the  Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States295 is generally consider ed to be the biggest 
success in this field: the first report on impl ementation by 24 Member States was adopted in 
2005296. A revised version to incl ude Italy (implementation in  May 2005) was adopted in 
2006297. The second report on the implementation of  the Framework Decision was adopted in 
2007298. The practical application of the EAW is al so assessed in a round of peer evaluations. 
This round started in 2006. An overall ev aluation report is expected in mid-2009.  
The EAW has been operational throughout all 27  Member States since 1 January 2007: the 
implementation reports (and the "peer reviews") are generally positive and demonstrate that 
the EAW is a well-functioning system, which ha s dramatically increased the number of 
persons surrendered between Member States, and sensibly reduced the time needed for surrender. Although there is no co mmon statistical tool and not all Member States provide 
                                                
 
292 Programme of measures to implem ent the principle of mutual reco gnition of decisions in criminal 
matters, 2001/C 12/02, OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10. 
293 COM(2005) 195 final. 
294 European Parliament, "Progress Made and Existing Gaps in the Field of Judicial co-operation in 
criminal matters", 2007, available at: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/s tudies/download.do?language=en&file=18151. 
295 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States, OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1. 
296 COM(2005) 63 final. 
297 COM(2006) 8 final. 
298 COM(2007) 407 final. 
 
EN 89   EN statistics, the data received seem to confirm that  the European arrest warrant is now used as a 
matter of course everywhere and the general tr ends illustrated suggest that the procedure is 
effective. The figures in the table below speak for themselves.  
 20052992006300 2007301
Number of EAWs issued 6900 6750 11,000 
Number of persons  traced and/or 
arrested 1770 2040 4200 
Numbers of persons surrendered 1530 1890 3400 
In a majority of Member States surrender with  consent takes place with in 11 days and without 
consent within not more than about two months. Around 50% of surrenders take place with the consent of the sought person. On aver age around 25% of cases involve surrender of 
nationals for prosecution in  another Member State.  
Nevertheless, transposition in certain Member St ates can create problems that the absence of 
infringement procedures make difficult to so lve. At the same time, some Member States 
tabled and amendment to the Framework Decision for in absentia  judgments
302. This 
amendment to the EAW and other framew ork decisions has been adopted in 2009303.  
A study conducted by the European Parliament304 confirms this overall assessment of the 
instrument and also stresses that the EAW coul d be used more efficiently, in particular 
through a greater involvement of  both Europol and Eurojust.  
The assessment of other instru ments over the last few years do es not show such a positive 
trend.  The implementation report305 on the Framework Decision on the execution in the EU of 
                                                 
299 Council document 9005/5/06 rev 5. 
300 Council document 11371/4/07 rev 4. 
301 Council document 10330/3/08 rev 3. 
302 Initiative of the Republic  of Slovenia, the French Republic , the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of 
Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany with a view 
to adopting a Council Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA  on the enforcement of decisions rendered in 
absentia and amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the Eu ropean arrest warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application 
of the principle of mutual recognition to financia l penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the 
application of the principle of mutual recognitio n to confiscation orders , and Framework Decision 
2008/…/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters 
imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their 
enforcement in the European Union, OJ C 52, 26.2.2008, p. 1. 
303 Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 
2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing 
the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to 
decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial, OJ L 81, 27.3.2009, p. 24. 
304 European Parliament, "Implementation of the Euro pean Arrest Warrant and Joint Investigation Teams 
at EU and National level", 2009, available at: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/s tudies/download.do?language=en&file=24333 . 
305 COM(2008) 885 final. 
 
EN 90   EN orders freezing property or evidence306 showed that, by the end of October 2008, only 
nineteen307 Member States had sent their nationa l implementing laws to the Commission and 
the Council and confirmed that implementation of  the Framework Decision is not satisfactory. 
The report concluded that there have been few notifications and some implementing laws do 
not even refer to the Framework Decision. Furthe rmore, the 19 national legislations indicate 
numerous omissions and misinter pretations. There is room fo r improvement, especially as 
regards direct contact between judicial authori ties, grounds for refusal to recognise or execute 
the freezing order and also reimbursement. Howe ver, swift execution of freezing orders seems 
to be the norm. Moreover, the Framework Decisi on is hardly used by  practitioners. They 
consider the instrument to be too complicat ed and too specific compared to the existing 
mutual legal assistance regime and prefer to work on the basis of conventions such as the 
1959 Council of Europe convention, the Schenge n Implementing Agreement and the 2000 EU 
Convention. 
The implementation report on the Framework Deci sion on the application of the principle of 
mutual recognition to financial penalties308 shows that, as at October 2008, only eleven 
Member States had sent their national impl ementation laws to the Commission and the 
Council. According to the report , this is why the degree of implementation of the Framework 
Decision could not be fully asse ssed at that stage. The national implementing provisions are 
generally in line with the Framework Decisio n, especially as regards the most important 
issues such as abolishing dual criminality ch ecks and recognition of decisions without further 
formality. Unfortunately, an analysis of the grounds for refusal of recognition or execution 
showed that, whereas almost all Member States  had transposed them, they were implemented 
mostly as obligatory grounds. Furthermore, a nu mber of additional grounds were added. This 
practice is clearly not in line  with the Framework Decision. 
Other mutual recognition instrume nts have also been adopted in the area of judi cial decision, 
such as the financial and custodial sentences309 and confiscation orders310 framework 
decisions. 
In the field of criminal, the lack of timely or correct transposition of EU framework decisions 
into national law causes problems at different le vels. If the instrument is not transposed, 
practitioners cannot use it and have to use a mixture of in struments, which complicates 
matters rather then making them simpler for prac titioners. In addition, tr ials would be shorter 
and more efficient if EU instruments were used properly, to the benefit of suspects, the courts 
and the administration of justice alike. More generally, full mutual recognition would improve 
the fight against transnational crime, to  the benefit of society as a whole. 
                                                 
306 Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July  2003 on the execution in  the European Union of 
orders freezing property or eviden ce, OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 45. 
307 Since the publication of the im plementation report the Commission has received two new notifications 
(RO and IE). 
308 COM(2008) 888 final. 
309 Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle 
of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures 
involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of th eir enforcement in the Euro pean Union, OJ L 327, 
5.12.2008, p. 27.  
310 Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related 
Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Proper ties, OJ L 68, 15.3.2005, p. 49. 
 
EN 91   EN Many developments have been registered in th e field of exchange of information extracted 
from criminal records. As existing mechanis ms of exchange of information did not yield 
reliable results, for example, the Commissi on has been developing a "criminal records 
package" since 2004 in order to ensure that information on crim inal convictions circulates 
properly between the Member Stat es and that this informati on can be taken into account. 
Interconnection of criminal records is part of the European e-justice pr oject, although not part 
of the portal.  
Responding to the Fourniret child abuse case of 2004, the Commission presented a proposal 
for a Council Decision on the exchange of info rmation extracted from criminal records311, 
which was adopted by the Council in 2005312. This Decision in particul ar establishes the legal 
possibility of exchanging information on nationa l criminal records for other purposes than 
criminal proceedings, which was a difficulty before, as demonstrated by the Fourniret case. 
In 2005, the Commission presented a White Paper on exchanges of information on  
convictions and the effect of such convictions in the European Union313, analysing the main 
obstacles to the exchange of information on convictions and putting forward proposals for a 
computerised information exchange system. As a result, in 2005 the Commission tabled a 
proposal for a Council Framework Decision on th e organisation and content of exchange of 
information extracted from criminal records between  the Member States314, which has been 
adopted in 2009315. The main objective of the Framewor k Decision is to ensure that the 
Member State of a person's nationality is in a position to provide exhaustive and complete 
information in relation to its nationals’ crim inal records upon request from another Member 
State. The Framework Decision al so provides the basis for deve loping a computerised system 
to make for faster transmission of information on criminal convictions, in a form that Member 
States can understand and use more easily. The mechanism established by the Framework Decision aims among other things  to ensure that a person convicted of a sexual offence 
against children is no longer able  to conceal this convi ction or prohibition in  order to exercise 
professional activity related to the supervision of children in another Member State. This 
provision is applicable where th e criminal record of that person in the convicting Member 
State contains such a convict ion and, if imposed and entere d in the criminal record, a 
disqualification arising from it. 
In order to implement certain technical and le gal aspects of the above Framework Decision, in 
2008 the Commission adopted a proposal for a C ouncil Decision on the establishment of the 
European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS)
316. Political agreement on this 
Decision was reached in a record time of only th ree months of discussions in the Council, in 
                                                 
311 COM(2004) 664 final. 
312 Council Decision 2005/876/JHA of 21 November 2005 on the exchange of information extracted from 
the criminal record, OJ L 322, 9.12.2005, p. 33. 
313 COM(2005) 10 final. 
314 COM(2005) 690 final. 
315 Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26 February 2009 on the organisation and content of 
the exchange of information extr acted from the criminal  record between Member States, OJ L 93, 
7.4.2009, p. 23. 
316 COM(2008) 332 final. 
 
EN 92   EN October 2008, and it was adopted in April 2009317. The proposal aims to build and develop a 
computerised conviction-information exchange system. The system would enable electronic 
interconnection of criminal r ecords, where information exch anged on convictions between 
Member States is speedy, uniform and readily com puter-transferable. To that end, it first sets 
up the general architecture for the electronic exchange of information, laying the foundations 
for future IT developments in the interconnec tion of national criminal records. Secondly, it 
creates a standardised European format of tran smission of information on convictions. In this 
respect it provides for two reference tables of categories of offences and categories of 
sanctions which should facilitate machine transl ation and enable mutual understanding of the 
information transmitted by using a system of codes.  
Since these mechanisms concern the excha nge of information on EU nationals, the 
Commission identified the need to supplement them by an index of convicted third-country 
nationals, which would allow conv icted third-country nationals in  the EU Member States to 
be detected. In 2006, the Commission adopted a Working Document on the feasibility of an 
index of third-country nationals convicted in  the European Union318. Following an orientation 
debate in the Council in Ma rch 2008, the Commission is furt her examining the practical 
aspects of such an index, including the types of data it should contain and the respective cost 
implications, before presenting a legislative proposal. Apart from legislative steps, the 
Commission has also undertaken a number of technical and financial measures to help 
Member States put the technical infrastructure in place for connecting their criminal records 
systems. In 2009, the Commission will be able to  provide Member States with the software 
they need to use this information exchange  mechanism. Moreover, the Commission lends 
financial support to Member States' efforts to  modernise police reco rds. In 2007, about € 9 
million was allocated to Member States for th is purpose. € 12 million was available in 2008 
for the European-wide interconnection works.  
The Commission also adopted a Communication on "disqualifications aris ing from criminal 
convictions in the European Union" in 2006319. However, the area of disqualifications is not 
yet covered by any instrument based on the mutual recognition principle. 
Approximation of criminal law 
Mutual recognition is difficult to apply when the differences between legal systems of the 
Member States are too wide, in particular in criminal law. Differences in national rules on 
procedural rights may lead to judges being reluct ant to execute a foreign judgment or decision 
if they have concerns that these rights have not been fully respected. Differences in other 
areas, such as substantive criminal law, the le vel of sanctions imposed in practice or prison 
conditions can also be problematic. Furthermore, with the partial abolition of dual criminality 
checks in mutual recognition instruments, so me Member States are becoming increasingly 
reluctant to execute foreign decisions, for example, to collect evidence by using coercive powers, without harmonising the defini tions of the offences concerned. 
                                                
 
317 Council Decision 2009/316/JHA of 6 April 2009 on the establishment of the European Criminal 
Records Information System (E CRIS) in application of Artic le 11 of Framework Decision 
2009/315/JHA, OJ L 93, 7.4.2009, p. 33. 
318 COM(2006) 359 final. 
319 COM(2006) 73 final. 
 
