EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 15.11.2011 
SEC(2011) 1364 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
 
 Accompanying the documents  
 
Proposal for a Regulation of  the European Parliament and of the Council establishing 
for the period 2014 to 20 20 the Justice Programme 
 
Proposal for a Regulation of  the European Parliament and of the Council establishing 
for the period 2014 to 2020 the Rights and Ci tizenship Programme 
       
DISCLAIMER: This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its 
preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the 
Commission 
{COM(2011) 758 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1365 final} 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2  
2 PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTA TION OF INTERESTED PARTIES....... 2  
2.1 Evaluations of the programmes.......................................................................................... 2  
2.2 Stakeholder consultation ..................................................................................................... 3  
2.3 Consultation of the IA steering group................................................................................ 4  
2.4 Consultation of the Impact Assessment Board.................................................................. 4  
3 THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF FUNDING..................................................................... 4  
3.1 The structure of the current programs .............................................................................. 4  
3.2 Achievements of the current programmes......................................................................... 6  
4 PROBLEM DEFINITION.............................................................................................. 11  
4.1 Challenges at policy level................................................................................................... 11  
4.1.1 Obstacles remain in the functioning of a European area of justice, respectful of fundamental 
rights, non-discrimination and equality ................................................................................................... 11  
4.1.2 The role of funding in overcoming these obstacles and its added value ................................. 16  
4.2 Challenges in management and delivery ......................................................................... 18  
4.2.1 Relevance/Scope .......................................................................................................................... 18  
4.2.2 Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................... .. 21 
4.2.3 Efficiency ............................................................................................................................... ....... 23  
5 EU'S RIGHT TO ACT .................................................................................................... 24  
5.1 The EU’s righ t to act.......................................................................................................... 24 
5.2 Subsidiarity principle ........................................................................................................ 2 4 
6 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................. 25  
7 POLICY OPTIONS ......................................................................................................... 27  
7.1 Option 0 – Baseline scenario ............................................................................................. 27  
7.2 Option A – 6 programmes – Status quo a nd improvements at management level ...... 27  
7.3 Option B – 2 programmes ................................................................................................. 28  
7.4 Option C – 1 programme................................................................................................... 28  
7.5 Discarded options.............................................................................................................. .2 9 
8 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS....................................................................................... 30  
8.1 Option 0 – Baseline scenario ............................................................................................. 30  
8.2 Option A – 6 programmes – Status quo a nd improvements at management level ...... 30  
8.3 Option B – 2 programmes ................................................................................................. 33  
8.4 Option C – 1 programme................................................................................................... 36  
9 COMPARISON OF OPTIONS....................................................................................... 37  
10 MONITORING AND EVALUATION ....................................................................... 39  
Annex I ........................................................................................................................ ............ 42  
 
EN 1   EN OVERVIEW OF FUNDING UNDER THE CURRENT PROGRAMMES (2007-2010).... 42  
Annex II....................................................................................................................... ............ 47  
REPORT ON THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON FUTURE FUNDING ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA OF 
JUSTICE , FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND EQUALITY .