EN 93   EN The strengthening of mutual r ecognition of judgments and judi cial decisions and police and 
judicial cooperation in criminal matters ha s been partially achieved. The Green Paper on 
Conflicts of Jurisdicti on and Double Jeopardy ( ne bis in idem )320 was the origin of the Czech 
initiative at beginning of 2009321 for the adoption of a fram ework decision on conflict of 
jurisdiction, which is being di scussed within the Council. 
The 2004 Commission proposal for a Framework Decision on certain procedural rights322 has 
been under discussion for three years in the Co uncil Working Party on substantive criminal 
law (DROIPEN) but has not been adopted yet. 
A Green Paper on presumption of  innocence was adopted in 2006323 but it has not been 
followed up by a legislative proposal. The planned Green Paper on default ( in absentia ) 
judgments was not adopted and was supersed ed by the above-mentioned Member States' 
initiative for a Framework Decision on the subject324. 
The Commission has published reports on the imple mentation of a number of measures, such 
as the second and third report on the impl ementation of the Framework Decision on the 
standing of victims in criminal proceedings325. In the first report published in 2004326, the 
Commission concluded that transposition of th e Framework Decision wa s not satisfactory. In 
the 2009 report, the Commission concluded that  implementation was st ill patchy, partly 
because the Framework Decision's provisions la ck precision. The Commi ssion therefore plans 
to introduce a proposal in 2009 to  amend the Framework Decision. 
Eurojust  
During the period of implementation of the Ha gue Programme, Eurojust has been assessed 
and its contribution in furthering cooperation in  criminal matters has been highlighted. The 
second report on the legal trans position of the Council Decision se tting up Eurojust (included 
in the Communication on the future of Eurojust) was adopted in 2007327. It underlines the 
positive results achieved by Eurojust: "Eurojust’ s operational record is a positive one. In 
2006, 771 operational cases were registered. This re presents an increase of 31% over the year 
2005. The quality and speed of the handling of cas es are generally recognised". At the same 
time, the Commission recognised that "the develo pment of Eurojust needs to be accompanied 
by a clarification and reinfor cement of the powers of the national members and by greater 
authority for the College. In order to achieve  this objective, the Decision ought to be 
amended" and proposed possible changes. This  report was followed up by the Member States 
who presented an initiative in 2008328 with a view of adopting a new decision on Eurojust. In 
                                                 
320 COM(2005) 696 final. 
321 Initiative of the Czech Republic, th e Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic 
and of the Kingdom of Sweden for a Council Framework Decision 2009/…/JHA on prevention and 
settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction in crim inal proceedings, OJ C 39, 18.2.2009, p. 2. 
322 COM(2004) 328 final. 
323 COM(2006)174 final. 
324 See footnotes 339 and 340. 
325 COM(2009) 166 final. 
326 COM(2004) 54 final/2. 
327 COM(2007) 644 final. 
328 Initiative of the Kingdom of Belg ium, the Czech Republic, the Republ ic of Estonia, the Kingdom of 
Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the 
 
 
EN 94   EN December 2008, the Council adopted a decision on the strengthening of Eurojust and 
amending Council Decision setting up Eurojust in a bid to step up the fight against serious 
crime329. The main changes in the new decision in clude greater powers of national members 
and of the College, and establish a rapid reacti on cell to deal with the most urgent cases. 
It should be noticed three cooperation agreemen ts between Eurojust an d third countries have 
entered into force in recent years (Norway, I celand and USA), whereas a further two were 
concluded but were still not in force at the end of 2008 (Croatia and Switzerland).. Moreover, 
22 third countries have designed na tional contact points with Eurojust330.  
Other instruments in the field of judi cial cooperation in criminal matters 
Other supplementary instruments were envisaged in the Hague package in support of judicial 
cooperation in criminal matters. For example, in order to facilitate th e prosecution of road 
traffic offences , in 2008 the Commission adopted a pr oposal for a Directive aimed at 
facilitating the cross-border enforcement of  traffic offences th rough technical measures331 to 
enable EU drivers to be identified and thus  sanctioned for offences committed in a Member 
State other than the one where the vehicle is registered. The proposal seeks to make it easier 
to deal with cross-border offences within the EU by way of a European network for the 
electronic exchange of data.  
On the other hand, following an impact assessment carried out in 2007332, the scheduled 
proposal on the protection of witn esses and collaborators with justice was not tabled, since it 
was considered not advisable at present to procee d with legislation of this sort at EU level. 
The Decision establishing a sp ecific financial programme on "Criminal Justice" was adopted 
in 2007333, with a budget of around € 200 million a llocated for the period 2007-2013. It is 
premature to assess its real impact, as the firs t set of projects financ ed is still underway. A 
mid-term evaluation of the programme will take place in 2011. 
International legal order 
The conclusion and discussion of international ag reements also made for closer cooperation in 
on criminal matters. One of the main develo pments was the inclus ion of provisions on 
counter-terrorist assistance in the proposed  revision of existing instruments governing 
external assistance: in  2004 the European C ouncil called on the Commission “to mainstream 
                                                                                                                                                         
Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic  of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of 
Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden with a view to adopting a Council Decision 
of … on the strengthening of Eurojust and amending Decision 2002/187/JHA, OJ C 54, 27.2.2008, p. 4. 
329 The Decision was adopted by the Council on 16.12.2008, but it has not been published yet on the 
Official Journal. 
330 Albania, Argentina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Canada, FYROM, Iceland, Israel, Japan, 
Liechtenstein, Moldova, Mongolia (official letter  of appointment not ye t received), Montenegro, 
Norway, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, Switzerland, Tha iland, Turkey, Ukraine, USA (cut-off date: April 
2008). 
331 COM(2008) 151 final.  
332 COM(2007) 693 final. 
333 See footnote 327. 
 
EN 95   EN counter-terrorism objectives into  external assistance programmes”334 and the Commission has 
been working with country and regional desk s in order to introduce counter-terrorism 
objectives into country and regi onal strategy papers and action plans. The result has so far 
been mixed: the number of occurrences of count er-terrorism-related objectives in such texts 
has increased but this is not yet systematic. Moreover, the United Nations Convention against 
Corruption was concluded in 2008, thanks to the Council Decision on the conclusion, on 
behalf of the European Community, of the United Nations Convention against Corruption335. 
A number of other internationa l agreements are unde r discussion, e.g. th e agreement between 
the EU and Liechtenstein on extradition and the agreements between the EU and Norway and 
Iceland on mutual legal assistance. The conclusi on on behalf of the EC of the United Nations 
Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and 
components, and ammunition needs to await im plementation of relevant EC legislation, 
notably Directive 91/577 and the Regula tion on an export/import licensing system. 
III. Future challenges Mutual recognition 
Instruments based on the mutual recognition pr inciple have not yet been adopted in some 
areas. In criminal matters, obtaining evidence is  a point of concern, it is only partly covered 
by these instruments. Indeed, the Framework Decision on freezing orders and the Framework 
Decision on the EAW only apply to obtaini ng existing evidence, such as objects or 
documents. Other forms of obtaining evidence, su ch as statements from suspects or witnesses 
or expert statements, are still covered by traditional mutual assistance instruments. 
Practitioners regard this as a problem because they have to use different instruments with different requirements and forms. New legisl ation should be based on experience with 
existing instruments, should give added value an d should be easy to use for practitioners.  
Disqualification is an area in which Member States' rules vary substantially. A careful 
analysis of the situati on is needed before any legislation in this area is proposed. In any case, 
work will need to be done in this area to prev ent that, for example, a person disqualified in 
one Member State from working with childre n because of sex offences could get a job 
working with children in another Member St ate if disqualificati on is not recognised.  
Another area in need of exploration will be mutual recognition of judi cial or administrative 
decisions granting protection to people at risk of intimidation, threat or violence such as 
witnesses. 
Considering the large number of existing mu tual recognition instru ments, the need to 
consolidate approaches and instruments will emerge. 
The Commission commissioned a study in 2008
336 that demonstrates that mutual recognition 
of judgments is easier to apply than pre-tria l decisions. In addition, th e study identifies four 
                                                 
334 European Council "Declaration on combating terrorism", 25.3.2004, available at: 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms _Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/79637.pdf. 
335 Council Decision 2008/801/EC on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the United 
Nations Convention against Corruption, OJ L 287, 29.10.2008. 
336 See footnote 320. 
 
EN 96   EN main gaps in the mutual recognition system in the following areas: exerci sing the rights of the 
defence, future of the European evidence warrant,  coordination of prosecutions and future of 
the EU criminal justice policy. The study also  identified other horizontal methodological 
problems concerning negotiations of instrument s, transposition and application of mutual 
recognition in practice.  
Approximation of law 
With experience it has become clear that approximation is a necessary companion and 
requirement for mutual recogniti on to work. The more Member St ates' legislation is aligned, 
the easier it will be to achieve true mutual recognition. This applies both to substantive law and to procedural law.  
In the area of criminal law, grounds for refusal are to be introduced in areas where differences 
in legislation may pose problems for the Member  State which is to recognise and execute 
judgments or decisions. Examples are national rules on judgments rendered in absentia , 
detention standards for prisoners, the ne bis in idem  principle and the age of criminal liability. 
Priority should be given to the further approxi mation of serious cross-bo rder crimes. If there 
were fewer differences between Member States in how these matters we re dealt with, it would 
be much easier for the judicial systems to coopera te. Mutual trust should also be enhanced by 
the adoption of common minimum standards for fair trial rights and for the protection of 
victims of crime. 
Furthermore, diverging rules on admissibility of  evidence may lead to an undesirable situation 
where evidence lawfully gathered in one Me mber State cannot be used in criminal 
proceedings in another. This issue should be e xplored in the future (a  Green Paper will be 
issued on this matter).  
Eurojust 
Over the next few years, special attention s hould be paid to prope r implementation of the 
Council Decisions on the reform of Eurojust and of the European Judicial Network in 
Criminal Matters. The use of these two bodies  by national practitioners will need to be 
promoted.  
Particular attention will be paid to the promo tion of specific financing programmes and to the 
development of the European Judicial Network website. 
International legal order 
The external dimension of judicial cooperatio n in criminal matters should be deepened 
through the conclusion of new extradition and mu tual assistance agreements with countries 
belonging to strategic re gions. This could be a ssisted by practitione rs' forum with third 
countries, where practical implemen tation problems could be discussed. 
 
EN 97   EN 5.4. Judicial cooperation in civil matters  
I. Objectives  The principle of mutual recogniti on of judgments is the cornerst one of judicial cooperation in 
civil matters. It allows a judgment given in a c ourt in one Member State to be recognised and 
enforced in another with a minimum of procedur al steps. For individuals  and companies to be 
able to exercise their rights in full wherever they might be in the European Union, any 
incompatibilities between judicial and administ rative systems in the various Member States 
need to be removed, with the ultim ate goal of abolishing "exequatur". 
At the 1999 Tampere European Council, EU l eaders acknowledged the importance of further 
enhancing judicial cooperation in civil matters and set precise priorities for action. The Justice 
and Home affairs Council adopted a programme of measures in 2000 for implementation of 
the principle of mutual recognition of d ecisions in civil a nd commercial matters
337. 
Along the same lines, the Hague Programme called for the facilitation of civil law procedure 
across borders, mutual recognition of decisions , enhanced cooperation, more coherence and 
quality in EU legislation a nd greater consistency with the international legal order. 
II. Main developments  Facilitating civil law procedure across borders  
The facilitation of cross-border procedures im plies the continuous deve lopment of judicial 
cooperation in civil matters and completion of  the 2000 programme of mutual recognition. 
Borders between countries in Euro pe should no longer be an obstacl e to the settlement of civil 
law matters or to the bringing of court proceedi ngs and the enforcement of decisions in civil 
matters. 
Community initiatives therefore aimed to ensure  that all EU citizens have the same access to 
justice throughout the EU . Without a genuine area of jus tice, where people can approach 
courts and authorities in any Me mber State as easily as in th eir own, EU citizens cannot fully 
benefit from freedom of m ovement. Judgments and decisions should be respected and 
enforced throughout the Union, while safeguardi ng the basic legal certainty of people and 
economic operators. Greater compatibility and more convergence between the legal systems 
of Member States must be achieved. 
Ready access to justice also ma kes it easier to obtain justic e across borders. A 2003 directive 
aims to ensure minimum standards on legal ai d for citizens involved in cross-border cases
338, 
who are often faced with a barrag e of difficulties (not least la nguage and costs) when it comes 
to defending their rights in another Member State. Furthermore, a 2004 directive relating to 
                                                 
337 Draft programme of measures for implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in 
civil and commercial matters, OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 1.  
338 Council Directive 2 002/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes 
by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes, OJ L 26, 31.1.2003, p. 
41. 
 
EN 98   EN compensation to crime victims339 provides that each Member State should have a national 
scheme in place which guarantees fair and appr opriate compensation to  victims of crime, 
whether or not they are citizens of that St ate. Moreover, the directive ensures that 
compensation is readily accessible in practice rega rdless of where in th e EU a person becomes 
the victim of a crime, by creating a system fo r cooperation between nati onal authorities. The 
2009 report on the application of the direc tive on compensation to crime victims340 shows that 
Member States provide fair and appropriate co mpensation for victims of violent intentional 
crimes. As far as the procedural aspects of th e directive are concerned, the reports show that 
the Deciding and Assisting Authorities and th e claimants have different perceptions, the 
former being more positive about the way it operate s than the latter. It is  also confirmed that 
implementation of the directive needed to  be improved, although without amending the 
directive, particularly in four main areas: data collection on the application of the directive; better information for citizens; compliance with language requirements; and greater 
transparency and clarity. 
More recently, the mediation directive
341, which applies also to family law, encourages 
citizens to turn to mediation to settle their di sputes, where possible, an d tries to establish a 
sound relationship between civil procedures and alternative m eans of dispute resolution. EU 
Member States will have until 21 May 2011 to bri ng into force the necessary laws, regulations 
and administrative provisions to co mply with this new directive. 
Mutual recognition of decisions 
Much progress has been made dur ing the period of the Hague Pr ogramme in the area of civil 
justice. Most of the instruments provided for in the Hague package have been adopted, which 
has helped to achieve its objectives. 
A large number of legislative measures impl ementing the principle of  mutual recognition 
have been agreed since 1999, which have helped  to usher in the basic principle of cross-
border mutual recognition, a unique achievement in  the world. Directly a pplicable regulations 
in the field of civil law advise  citizens and businesse s involved in cross-border legal disputes 
on which courts have jurisdictio n and what rules appl y to the recognition of a judgment given 
in another Member State (Brussels I regulation)342. Matrimonial disputes and questions of 
parental responsibility ha ve also been covered343 (the Brussels II (a) regulation replacing the 
Brussels II regulation344).  
                                                 
339 Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, OJ L 261, 
6.8.2004, p. 15. 
340 COM(2009) 170 final. 
341 Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects 
of mediation in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 136, 24.5.2008, p. 3. 
342 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2 001 of 22 December 2000 on ju risdiction and the recognition and 
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1. 
343 Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the 
recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental 
responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 1. 
344 Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and 
enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children 
of both spouses, OJ L 160, 30.6.2000, p. 19. 
 
EN 99   EN The ultimate goal of the mutual recognition progr amme is that a judgment obtained in one 
Member State should be recognized and enfor ceable in another Member State without the 
need for any intermediate procedures to declare that the foreign judgment is enforceable ("exequatur"). Mutual recognition of decisions is an effective means of protecting the rights 
of citizens and business, and securing the enfo rcement of such rights across European borders. 
The priority of completing the 2000 programme by 2011 led to the adoption of instruments on 
conflict of laws rules regarding non -contractual obligations ("Rome II")
345 and contractual 
obligations ("Rome I")346, which specify which legal system is competent wit hout the need to 
harmonise substantive law. The effectiveness of existing instruments on mutual recognition 
was increased by standardising procedures and documents, such as the European Order for Payment
347 and the European Small Claims Procedure348, and developing minimum standards 
for aspects of procedural law, such as the se rvice of judicial and extra-judicial documents349.  
In family law, implementation of the regulati on concerning matrimonial matters and parental 
responsibility (Brussels II(a)) ensu red that children can mainta in regular contact with both 
parents following a separation and provides clear rules to deter child a bduction throughout the 
EU. Furthermore, a 2009 regulation will ensure sw ift and efficient recovery of maintenance 
obligations in the EU350. The Commission was also invi ted to submit green papers on 
successions351 (a legislative proposal on successions and wills is expected to be adopted in 
2009 in a bid to help solve the complex probl ems currently involved in a transnational 
succession), matrimonial property regimes352, and divorce (Rome III)353. Rules on uniform 
substantive law should only be introduced as an  accompanying measure, whenever necessary.  
The European Enforcement Order354, which allows citizens to obtain quick and efficient 
enforcement of uncontested claims, has been one  of the instruments used to facilitate 
procedures that are optional to national proc edures. The Regulation es tablishing a European 
Payment Order procedure adopted in 2006355 and the European Small Claims Procedure 
(under € 2,000) adopted in 2007356 were also along these lines. These new procedures aim to 
simplify and speed up litigations concerning uncontested claims  and small claims in cross-
                                                 
345 Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the 
law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 40. 
346 Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the 
law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6. 
347 Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of  the European Parliament and of  the Council of 12 December 2006 
creating a European order for payment procedure, OJ L 399, 30.12.2006, p. 1. 
348 Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 
establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 1. 
349 Council regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial 
and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, OJ L 160, 30.6.2000, p. 37. 
350 Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009  of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction,  applicable law, recognition 
and enforcement of decisi ons and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, OJ L 7, 
10.1.2009, p. 1. 
351 COM(2005) 65 final. 
352 COM(2006) 400 final. 
353 COM(2005) 82 final. 
354 Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating 
a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 15. 
355 See footnote 384. 
356 See footnote 385. 
 
EN 100   EN border situations. The regulati ons became applicable between the end 2008 and the beginning 
2009, and thus there as yet not information regarding their practical application.  
Further preparatory work has started on how to improve the enforcement of judgments in the 
EU357.  
Regulations relating to the service of documents in cross-border cases358 and concerning the 
taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters359 have been adopted in the area of 
cooperation between the Member States. The pr eviously mentioned decision establishing a 
European judicial network in civil and commerci al matters should also be mentioned in this 
connection. 
With regard to financial programmes, a decision  establishing a specific programme on "Civil 
Justice" was adopted in 2007360. It is premature to assess its real  impact, as the first series of 
projects financed are still ongoing. A mid-term evaluation of the programme will take place in 
2011. 
Enhancing cooperation 
For these instruments involving the cooperation of judicial or other bodies to operate 
smoothly, Member States should designate liaiso n judges or other compet ent authorities based 
in their own countries. Where a ppropriate, they could use their national contact point within 
the EJNCCM. The Commission was asked to orga nise EU workshops on the application of 
EU law and promote cooperation between members of the legal professi ons with a view to 
establishing best practice. 
Close cooperation and direct contacts between the courts speed up cross-border judicial 
proceedings. The main areas of judicial coop eration in civil and commercial matters where 
the Community has facilitated the life of judges are the service of documents and the taking of 
evidence. 
In November 2008, the aforementioned regulation on the service of judicial and extrajudicial 
documents (service of documents) replaced the 2000 Council regulation on the same matters 
and further clarified and streamlined procedures. It is too early to assess its impact, however. 
The entry into force in 2004 of the aforemen tioned regulation on the taking of evidence 
generally appears to have improved, simplif ied and accelerated cooperation between the 
courts on the taking of evidence  in civil or commercial matte rs. The regulation has achieved 
its two main objectives, firstly  of simplifying cooperation betw een the Member States and 
                                                 
357 COM(2008) 128 final, Green Paper "Effective enfor cement of judgments in th e European Union: the 
transparency of debtors’ assets"; COM(2006) 618 final, "Green Paper on improving the efficiency of the enforcement of judgments in the European Union: the attachment of bank accounts". 
358 Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 
on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial 
matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, OJ L 324, 
10.12.2007, p. 79 
359 Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the 
Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 1. 
360 See footnote 326. 
 
EN 101   EN secondly of accelerating the taking of eviden ce, to a relatively satisfactory extent. 
Simplification has been brought about mainly by the introduction of di rect court-to-court 
transmission (although requests are still sometimes or even often sent to central bodies) and 
by the introduction of standard forms. Most re quests for the taking of evidence are executed 
faster than before. Finally, a practical guide fo r legal practitioners should convince them of 
the benefits of direct taking of evidence,  an important innovation of the regulation. 
As a result of the conclusions  of the report  on the EJNCCM361, the Commission presented a 
proposal amending the f ounding decision in 2008362. Its aim is to provi de the Network with 
the means of establishing itself as the key in strument of cooperation between civil justice 
stakeholders within the European law enforc ement area. The proposal followed wide-ranging 
consultation of the members of the network, the ot her institutions and civil society. It aims to 
strengthen the role of the contact points, whic h are the cornerstone of the network, and to 
ensure more effective practical applicati on by judges and other members of the legal 
profession of the numerous instruments adopted si nce 2002 in the field of civil justice. The 
proposal also sets out to open th e Network to the legal professi ons directly involved in civil 
judicial cooperation, to help it achieve its objectives more effectively. In addition, the tasks of 
the network would be extended to improve the in formation available, both to the public on 
their rights and to the judiciary on the content of  the laws of other Member States. Finally, in 
order to achieve the objectives of the Ha gue Programme as regards improving judicial 
cooperation and citizens' access to justice, the proposal gives the Network a revised legal framework, a more effective form of organi sation and greater means to consolidate its 
position within the European area of justice as the lynchpin of cooperation between everyone involved in civil justice. The Council and th e European Parliament reached political 
agreement on the proposal on first reading in December 2008. The amending decision is 
expected to be adopted in 2009. 
Ensuring coherence and upgrading the quality of EU legislation 
Improving the quality of EU legislation is  a permanent objective of the Commission. 
As far as codification is c oncerned, the Commission launched a consultation procedure on the 
acquis  review concerning the comm on frame of reference in the field of EU consumer 
contract law
363.  
In matters of contract law, the quality of existing and future Community law should be 
improved by measures to consolidate, codificate and streamline the legal instruments in force 
and by developing a common frame of referen ce. The Common Frame of Reference (CFR) 
work on consumer contract law issues, together with the results of othe r preparatory work, has 
served as a starting point for th e above-mentioned Green Paper on the acquis  review. 
Moreover, in 2007 the draft CFR prepared by the Study Group on a European Civil Code and 
the Research Group on EC Private Law ( Acquis  Group) was delivered to the Commission and 
later presented to the European Parliament.  
International legal order 
                                                 
361 COM(2006) 203 final. 
362 COM(2008) 380 final. 
363 COM(2006) 744 final. 
 
EN 102   EN The external dimension of cooperation in civil matters focuses on building judicial 
cooperation on the basis of exis ting multilateral instruments and, consequently, promoting the 
accession of third countries to relevant internat ional conventions in civil and commercial area, 
many of which were drawn up by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. 
The Commission and the Hague Conference on Pr ivate International La w cooperate closely 
on subjects of common interest . In 2006, the Council adopted a decision on the accession of 
the Community to the Hague Conference on Private Law (HCCH)364 and actual accession 
took place in April 2007. The Commission propos ed in September 2008 that the Community 
should sign the 2005 Hague Convention on the Choice of Courts Agreements365. In February 
2009, the Commission presented a proposal for the conclusion by the EC of the Protocol on 
the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligati ons (the so-called "H ague Protocol" on 
applicable law in maintenance issues)366. 
The Commission enhanced the adoption of co mmon international ru les on parental 
responsibility and child protection by encour aging Member States to apply the Hague 
Convention of 19 October 1996 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and 
cooperation in respect of parental  responsibility and measures for the protection of children. It 
also encouraged Member States to sign th e Hague Convention on th e international legal 
protection of vulnerable adults. Furthermore, th e Commission has been active at international 
level to improve the applic ation of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of 
International Child Abduction. Finally, in the fi eld of family law, the Commission has put 
forward a proposal for signing the 2003 Convention of the Council of Europe on contacts with 
children. 
The new Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction, Rec ognition and Enforcement of Judgments in 
Civil and Commercial Matters concluded by  the Community and Norway, Iceland and 
Switzerland was signed on 30 October 2007. On  the basis of a Commission proposal367, the 
Council decided in November 2008 to conclude the Convention368. 
There have also been significant developments  in the accession of Denmark to judicial 
cooperation (Brussels I, service of documents)369 and in 2009 the Commission has proposed 
amendments to the Council Decisions concerning the agreements with Denmark370. 
Acting on the basis of Commi ssion proposals, the Community has concluded the UNIDROIT 
Convention on International Inte rests and its Aircraft Protoc ol adopted in Cap Town in 
                                                 
364 Council Decision 2006/719/EC of 5 October 2006  on the accession of the Community to the Hague 
Conference on Private International Law, OJ L 297, 26.10.2006, p. 1. 
365 COM(2008) 538 final. 
366 COM(2009) 81 final. 
367 COM(2008) 116 final. 
368 The Community deposited instruments of approval on 18.5.2009. 
369 Council Decision 2006/325/EC of 27 April 2006 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between 
the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and 
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 120, 5.5.2006, p. 22 and  Council 
Decision 2006/326/EC of 27 April 2006 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the service of judicial and extrajudicial 
documents in civil or commercial matters, OJ L 120, 5.5.2006, p. 23.  
370 COM(2009) 100 final and COM(2009) 101 final. 
 
EN 103   EN November 2001371; moreover, the Commission has proposed  that the Community would sign 
the Rail Protocol372. 
III. Future challenges Completing the mutual recognition programme and facilitating the life of citizens in 
administrative and judicial area 
Abolishing the exequatur  procedure will remain the overall objective to be achieved in the 
years to come. 
As regards judicial cooperati on in civil matters, some areas are not yet covered by mutual 
recognition instruments, although they may be  covered by the Hague Conventions (for 
example, presumption of death or vulnerable ad ults). The property consequences of marriage 
are excluded from the existing legal framew ork, but, with the free movement of persons, 
increasingly couples come from  different Member States, marry abroad, and/or have property 
in different Member States, ma king it difficult to make arrange ments in the event of divorce 
or separation. The area of wills and succession is still not covered by the existing mutual 
recognition rules, which means, for example, th at a person recognised as the beneficiary of a 
will in one Member State may not be recognised as such in another Member State. The same goes for matrimonial property regimes.  
An additional area not yet covered by EU inst ruments on mutual recognition is that of civil 
status acts (birth, marriage and partnership, ch anging name and death). This is linked to the 
problem of non-recognition of so- called "authentic acts". If, for example, a birth certificate –
an essential prerequisite to obt aining an identity card, social se curity, the right to vote, etc.– 
issued in one Member State is not legally recogn ised in another, the problems for that person 
and the negative consequences for his freedom of  movement and residenc e rights are evident. 
An additional and substantive step towards complete abolition of the exequatur  procedure in 
civil and commercial law should be to make it eas ier for individuals and businesses to enforce 
judgments in their favour, thus improving effectiv e access to justice and the functioning of the 
internal market. For this purpose, the Co mmission presented in 2009 a report on the 
application of the Brussels I Regulation
373 accompanied by a Green Paper on the possible 
review of the regulation374.  
Mutual recognition might also consist of appr oximating substantive law in certain areas: 
minimum standards for protective and provisi onal measures and standards for decisions 
relating to parental responsibil ity should be further explored. 
Considering the growing mobility of European citizens, better instruments are needed for 
them to have easy and effective access to ju stice wherever in the EU. Against this 
background, the question of the co st of justice acquires additiona l importance, as do linguistic 
                                                 
371 COM(2008) 508 final. 
372 COM(2009) 94 final. 
373 COM(2009) 174 final. 
374 COM(2009) 175 final. 
 
EN 104   EN and technical problems in transnational cas es. The progress of new technologies and the 
development of e-Justice can be helpful in this respect. 
Improving enforcement 
Two Green Papers have been presented on the matter of improvement of  enforcement: one on 
effective enforcement of judici al decisions through the creatio n of better rule s concerning 
bank attachments, and another on the effective enforcement of judgments in the European 
Union concerning the transparen cy of debtors’ assets. Follo wing on from these, further 
initiatives should be taken to simplify peopl e's lives when they have to complete 
administrative formalities. 
There should also be concrete follow-up of th e study on enforcement in the area of parental 
responsibility, so as to improve the practical enforcement of judgements relating for instance 
to custody, and thus help families in difficult circ umstances to adapt to the new legal situation 
more efficiently and rapidly. 
Ensuring coherence and upgrading the quality of EU legislation 
In matters of contract law, the quality of existing and future Community law should be 
improved by measures to consolidate, codify a nd streamline the legal instruments in force and 
by developing a common frame of reference. A framework should be se t up to explore ways 
of developing EU-wide standard terms and conditi ons of contract law, wh ich could be used by 
companies and trade associations in the European Union.  
As to the shape of the future framework, the idea was mooted that it should be designed as a 
"toolbox". The EU should continue to discuss the issue of consumer contract law in order to 
develop a "toolbox" to be used as a non-binding guide containing definitions of legal terms, 
fundamental principles and m odel rules of contract law. 
A framework should also be set up to explore ways of developing EU-wide standard terms 
and conditions of contract law which could be used by companies and trade associations in the EU. 
In the light of the better regulation agenda and the now large number of existing mutual 
recognition instruments, consolidation should be pur sued in an effort to make the overall legal 
framework more accessible. 
Improved implementation and evaluation of civil justice acquis  
The implementation of the acquis  is constantly monitored. 
The EJNCCM play an important role in improving, simplifying and accelerating judicial 
cooperation between Member States. The Co mmission's proposal to amend the Decision 
establishing the EJNCCM will provide the Networ k with an updated legal framework, a more 
effective form of organisation and increased resources to make it a key instrument of 
cooperation within the European area of justice betw een all civil justi ce stakeholders. The 
Network will be open to all legal profession s directly concerned with civil judicial 
cooperation, thus improving information on and proper application of the Community 
instruments.  
 
EN 105   EN Monitoring and evaluation in civil justice shoul d be stepped up, as previously mentioned for 
the field of justice as a whole.  
Full use of external competencies in the area of international cooperation 
Since the 2006 opinion of the EJC on the Lugano convention375, it has been confirmed that the 
Community has exclusive powers in those areas of civil jus tice cooperation. The consequence 
is that the Community has to become an important international player and policy-maker in these issues. Four aspects must be considered for the application of these external powers: 
developing a global EC policy on internationa l private law as a member of the Hague 
Conference; ensuring the coherence of multilatera l international agreements with EC rules on 
civil justice; proposing and negotiating bilatera l agreements in particular on recognition and 
enforcement, priority given to relations w ith countries of the Eu ropean Economic Area, 
candidate countries, Stabilisat ion and Association countries and the main international 
partners like; and managing the pr ocedure of authorizing the Memb er States to have bilateral 
agreements with third countries in certain areas of civil justice. 
                                                
 
375 Opinion  1/03 pursuant to Article 300(6) EC. 
 
EN 106   EN 6. EXTERNAL  DIMENSION 
I. Objectives  The Hague Programme mandated the Commi ssion and the Secretary-General/High 
Representative to submit a strategy to the C ouncil, by the end of 2005, covering all external 
aspects of EU policy on freedom, security and justice. Further to a Communication from the 
Commission
376, a "Strategy for the external dimension of Freedom, Security and Justice" 
(hereinafter "the Strategy") was en dorsed by the Council in December 2005377.  
The Strategy set out a series of thematic priorities: counter-terrorism, organised crime, 
corruption, drugs and managing migration flow s, as along with a number of underlying 
principles and delivery mechanisms378. These thematic priorities were also identified as the 
key threats in the European Secu rity Strategy (ESS) of December 2003379, which was backed 
up by the "Report on Implementation of the Europ ean Security Strategy - Providing Security 
in a Changing World"380. A further goal of the Strategy was to advance the EU's external 
relations objectives by promoting the rule of law, respect for human rights and international 
obligations. 
The Strategy provided for 18-monthly progre ss reports by the Commi ssion and the Council 
General Secretariat. The Commission and the C ouncil Secretariat issued  progress reports in 
November 2006381 and May 2008382. 
II. Main developments  
II.1. Thematic dimension  
The second progress report on the impleme ntation of the Strategy recorded a steady increase 
in the size, quality and importance of external relations in the a rea of freedom, security 
and justice . Major initiatives have been taken in th e field of migration, asylum, movement of 
persons and border management, protection of fundamental rights, protection of personal 
data, counter-terrorism and law enfo rcement and judicial cooperation. 
In line with the Strategy, three of the five originally planned  Action Oriented Papers (AOPs) 
have been adopted so far: the AOP on improvi ng cooperation on organised crime, corruption, 
                                                 
376 COM(2005) 491 final. 
377 Council document 14366/3/05 rev 3. 
378 Work in partnership with third countries, promote international standards, differentiated and flexible 
approach, importance of working with EU's neighbours, use broad range of instruments across the pillars, Member States to mobilise resources alongside Commission - complementarity, monitoring and 
evaluation. 
379 Available at: http://www.consilium.euro pa.eu/showPage.asp x?id=266&lang=EN. 
380 Council document 17104/08. 
381 SEC(2006) 1498, "Progress report on the implementation of the Strategy for the External Dimension of 
JHA: Global Freedom, Security and Justice". 
382 SEC(2008) 1971, "Second progress report on the implementation of the Strategy for the External 
Dimension of JHA: Global Fr eedom, Security and Justice". 
 
EN 107   EN illegal immigration and counter-terrorism between the EU and the Western Balkans383; the 
AOP on increasing EU support for combating dr ugs production in a nd trafficking from 
Afghanistan384; and the AOP on implementing with Russia the common space of freedom, 
security and justice385. 
The Council General Secretariat produced two progress reports on  the state of implementation 
of the Western Balkans AOP386 and one on the Russia AOP387. As regards the former, the 
reports noted progress on activi ties and cooperation between the relevant Member States, EU 
bodies, other players and Western Balkan countries. At the same  time, it deplored the limited 
response by Member States (only 19 of the 27 provided contributions to  the report), which 
substantially limits the scope a nd seriously undermines the valu e of the exercise. The report 
on the Russia AOP highlighted the good progress made on the movement of persons, migration and border issues, while stressing that cooperation on justice matters could be 
enhanced. It also suggested that some secur ity issues (e.g. money laundering) had received 
noticeably more attention than others (e.g. traffi cking in human beings) and that the use of the 
liaison officers network could be put to grea ter use. Again, the value of the report was 
diminished by the fact that only 17 Me mber States provided contributions. 
II.2. Geographical dimension
 
General 
Key elements  of the Strategy have been implemented through the enlargement process , the 
Stabilisation and Association Process with the Western Balkans , the revised action plan on 
Justice and Home Affairs with Ukraine388 and the European Neighbourhood Policy  Action 
Plans with other countries389. Under the Black Sea Synergy390 the EU has also launched a 
number of initiatives related to migrati on and the fight agains t organised crime.  
There has been an upturn in overall JLS cooperation with the Mediterranean countries  since 
11 September 2001 and the gradual introduction of European Neighbourhood Policy action plans, with their solid JLS component even thoug h JLS subjects remain domestically sensitive 
issues. At regional level, the EUROMED/Barcelona process  contains an important JLS 
component, notably with the adoption at the Barcelona Summit in 2005 of a 5-year action 
plan
391, including JLS matters, as well as a Code of conduct on terrorism392. The EUROMED 
programme (migration, police, justice) has cont ributed to the implementation of policies in 
this field. Building on the Barcelona process, the Union for the Mediterranean  has been 
                                                 
383 Council document 9306/06 JAI 248. 
384 Council document 9305/06. 
385 Council document 15534/1/06 rev 1. 
386 Council document 15736/06 and 8827/2/08. 
387 Council document 16303/1/08. 
388 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/action_plans/ukraine_enp_ap_jls-rev_en.pdf. 
389 The Action Plans are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/documents_en.htm. 
390 COM(2007) 160 final. 
391 Available at: http://www.euromedbarcelona. org/NR/rdonlyres/E364270B-58D7-44A5-B58D-
8FE7672ED397/0/EUROMEDWorkProgrFINAL28NOV.pdf. 
392 Available at: http://www.euromedbarcelona. org/NR/rdonlyres/3F64E0D6-A00F-45E5-88C2-
0CAA7D03D187/0/EUROMEDCodeConductFINAL28NOV.pdf. 
 
EN 108   EN launched with a view to increasing the poten tial for cooperation w ith the Mediterranean 
partners. 
The Eastern Partnership  is taking shape, the Commissi on presenting  a Communication in 
2008393 containing specific proposals, notably the es tablishments of Mob ility and Security 
Pacts to facilitate the movement  of people accompanied by effective reforms in the security 
sector of these countries. Cooperation has also b een stepped up with strategic partners such as 
Russia,  the United States and Brazil, and also with Africa , China , India and Latin 
America . 
In many of these regions and countries, the Co mmission is funding programmes and projects 
under the respective external aid in struments, in areas such as migration or police and justice 
reform, which also contribute to the achievement  of the objectives of the external dimension 
of the EU policy on freedom, security and justice. 
Enlargement agenda 
The enlargement  process and the alignment of candidate  countries on EU standards continue. 
Law enforcement, independence of the judiciary and rule of law are important components of 
the discussions. Given the rapid expansion of the JLS acquis , it has now been divided into 
two chapters for the purpose of negotiations: ch apter 23 on "judiciary and fundamental rights" 
and chapter 24 on "justice, freedom and security". 
The Stabilisation and Asso ciation Agreement with Croatia  entered into force in February 
2005394. Annual JLS sub-committee meetings have si nce been held covering issues such as 
reform of the judiciary, corruption, mone y laundering, fundamental rights, protection of 
personal data, border management, visa and doc ument security, asylum, migration, organised 
crime, police cooperation and drugs. Expert as sessment missions to Croatia on JLS issues, 
with the participation of Memb er State experts, have been carried out annually. A revised 
version of the Accession Part nership was adopted in 2008395 and sets out short-term priorities 
in the JLS area. The Commission published the la test annual Progress Report on Croatia in 
November 2008396. 
Accession negotiations with Croatia were ope ned in October 2005. Neither of the two JLS 
chapters has yet been formally opened for negotiations.  
An operational cooperation agreement between Croatia and Europol en tered into force in 
2006 and Croatia has posted a liaison officer to Europol. Croatia has also signed a working 
arrangement with Frontex, as well as a cooperati on agreement with Eurojust. Preparations are 
being made for Croatia to participate to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug 
Addiction and in the Fundamental Rights Agency.  
                                                 
393 COM(2008) 823 final. 
394 Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, 
of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part, OJ L 26, 28.5.2005, p. 3. 
395 Council Decision 2008/119/EC of 12 February 2 008 on the principles, priorities and conditions 
contained in the Accession Partnership with Croatia and repealing Decision 2006/145/EC, OJ L 042 , 
16.2.2008, p. 1. 
396 SEC(2008) 2694. 
 
EN 109   EN Accession negotiations with Turkey  were opened in October 2005 and the screening process 
was launched to assess the level of preparedness  to start negotiations on individual chapters. 
The screening reports on the two JLS-related ch apters are under discus sion in the Council. No 
agreement has been reached so far on the ope ning of either one of  the two JLS-related 
chapters.  
A revised Accession Partnership wa s adopted by the Council in 2008397. Progress on the 
priorities of the Accession Partnership in the field of justice, freedom and security, is 
monitored and encouraged at the yearly A ssociation Committee and the sectoral JLS sub-
committee meetings. Negotiations for a readmissi on agreement with Turkey were opened in 
2005 and the last round of negotiations took place in December 2006. Since then, however, 
Turkey has not pursued the negotiations.  
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia  applied for EU membership in 2004. 
Subsequently the country has replied to a Commission questionnaire , which contained a 
substantial chapter on JLS issues . In the opinion it issued in 2005398, the Commission judged 
that there had been sufficient progress, in cluding on JLS issues, to recommend candidate 
status. This status was gran ted by the Council in 2005. The Comm ission is closely monitoring 
developments in the country and has organised several expert missions. Three of the eight key 
priorities of the country's accession partners hip are JLS-related: judicial reform, anti-
corruption and police reform. 
Relations with Western Balkan countries  have intensified within the different regular 
meetings of the Stabilisation and Association Process. Short and medium-term priorities are 
set out in the European Partnerships for Al bania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, 
Serbia and Kosovo (under UNSCR 1244/99)399, and efforts made are evaluated in the 
Progress Reports adopted annually for each count ry, the latest of which was published in 
November 2008400. Expert missions were conducted by the Commission to deepen the 
assessment of progress on the ground and refine t echnical assistance prior ities in Montenegro, 
Serbia and Kosovo. Stabilisation and Associat ion agreements were signed with Albania, 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia . Pending their entry into force, interim 
agreements are in place with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro. 
                                                 
397 Council Decision 2008/157/EC of 18 February 2 008 on the principles, priorities and conditions 
contained in the Accession Partnership with the Republic of Turkey and repealing Decision 
2006/35/EC, OJ L 051 , 26.2.2008, p. 4. 
398 COM(2005) 562 final. 
399 Respectively: Council Decision 2008/210/EC of 18 February 2008 on the principles, priorities and 
conditions contained in the European Partnership w ith Albania and repealing Decision 2006/54/EC, OJ 
L 80 , 19.3.2008, p. 1; Council Decision 2008/211/EC of  18 February 2008 on the principles, priorities 
and conditions contained in the European Partnership with Bosnia and Herzegovina and repealing 
Decision 2006/55/EC, OJ L 80, 19.3.2008, p. 18; Council Decision 2007/49/EC of 22 January 2007 on 
the principles, priorities and conditions contained in the European Partnership with Montenegro, OJ L 
020, 27.1.2007, p. 16; Council Decision 2008/213/EC of 18 February 2008 on the principles, priorities 
and conditions contained in the European Partnership with Serbia including Kosovo as defined by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999 and repealing Decision 2006/56/EC, 
OJ L 80, 19.2.2008, p. 46. 
400 SEC(2008) 2692, SEC(2008) 2693, SEC(2008) 2696, SEC(2008) 2698 and SEC(2008) 2697. 
 
EN 110   EN Some progress can be noted, in particular in  the area of visa facilitation and readmission, 
where agreements are now in force with Western Balkan countries401. Dialogue on visa 
liberalisation started in early 2008 with five countri es of the region (Albania, Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia). The 
Commission is currently reviewing the extent to  which countries have met their benchmarks. 
Depending on how successful they have been, the Commission could propose the lifting of 
the visa obligation for certain countries. On the other hand, the overall results in the fight 
against organised crime and corruption and admini strative capacities in the judiciary and the 
police, remain weak.  
European Neighbourhood Policy countries 
The European Neighbourhood Policy provides the overall framework for relations with 
countries on the Eastern and Southern borders of the EU. 
Bilateral relations with Mediterranean countries  largely focus on the implementation of the 
JLS provisions of the ENP action plans with Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Israel and the 
Palestinian Authority. Action pl ans with Egypt and Lebanon we re agreed in 2007, including a 
significant JLS section. The network of sub-committees under the Association Agreements  is 
used to implement and review progress towards the realisation of the objectives set out in 
these action plans.  
With Algeria , two informal JLS working group m eetings took place in December 2006 and 
March 2007, prior to the first meeting of the EU-Algeria Ju stice and Home Affairs sub-
committee in December 2008, and covered a wide range of subjects including migration and 
terrorism. Algeria refused to conclude an ENP Action Plan but a "Road map accompanying 
the association agreement" was agreed last ye ar and focused on a number of priority areas 
(e.g. management of movement of pe rsons and fight against terrorism). 
With Egypt , the second meeting of the EU-Egypt Just ice and Security sub-committee and the 
working group on migration, social and consular  affairs took place in June 2008. It identified 
a variety of cooperation possibili ties, from supporting the effort s of the respective Egyptian 
bodies in assisting victims of trafficking in  human beings to the training of judges and 
prosecutors.  
Cooperation has progressed with Israel  in the recent years through the ENP. Four meetings 
have already been held of the EU-Israel Justi ce and Legal matters sub-committee. A series of 
seminars have taken place in the areas of comb ating trafficking in human  beings, fight against 
anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia, money laundering and terrorism financing. On police cooperation, preparations are ongoing for negot iations on an operational agreement between 
Europol and Israel. Israel has also expressed interest in co ncluding a cooperation agreement 
with Eurojust. 
As regards Jordan , the third EU-Jordan Justice and Security sub-committee and the Social 
affairs working party, which covers migrati on and asylum issues, took place in May 2008. 
Cooperation has been stepped up in the area of  justice and prison reform. Furthermore, 
                                                
 
401 Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYROM, Montenegro and Serbia. 
 
EN 111   EN dialogue on radicalisation/recruitment issues  between Jordanian and EU experts may be 
supported.  
For Lebanon , the first meeting of the EU-Lebanon Justice, Liberty and Security sub-
committee was held in November 2008, where a first exchange of views to identified possible issues for future cooperation. 
Cooperation with Morocco is substantial. The "advanced st atus" granted to Morocco in 2008 
contains a specific JLS dimension. The EU-Mor occo Justice and Security sub-committee and 
the working party on migration and social affair s meet regularly. While migration issues are 
crucial, the country is a frontrunner in terms of overall JLS cooperation. Europol and Eurojust 
have mandates to negotiate cooperation agreements with Morocco although no progress has been made so far. Together with Algeria, Mo rocco is a privileged pa rtner under the "priority 
countries initiative" for incr easing cooperation in the fight against terrorism. However, 
negotiations on the readmission ag reement, which have been ongoing for several years, have 
not yet been finalised. 
With Tunisia,  the first meeting of the sub-committee on justice and secu rity and of the 
working group on migration and social affa irs took place in April 2008. A project on the 
modernisation of the judiciary is ongoing f unded under EC bi-lateral cooperation (MEDA 
national programme). 
Justice, freedom and security is an important area for EU- Ukraine  cooperation. Ukraine and 
the EU face common challenges in the fight against organised crime, terrorism and other 
illegal activities of cross-border nature. Th e JLS Action Plan and the ENP Action Plan 
represent are the primary tools to strengthen pa rtnership and co-operatio n in the JLS field and 
provide a means of supporting the consolidation of democracy  and the protection of human 
rights and fundamental freedoms.  
Successful implementation of the agreements on visa facilitation and readmission that have 
been in force since January 2008 led to the opening of visa dialogue between the EU and 
Ukraine in October 2008. This focuses on four th ematic ‘blocks’: document security including 
biometrics, illegal immigration including readmi ssion, public order and se curity, and external 
relations. 
The EU is working with Ukraine to renew ef forts to strengthen the rule of law and in 
particular to implement the reforms needed to  guarantee the independence, impartiality and 
professionalism of the judiciary and the effectiv eness of the court system. At the same time, 
wider efforts are being intens ified to combat corruption.  
Ukraine has achieved improvements in conditions  for detention and accommodation standards 
for illegal migrants following the opening of  new Migrant Custody Centres and five 
Temporary Holding Facilities for irregular mi grants in cooperation with the EU. Concern 
remains however over the treatment of asylum seekers. 
Operational agreements with Europol and Euroju st remain political priorities, but Ukraine 
needs to adopt and implement the Council of  Europe Convention for the Protection of 
Individuals of 1981 with regard to "automatic  processing of personal data", which is a 
prerequisite for enhancing its relations with Europol and Eurojust.  
 
EN 112   EN As for the Southern Caucasus, Georgia  is the only country for which the ENP Action Plan 
provides for a Justice, Freedom and Security sub-committee, which met for the first time in 2007. The EU looks forward to enhancing cooperati on on all JLS issues identified in this sub-
committee. Furthermore, three important seminars  have been organised in the last two years 
on drug trafficking and the fight against terrori sm, mobility and visas and on an integrated 
border management system. The Extraordinar y European Council held in Brussels on 1 
September 2008 decided "to step up its relation s with Georgia, includ ing visa facilitation 
measures (…)"
402. Following the authorisation given by the Council to the Commission in 
November 2008 to negotiate a visa facilitati on agreement and readmission agreements with 
Georgia, formal negotiati ons should be opened in 2009.  
The prospects for cooperation with Armenia  are good. A seminar on migration and a 
technical meeting on JLS issues took place in 2008. Also in 2008, Armenia officially 
requested the creation of a JLS sub-committee. The terms of reference for this sub-committee could be proposed to the Counc il in 2009. A follow-up meeting on JLS issues is planned in 
Yerevan in 2009. 
Some preliminary contact has been made with Azerbaijan  with a view to organising a first 
technical meeting on JLS issues and a seminar on migration and visas,  possibly in 2009. The 
establishment of a JLS sub-committee may follow, subject to the endorsement from the 
Council. 
As regards the Central Asian countries  (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Ki rgizstan, Tajikistan and 
Turkmenistan), while they are not part of the ENP, a dialogue is regularly taking place with 
the EU in the JLS areas, notably on migration related issues. Of these countries, Kazakhstan 
has shown a special interest in st epping up relations in the JLS area. 
Strategic Partners and beyond 
The Common Space of Freedom, Security and Justice is being created wiith Russia , an EU's 
strategic partner. The six-monthly JHA Pe rmanent Partnership Council (PPC) sets the 
priorities for work and monitors progress.  The Commission is currently negotiating new 
comprehensive agreements with Russia and Ukraine, which will provide new legal basis for relations and will pave the way also for more enhanced cooperation in the JLS field. These Agreements will replace the existing Partne rship and Cooperation Agreements. Similar 
negotiations will be commenced also with Mold ova once the negotiating directives have been 
adopted. 
Implementation of the agreements on visa facil itation and readmission that entered into force 
in 2007 is being monitored in regular meetings  of joint committees. As provided for by the 
Common Space, the procedure for an EU-Russia vi sa dialogue to examine the conditions for 
visa-free travel as a long-term prospect was agreed at the April 2007 PPC, and in this context the first technical meetings have taken place on document security, illegal migration and 
public order and security. Frontex signed a wo rking arrangement with  Russia in 2006, making 
for practical and operational cooperation along the common border, and a joint cooperation 
plan has also been agreed to take cooperation forward with the Russian Border Guard Service. 
                                                
 
402 Council document 12594/2/08 rev 2. 
 
EN 113   EN Significant steps have been ta ken to bolster cooperation c oncerning common challenges, both 
in the fight against organised crime and on terrorism. Working on the strategic agreement of 
from 2003, Russia and Europol are engaged in active coopera tion, including on threat 
assessments, and negotiations on an operationa l agreement are awaiting reassurances of 
Russia's national data protection legislation and its implementation in line with the Council of 
Europe Convention on Personal Da ta Protection. Concerns a bout personal data protection 
have also delayed talks between Eurojust and Russia on a cooperation agreement.  
The six-monthly meetings of the EU-Russi a JLS Liaison Officers in Moscow promote 
operational cooperation. The Eur opean Police College and the re spective Russian  authorities 
concluded a protocol of  intent in 2008 on enhanced training activities for law enforcement 
agencies. Dialogue on the fight against terrorism continues th rough informal meetings on 
critical infrastructure protection and regular meetings of COTER. 
On drugs, the Memorandum of Un derstanding between the Eur opean Monitoring Centre for 
Drugs and Drug Addiction and the Federal Serv ice for Drugs Control was signed in 2007. The 
EU-Russia Drugs Troika meetings  convene regularly to outline fields of further cooperation, 
including on the control of precu rsors. The first expert meetings  have been held on the fight 
against cybercrime.  
The Commission has held several rounds of inform al talks with Russia on judicial cooperation 
in civil and commercial matters. The meetings  have made progress on the framework for a 
possible bilateral agreement, covering jurisdic tion, recognition and enforcement of judicial 
decisions in civil and commercial matters. While judicial cooperation in criminal matters has been a difficult domain, both sides are committed to discussing problems at expert level. 
Cooperation with  the United States of America , a strategic partner of the EU,  has been 
stepped up in recent y ears, in areas such as counter-ter rorism, visa policy and judicial 
cooperation.  
Relations with the US have increased a ppreciably since 2001 and have witnessed both 
remarkable achievements and also difficult moments of tension.  
Two agreements on judicial cooperation in crimin al matters (on mutual legal assistance and 
extradition
403) were signed in 2003 but have not yet en tered into force. They have been 
ratified in the United States but not yet by all EU Member States.  
A new PNR agreement was concluded in 2007 (see chapter 3.II for more details). 
Cooperation agreements between the US authoriti es and Europol were concluded in 2001 and 
2003, respectively. Cooperation has increased qual itatively and quantitativ ely over time and, 
by 2008, five US law enforcement agencies had a representative at Europol headquarters in 
the Hague. 
                                                 
403 Council Decision 2003/516/EC of 6 June 2003 concer ning the signature of th e Agreements between the 
European Union and the United States  of America on extradition and mutual legal assistance in criminal 
matters, OJ L 181, 19.7.2003, p. 25. 
 
EN 114   EN Eurojust has had a cooperation agreement in pl ace with the US Department of Justice since 
2006. The number of cases registered in Eurojust with the involvement of  the US is moderate 
(6 in 2006, 31 in 2007), many of which relate to economic crime. However, there have been a 
number of practitioners seminars which were  regarded as useful by both sides, e.g the 
practitioners seminar organised in November 2008 to prepare for the entry into force of the 
EU-US Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition Agreements. 
The situation of non-reciprocity with regard to visa-free travel has been a source of tension 
between the EU and the United States in recent years. While US citizens can travel visa-free 
to all EU Member States, the United States required visas from citizens of up to 12 EU Member States (since 1.1.2009, only citizens of 5 EU Member States are still under the visa 
obligation, namely: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Po land and Romania). The lack of progress on 
this politically sensitive issue has resulted in a less unified EU approach vis-à-vis the United 
States than would have been desirable. The EU agreed on a two-track approach in March 
2008, defining the dividing line between the EC's authority and Member State's authority to 
discuss with the US authorities the requireme nts under US law for participation in the US 
Visa Waiver Program. Subsequently, th e United States signed Memorandums of 
Understanding and bilateral agreem ents with individual Member States that enhanced the 
scope for the exchange of information and pe rsonal data relating to terrorism and serious 
crime. 
In addition to Ministerial Troika meetings and se nior officials meetings twice a year, there are 
also dedicated Council working group meetings w ith US representatives on counter-terrorism 
and terrorist financing matters, anti-drugs polic y, immigration, frontiers and asylum and false 
documents (the latter two are trilateral mee tings with the United States and Canada). 
As regards Africa , the framework for cooperation is the Joint EU-Africa Strategy, which was 
adopted at the Second EU-Africa Summit held in Lisbon in December 2007
404. An Action 
Plan for the period 2008-2010405 was also adopted at the Summit to progress in eight Africa-
EU Partnerships.  One of the Partnerships covers  migration and mobility. Other JLS aspects 
such as cooperation in the prevention of and fight against terrorism, drugs trafficking and 
organised crime are also covered in the Action Pl an. In this regard, Western Africa is posing 
major security challenges. 
Cooperation with  China , a strategic partner of  the EU, has developed through the entry into 
force of the Approved Destination Stat us Memorandum of Understanding in 2004406. The EU 
also holds regular High Level Consultations with China on fighting illegal migration and 
trafficking in human beings. The Commission has a mandate to negotiate a readmission 
agreement with China, but negotiations have never been launched due to reluctance on the part of the Chinese. Finally, negotiations w ith China on a new framework agreement have 
                                                
 
404 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/EAS2007_joint_strategy_en.pdf. 
405 Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/EAS2007_action_plan_2008_2010_en.pdf. 
406 Council Decision 2004/265/EC of 8 March 2004 concerning the conclusion of the Memorandum of 
Understanding between the European Community and the National Tourism Administration of the 
People's Republic of China on visa and related issues concerning tourist groups from the People's 
Republic of China (ADS), OJ L 83, 20.3.2004, p. 12. 
 
EN 115   EN started and the agreement will include a subs tantial JLS chapter, which would widen the 
scope for JLS cooperation with China appreciably.  
As regards  India,  the vision of an EU-India Strate gic Partnership was launched in a 
Commission Communica tion in June 2004407. This resulted in agreement on an ambitious EU-
India Action Plan408 to implement this partnership. Th e Action Plan contains JLS components 
regarding terrorism, organised crime, migratio n and consular issues , including initiating a 
regular high level dialogue on migration with India. This dialogue on migration issues and 
visa policy was launched in 2006. Issues relating  to migration ands terrorism are regularly 
discussed in meetings at differe nt levels with India. EU-Indi a troika consultation on counter-
terrorism took place in 2005. The EU-India Joint Work ing Group on Consular Affairs 
continued to meet twice per ye ar at local level in Delhi. 
As regards Brazil , dialogue has been mainly pursued at regional level in the context of the 
EU-Latin American and Caribbean countries forum, notably on anti-drugs and migration 
policies. Since Brazil became a strategic partner of the EU in 2007, a Joint Action Plan has 
been on the agenda, which was finally endor sed at the EU-Brazil Summit in December 
2008409. The Joint Action Plan includes references  to migration, anti-drugs policy, the fight 
against organised crime, counter-terrorism a nd consular protection, and it is due to be 
implemented  over the years 2009-2011. 
Cooperation with Latin America  on combating drugs trafficki ng and migration issues has 
also been ongoing. On migration, the Lima D eclaration adopted in May 2008 agreed to 
develop a structured and global dialogue.  
III. Future challenges 
As the Commission noted in its  initial Communication regardi ng the Strategy, promoting the 
rule of law externally is essential to underp in the EU’s domestic security, stability and 
development. To this end, it will remain essential to ensure that human ri ghts are placed at the 
heart of law enforcement policies sup ported by the EU in third countries. 
In the area of Freedom, Secu rity and Justice, progress can only be made through the active 
contribution of both Member States and the Commissi on, and through real partnership with 
third countries. 
Work on the thematic priorities identified in the Strategy has continued and these challenges 
remain, as was made clear by the 2008 Europ ean Union Organised Crime Threat Assessment 
(OCTA) and the EU Terrorism S ituation and Trend report (TE-SAT)410. This external 
dimension continues to add value. In recent y ears, there has been a particular focus on 
migration, and a Global Approach to  Migration has been developed411. A recent Commission 
                                                 
407 COM(2004) 430 final. 
408 Available at: http://ec.europa.e u/external_relations/india/docs/joint_action_plan_060905_en.pdf. 
409 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/external_rel ations/brazil/docs/2008_joint_action_plan_en.pdf. 
410 Available at: http://www.europol.europa.eu. 
411 See section 2.2.5. 
 
EN 116   EN Communication412 sets out the prospects for substan tive and methodological improvements to 
the Global Approach, focusing on ways of im proving coordination, coherence and synergy.  
Coordination, coherence and synergy  in both JHA and External Relations are essential at 
all levels (Commission, Council and Member States). A temporary JAI-RELEX ad hoc  
working group  has been set up in the Council to provi de an additional forum for information 
exchange to feed into the work of the th ematic and geographic Council working groups.  
As set out in the first Commission progress report,  making practical progre ss in relations with 
third countries takes time. In the area of capacity and institution building, for example, 
sustainability and continuity are essent ial to produce results. In this area, complementarity 
between action carried out by Member States and EU assistance  is not always ensured, 
which leads to overlapping and pot ential duplication of efforts.  
Another area where work is ongoing is in the protection of fundamental rights of EU citizens 
in relation with third countries. The rapid development of information technologies and 
widespread use of electronic means for commer cial and financial transactions increase the 
amount of personal data available. This together with the law enforcement authorities' interest 
in making the best use of the information availabl e to fight terrorism and serious crimes is the 
background for a number of requests from thir d countries to use the personal data of EU 
citizens for law enforcement purposes. In the light  of the EU legislation on the protection of 
personal data, there is a adequate safeguards for personal data transfers  to third countries 
need to be ensured. Such requests have been ma de in the past for the use of passenger name 
records for law enforcement purposes (e.g. US , Canada, Australia an d South Korea) and 
financial transaction data (US). An overall st rategy on the transfer of personal data should 
enable the EU to play its role in the deve lopment of international standards and in the 
conclusion of appropriate international instru ments, whether bilateral or multilateral.  
Broadening international consensus (especially in  the UN) and enhancing international efforts 
to combat terrorism remains a key objective fo r the European Union. Th e EU has continued to 
support the key role of the Unite d Nations and worked to ensure  universal adherence to and 
full implementation of all UNSCR and UN Conven tions and Protocols re lating to terrorism. 
The Commission has contributed to  international co-operation on t echnical assistance to help 
countries implement UNSCR 1373 (2001). 
As stated in the second progress repo rt, better use should be made of the Action Oriented 
Papers (AOPs)  as implementing tools focusing on the delivery of results, with particular 
emphasis on operational cooperation, in which th e Member States' commitment, expertise and 
added value is critical. Ownership of the AO Ps to drive implementation and monitor follow-
up by the different stakeholders should be incr eased, and the scope should be more targeted. 
Third countries are also increas ingly interested in engaging in cooperation with the EU on 
specific agreements,  e.g. regarding mutual legal assistance or in civil law matters. The EU 
should already start to seek – and even more so in the future – to develop a network of 
bilateral agreements to promote trade and the movement of people, without losing the 
flexibility needed for Member States themselv es, where appropriate, to  conclude bilateral 
                                                 
412 COM(2008) 611 final. 
 
EN 117   EN agreements with third countries where the EU  has exclusive competence. This may require 
prioritising the requests, particularly in the ar ea of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and 
extradition. 
In the area of civil law, the EC should ensure better consistency between  its internal rules and 
the framework it adopts for in ternational private law as it evolves on the various platforms 
(Hague Conference, Council of Europe, Unidro it, United Nations/ Uncitral). The EC should 
also consider whether to accede to these internat ional organisations. Certain areas of civil law 
requires a specific approach which makes it possi ble to delegate negot iation powers regarding 
Community competence to Member States.  
In close cooperation with the Member States, th e EU dimension should be used as a means of 
resourcing and legitimising an extended  geographical reach of European law enforcement 
efforts, to respond to the challenges of orga nised crime and terrorism where they develop, 
rather than to wait for them to reach our borders.  
A forum for Member States and third-country partners would assist in the exchange of good 
practice in judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal matters. Direct, operational links 
with the judicial authorities in third countries should be devel oped to complement the work of 
the Member States themselves.  
 
EN 118   EN 7. O VERALL CONCLUSIONS  
Future action for the further stre ngthening of justice, freedom and security in the EU should 
pay particular attention to the lessons learnt from the past a nd should serve the citizen through 
more efficient and effective policy-maki ng. Looking at the achievements and difficulties 
encountered during the implementation of the Hague Programme and the related Action Plan 
analysed in this report, four main lessons applicable across all policy areas have bee 
identified. 
7.1. Joined-up thinking and action  
The big issues facing Europe, whether short term  crises or long term trends, demand joined-
up planning and action. Justice, freedom and secu rity are each of rele vance to all individual 
aspects of the Hague Programme. Consistency acro ss the various policy area s is essential, not 
only within the traditional sphere of justice and home affairs activity, but also across the 
whole range of Community policies.  
In migration and asylum, policies aiming to pr event and tackle irregular immigration and 
abuses of the asylum system must not hamp er access to the protec tion to which asylum-
seekers are entitled. Fundamental rights-proofi ng of EU policies must continue and be 
extended to all stages of d ecision making and implementatio n by Member States of EU 
legislative acquis.  Border management is vital for the security of the EU, as is police 
cooperation in relation to figh ting illegal immigration. Cross-cu tting priorities for the EU 
should be identified in these areas.  
The protection of personal data in the framew ork of police and judi cial cooperation in 
criminal matters has been  the result of a case-by-case appr oach. Data protection requirements 
have been laid down in a variety of legislativ e texts, across the pillars, and their scope and 
nature depend on the objectives of the individua l legislative texts. The recently adopted 
Framework Decision does not completely solv e this lack of harmonisation. Achieving 
consistency in this area therefore deserves particular attention in the years to come. 
Other cross-cutting approaches could improve th e effectiveness of our policies, such as the 
rights of the child and combating xenophobia and racism, whose threat sadly often mounts in 
times of economic crisis.  
The Global Approach to Migrati on consists of various  instruments which could be integrated 
under a comprehensive and balanced fram ework for dialogue and cooperation. New 
challenges need to be tackled in a systema tic way. Political, economic, environmental and 
demographic changes over the long term affect  the EU's relationships  with third countries, 
with significant impact on migration and mobilit y. Migration policy must be further integrated 
into the EU's external relations strategy, assisted potentially by the establishment of an 
External Action Service.  
We need to exploit fully the opportunities pr esented by new technologies. The information 
society has also created the need for a high  level of network and information security 
 
EN 119   EN throughout Europe. The fight agains t cyber crime and cyber terrori sm requires stakeholders to 
be closely involved in efforts to enhance the le vel of preparedness, secu rity and resilience of 
ICT infrastructures and services. These long-te rm challenges demand careful consideration on 
a European level.413 
The security research and innova tion agenda must be taken forw ard in partnership with the 
private and public sectors and with the full par ticipation of end-user organisations. The work 
of ESRIF should be taken into account. The objec tive of the European Security Research and 
Innovation Forum (ESRIF), a public-private pa rtnership established in September 2007, was 
to develop a Europe's strategic plan for secur ity research and innovation over the mid to long 
term, known as the European Security Research  and Innovation Agenda . The purpose of the 
Agenda is twofold; firstly, to contribute to the security of citizens, in frastructures and borders 
as well as enhancing Europe's capacity to deal  with crisis. Secondly, the Agenda focuses on 
competitiveness, innovation with a view to posi tioning the Europe as a global leader in the 
security market. Moreover the Agenda brings gr eater coherence and effici ency to the security 
research and innovation activities at the Euro pean and national leve l also by addressing 
technological as well as societal  aspects of security research. 
 
7.2. Further attention to implementation and enforcement 
It is of concern that the su ccess in adopting measures in the Hague Programme and Action 
Plan contrasts with the mixed record in nati onal implementation. Now that a substantial legal 
framework is in place, the focus of future ac tion should be on consolidation and enforcement. 
The Commission can assist in th is by consolidating existing acquis , facilitating coordination 
and exchange of best practis es between Member States su ch as through implementation 
seminars, and by providing financial support and encouraging trai ning. Greater use of 
infringement proceedings should also be e nvisaged. The Commission has promoted the right 
of the EU citizen to move and reside freely in th e territory of the EU, but  more work is needed 
to ensure that EU citizens are aware of thei r rights and can be confident that they will be 
respected. Existing agencies and networks need to realise their full pot ential, cooperate with 
each other more and exploit potential synergies. 
7.3. Improving the use of evaluation 
Citizens expect to see results from EU polic ies. Many instruments have been adopted and 
many agencies established under the Hague Progra mme. In many cases it is too soon to assess 
their effectiveness in terms of concrete results. Measures take n in the fight against organised 
crime, in police and customs cooperation and in criminal justice remain difficult to evaluate as often there is no formal duty for Memb er States to report on implementation. 
More robust and systematic monitoring and eval uation systems for each policy are needed to 
provide comparable evidence on the impact of wh at the EU does. Evaluation results will then 
inform better policy-making and help explain to  EU citizens the added value of EU action.  
                                                
 
413 COM(2009) 149 final. 
 
EN 120   EN Better evaluation depends on the availability of up-to-date, objective, reliable and comparable 
data. For example, in migration there are now common rules for Community statistics and an 
established European Migrati on Network. Similarly, the Commissi on with Member States has 
developed parameters for collecti ng, analysing and comparing data and trends in trafficking in 
human beings and money laundering. However, in  many areas such as justice data has been 
unavailable. Even where data collection systems are in place or are being created, including 
for crime and specifically for drugs, consid eration should be given to more binding 
provisions. Funding under the Research a nd Technological Development Framework 
Programme and other relevant pr ogrammes should continue to he lp develop knowledge in this 
policy area. 
The credibility of the next multiannual progra mme will depend on the extent to which the EU 
can report meaningfully on its effectiveness.  
7.4. Complementing internal polic ies though external action 
Member States, the Council and the Commission need to work together to strengthen 
partnerships with third partie s. Continuity and consistency between internal and external 
European justice, freedom and security policie s are essential to produce results and to meet 
the challenges posed by globalisa tion.. The EU needs to anticipate challenges rather than wait 
for them to reach our borders, and it should pr omote standards, such as those for data 
protection, which can be regarded internationa lly as examples worth following. The external 
dimension of JLS policies needs to be fully inte grated and coherent w ith EU external action 
and policies such as development cooperation. 
Increasingly, third countries approach the EU for cooperation on the basis of specific 
agreements. These approaches may require prio ritisation. Consideratio n should be given to 
identifying criteria for deciding  how to respond to these appr oaches and whether to include 
them within an overall fram ework of a comprehensive agr eement. Cooperation initiatives 
should respond to the particular circumstances of  the countries which are preparing to join the 
EU. External relations prioriti es of the Union should also better inform and guide the 
prioritisation of the work of agencies such as Europol, Eurojust a nd Frontex. The agencies' 
operational knowledge, particularly where they  have concluded agreements or working 
arrangements with third countri es, in addition to th eir annual reports, could provide valuable 
input into decision-making at EU level. 
 
EN 121   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Corresponding section 
Section Hague Programme: 
Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union Justice Freedom and 
Security in Europe since 2005: an evaluation of the Hague Programme and Action Plan 
1 About this document  I, II 
2 General orientations II.  
2.1 Protection of fundamental 
rights II.2 III.1.1 
2.2 Implementation and 
evaluation II.3 V.2 
V.3 
3 Strengthening freedom III.1 III.1 
3.1 Promotion of European 
Citizenship III.1.1 III.1.2 
3.2 Asylum, migration and 
border policy   
3.3 Asylum (Common European 
Asylum System) III.1.3 III.1.3 
3.4 Migration III.1.4 
 III.1.6.4 III.1.7.1 III.1.4 
3.5 Border management III.1.7.1 
III1.7.2 III.1.5 
3.6 Integration of  third country 
nationals  III.1.5 III.1.4 
3.7 Visa policy III.1.7.3 III.1.6 
3.8 External dimension of 
asylum and migration III.1.6 III.1.7 
4 Strengthening Security III.2 III.2 
 
EN 122   EN Corresponding section 
Section Hague Programme: 
Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union Justice Freedom and 
Security in Europe since 2005: an evaluation of the Hague Programme and Action Plan 
4.1 Improving the exchange of 
information III.2.1  
4.2 Terrorism III.2.2 IIII.2.1 
4.3 Police cooperation III.2.3 
III.2.5 III.2.2 
4.4 Management of crises within 
the EU with cross-border effects III.2.4 III.2.1 
4.5 Organised crime and 
corruption and crime prevention III.2.6 
III.2.7 III.2.3 
4.6 European strategy on drugs III.2.8 III.2.4 
5 Strengthening justice III.3 III.3 
5.1 European Court of Justice III.3.1 IV 
5.2 Confidence-building and 
mutual trust III.3.2 III.3.3 
5.3 Judicial cooperation in 
criminal matters III.3.3 III.3.1 
5.4 Judicial cooperation in civil 
matters III.3.4 III.3.2 
6 External dimension 4 III.4 
7 Overall conclusions  V 
 
EN 123   EN LIST OF SOURCES 
Anti-Phishing working group (APWG), "Phi shing Activity Trends Report Q1 2008", 
available at: http://www.antiphishin g.org/reports/apwg_report_Q1_2008.pdf 
B&S Europe, "Best practices in vertical relations between the Financial Intelligence Unit and 
i) law enforcement services and ii) money launde ring and terrorist financing reporting entities, 
with a view to indicating effective models fo r feedback on follow-up to and effectiveness of 
suspicious transaction reports", not yet published 
COM (2008) 128 final, Green Paper "Effective en forcement of judgments in the European 
Union: the transparency of debtors’ assets"  
COM(2003) 265 final, "First Report on the implem entation of the Data Protection Directive 
(95/46/EC)" 
COM(2004) 409 final, "Report from the Comm ission based on article 11 of the Council 
Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism" 
COM(2004) 54 final/2, "Report from the Commission on the ba sis of Article 18 of the 
Council Framework Decision of 15 March 20 01 on the standing of victims in criminal 
proceedings" 
COM(2005) 10 final, White Paper on exchanges of  information on convictions and the effect 
of such convictions in the European Union  
COM(2005) 172 final, "Compliance with the Char ter of Fundamental Ri ghts in Commission 
legislative proposals - Methodology for sy stematic and rigorous monitoring" 
COM(2005) 184 final, "The Hague Programme: Te n priorities for the ne xt five years The 
Partnership for European renewal in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice" 
COM(2005) 195 final, Communicati on on the mutual recognition of  judicial decisions in 
criminal matters and the strengthening of mutual trust between Member States 
COM(2005) 606 final, Green Paper on the futu re of the European migration network 
COM(2005) 620 final, "Prevention of and Fight against Terrorist Fina ncing through enhanced 
national level coordination and greater tr ansparency of the non-profit sector"  
COM(2005) 63 final, "Report from the Comm ission based on Article 34 of the Council 
Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the Eu ropean arrest warrant and the surrender 
procedures between Member States"  
 
EN 124   EN COM(2005) 65 final, "European Initiative fo r Growth - Feasibility report on EU loan 
guarantee instrument for TEN-Transport projects" 
COM(2005) 696 final, Green Paper on Conflicts  of Jurisdiction a nd the Principle of ne bis in 
idem  in Criminal Proceedings  
COM(2006) 156 final, "Third Report on the app lication of Directives 93/96, 90/364, 90/365 
on the right of residence for students, economically inactive and retired Union citizens" 
COM(2006) 203 final, "Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament 
and the European Economic and Social Com mittee on the applicati on of Council Decision 
2001/470/EC establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters" 
COM(2006) 3 final, "Report from the Commissi on to the Council on visa waiver reciprocity 
with certain third countries in accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 
851/2005 of 2 June 2005 amending Council Re gulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third 
countries whose nationals must be in possession  of visas when crossing the external borders 
and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement as regards the reciprocity 
mechanism" 
COM(2006) 316 final, Green Paper on the role of Civil Society in Drugs Policy in the 
European Union 
COM(2006) 331 final, "Implementing The Hague Programme : the way forward" 
COM(2006) 332 final, "Evaluation of EU Po licies on Freedom, Security and Justice" 
COM(2006) 333 final, "Report on the implemen tation of the Hague programme for 2005" 
COM(2006) 568 final, "Report fr om the Commission to the European Parliament and the 
Council on cases where visa waiver  non-reciprocity is maintained by certain third countries in 
accordance with Article 1(5) of Council Re gulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third 
countries whose nationals must be in possession  of visas when crossing the external borders 
and those whose nationals are exempt from th at requirement, as amended by Regulation (EC) 
No 851/2005 as regards the reciprocity mechanism" 
COM(2006) 618 final, Green Paper on improving the efficiency of the enforcement of 
judgments in the European Union: the attachment of bank accounts 
COM(2006) 744 final, Green Paper on th e Review of the Consumer Acquis 
COM(2006) 790 final, "Commission Report on the pa rticipation of European Union citizens 
in the Member State of residence (Directive 93/109/EC) and on the el ectoral arrangements 
(Decision 76/787/EC as amended by  Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom)" 
 
EN 125   EN COM(2006) 8 final, "Report from the Comm ission based on Article 34 of the Council 
Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the Eu ropean arrest warrant and the surrender 
procedures between Member States (revised version)"  
COM(2006)174 final, Green Paper "The Presumption of Innocence" COM(2007) 299 final, "Report on the ev aluation of the Dublin system"  
COM(2007) 301 final, Green Paper on the fu ture Common European Asylum System 
COM(2007) 328 final, "Report from the Commissi on to the Council based on Article 9 of the 
Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating corruption in the 
private sector" 
COM(2007) 373 final, "Report on the implemen tation of The Hague programme for 2006" 
COM(2007) 407 final, "Report from the Commi ssion on the implementation since 2005 of the 
Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States"  
COM(2007) 512 final, "Third Annual Repor t on Migration and Integration" 
COM(2007) 533 final, "Third Report from the Co mmission to the European Parliament and 
the Council on certain third coun tries' maintenance of visa requirements in breach of the 
principle of reciprocity in accordance with Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 
539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationa ls must be in possession of visas when 
crossing the external borders and those whose na tionals are exempt from that requirement, as 
amended by Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 as regards the reciprocity mechanism" 
COM(2007) 644 final, "Communication on the role of Eurojust and the European Judicial 
Network in the fight against organised crim e and terrorism in the European Union" 
COM(2007) 681 final, "Report from the Comm ission based on Article 11 of the Council 
Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on co mbating terrorism" and SEC(2007) 1463, 
"Commission staff working document - Annex to  the Report from the Commission based on 
Article 11 of the Council Fr amework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism"  
COM(2007) 693 final, Commission working document on the feasibility of EU legislation in 
the area of protection of  witnesses and collaborators with justice 
COM(2007) 716 final, "Report from the Comm ission Based on Article 12 of the Council 
Framework Decision of 22 December 2003 on co mbating the sexual exploitation of children 
and child pornography" 
COM(2007) 781 final, "Communication from the Commission on the 2007 Progress Review 
of the implementation of the EU action plan on drugs (2005-2008)" 
 
EN 126   EN COM(2007) 805 final, "Report from the Commi ssion pursuant to Article 6 of the Council 
Framework Decision of 24 February 2005 on c onfiscation of crime related proceeds, 
instrumentalities and property (2005/212/JHA)" 
COM(2007) 827 final, "Report from the Commi ssion on the implementation of the Council 
Decision of 17 October 2000 concerning arrange ments for cooperation between financial 
intelligence units of the Member States in respect of exchanging information (2000/642/JHA)" 
COM(2007) 87 final, Communication on the follo w-up of the Work Programme for better 
implementation of the Data Protection Directive 
COM(2008) 373 final, "Report on implementa tion of the Hague programme for 2007" 
COM(2008) 448 final, "Report from the Commi ssion to the Council ba sed on Article 12 of 
the Council Framework Decision of 24 Febr uary 2005 on attacks against information 
systems" 
COM(2008) 486 final/2, "Fourth Report from the Commission to the Council and the 
European Parliament on certain third countries' maintenance of visa requirements in breach of 
the principle of reciprocity in accordance with  Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 
539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationa ls must be in possession of visas when 
crossing the external borders and those whose na tionals are exempt from that requirement, as 
amended by Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 as regards the reciprocity mechanism" 
COM(2008) 610 final, "Report on the applicati on of Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to 
family reunification" 
COM(2008) 657 final, "Commission working docum ent - Evaluation and monitoring of the 
implementation of the EU Plan on best practices , standards and procedures for combating and 
preventing trafficking in human beings" 
COM(2008) 67 final, "Report on the evaluation and future development of the FRONTEX 
Agency" 
COM(2008) 68 final, "Examining the creation of  a European border surveillance system" 
COM(2008) 69 final, "Preparing the next steps in  border management in the European Union" 
COM(2008) 710 final, Report on the Development of the Second Generation Schengen 
Information System (SIS II) - Pr ogress Report January 2008 – June 2008 
COM(2008) 840 final, "Report on the applicati on of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of 
citizens of the Union and their family members to  move and reside freely within the territory 
of the Member States" 
 
EN 127   EN COM(2008) 85 final, "Fifth Report on citizenship of the Union" 
COM(2008) 885 final, "Report from the Comm ission based on Article 14 of the Council 
Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the executi on in the European Union 
of orders freezing pr operty or evidence" 
COM(2008) 888 final, "Report from the Comm ission based on Article 20 of the Council 
Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the appl ication of the principle 
of mutual recognition to  financial penalties" 
COM(2009) 133 final, Report on the Development of the Second Generation Schengen 
Information System (SIS II) Progress - Report July 2008 – December 2008 
COM(2009) 166 final, "Report from the Commi ssion pursuant to Article 18 of the Council 
Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standi ng of victims in criminal proceedings 
(2001/220/JHA)"  
COM(2009) 170 final, "Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament 
and the European Economic and Social Com mittee on the application of Council Directive 
2004/80/EC relating to compensation to crime victims" 
COM(2009) 174 final, "Report on the applicatio n of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on 
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcem ent of judgments in civil and commercial 
matters" 
COM(2009) 175 final, Green Paper on the revi ew of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on 
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcem ent of judgments in civil and commercial 
matters 
Compagnie Européenne d'Intelligence Stratégique (CEIS), Paris, "Les facteurs de création ou 
de modification des processus de  radicalisation violen te, chez les jeunes in particulier"; The 
Change Institute, London, "Beliefs, ideology and narratives"; King's College, London, "Recruitment and Mobilisation for the Islamist Militant Movement in Europe"; The Change 
Institute, London, "Study on best practices in  cooperation between authorities and civil 
society with a view to the prev ention and response to violent radicalisation". These studies are 
available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/terrorism /prevention/fsj_terrorism_prevention_prevent_e
n.htm 
Council document 17104/08, "Report on the Impl ementation of the European Security 
Strategy, Providing Security  in a Changing World" 
Council document 5674/07, "Report to  the Council on implementation of the Action Plan for 
the strategy for customs cooperati on in the Third Pillar (2004-2006)" 
Council document 8102/3/08 rev 3, "State of play of implementation by Member States and 
EU bodies of EU priorities for the fight ag ainst organised crime ba sed on the OCTA 2007" 
 
EN 128   EN Council document 9831/08, "Final Report by EU-US High Level Contact Group on 
information sharing and privacy and personal data protection" 
Council of Europe, "Combating violence agains t women – Stocktaking study on the measures 
and actions taken in the Council of  Europe member states", 2006 
EMCDDA Annual Report 2008, available at: 
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/ events/2008/annual-report 
European Commission, "Analysis of the future of  mutual recognition in criminal matters in 
the European Union", available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice _home/doc_centre/criminal/recogn ition/docs/mutual_recognition_e
n.pdf 
European Commission, "Comparative overview of  the implementation of the directive 2003/9 
of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standard s for the reception of asylum seekers in 
the EU Member Stat es, available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice _home/doc_centre/asylum/studies /doc_asylum_studies_en.htm  
European Parliament, "Implementation of th e European Arrest Warrant and the Joint 
Investigation Teams at EU and National level", 2009, available at: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/com mittees/studies/download.do?language=en&file
=24333 
European Parliament, "Implementation of the European Arrest Warrant and Joint 
Investigation Teams at EU and National level", 2009, available at: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/com mittees/studies/download.do?language=en&file
=24333 
European Parliament, "Progress Made and Existing Gaps in the Field of Judicial co-operation 
in criminal matters", 2007, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/com mittees/studies/download.do?language=en&file
=18151 
Europol Annual Report 2007, available at: 
http://www.europol.europa.eu/publicati ons/Annual_Reports/Annua l%20Report%202007.pdf 
Europol, EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report TE-SAT 2008, available at: 
http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications /EU_Terrorism_Situation_and_Trend_Report_TE-
SAT/TESAT2008.pdf 
Europol, European Organised Crime Threat Assessment, available at: 
http://www.europol.europa.eu/in dex.asp?page=publications 
Eurostat, EUROPOP 2008 Convergence Scenar io; Eurostat, Migr ation Statistics. 
Flash Eurobarometer 188, "Consular Protection" 
 
EN 129   EN Flash Eurobarometer 213, "European Union Citizenship" 
Flash Eurobarometer 225, "Data Protection in the European Union. Citizens' Perceptions" 
Flash Eurobarometer 235, "The Rights of the Child" FRA 2008 Annual Report, available at: 
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWeb site/attachments/ar08p2_en.pdf 
FRA Annual Work Programme 2009, available at: 
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWeb site/attachments/wp09_en.pdf 
Frontex, "External evaluation of  the European Agency for th e Management of Operational 
Cooperation at the External Borders of the Memb er States of the Eur opean Union", available 
at: http://www.frontex.europa.eu/download/ Z2Z4L2Zyb250ZXgvZW4vZGVmYXVsdF9vcGlze
S82Mi8xLzE/cowi_report_final.doc 
International Centre for Mi ssing and Exploited Children,  "Child Pornography: Model 
legislation and gl obal review", 2007 
May-Chahal, C., and Herczog, M., "Ch ild sexual abuse in Europe", 2003 
Patrick Belser, Michaelle De Co ck, Fahrad Mehran, "Minimum Es timate of Forced Labour in 
the World", ILO, Geneva, 2005 
SEC(2004) 1349, "Annual report on the devel opment of a common policy on illegal 
immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders, and the return of 
illegal residents" 
SEC(2006) 1010, "Second annual report on the deve lopment of a common policy on illegal 
immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external border controls, and the 
return of illegal residents" 
SEC(2006) 1498, "Progress report on the implemen tation of the Strategy for the External 
Dimension of JHA: Global Freedom, Security and Justice" 
SEC(2006) 1803, "Progress Review on the implem entation of the EU Drugs Action Plan 
(2005-2008)" 
SEC(2006) 892, "Second Annual Report on Migration and Integration" 
SEC(2007) 691, "Study on the international law inst ruments in relation to illegal immigration 
by sea" 
 
EN 130   EN SEC(2008) 1971, "Second progress report on the im plementation of the "Strategy for the 
External Dimension of JHA: Global Freedom, Security and Justice" 
SEC(2008) 2455, "Commission staff working doc ument accompanying the Communication 
from the Commission to the Council and the Eu ropean Parliament on an EU Action Plan on 
Drugs (2009-2012) - Impact assessment" 
SEC(2008) 2456, "Report of the final evaluation of the EU drugs action plan (2005-2008)" 
SEC(2008) 2692, "Albania 2008 Progress Report" SEC(2008) 2693, Bosnia and Herzegovina 2008 Progress Report" SEC(2008) 2694, "Croatia 2008 Progress Report" SEC(2008) 2696, "Montenegro 2008 Progress Report" SEC(2008) 2697, "Kosovo (Under UNSCR 1244 /99) 2008 Progress Report"  
SEC(2008) 2698, " Serbia 2008 Progress Report" SEC(2008) 35, Commission staff working document on the development of the second 
generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) - Progress Report January - June 2007 
SEC(2009) 320, "Third annual report on the de velopment of a common policy on illegal 
immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders, and the return of 
illegal residents" 
Special Eurobarometer 290, "The role of the European Union in Justice, Freedom and 
Security policy areas" 
Special Eurobarometer 291, "The attitudes of Europeans towards corruption" Special Eurobarometer 296, "Discrimination in th e European Union: Perceptions, Experiences 
and Attitudes"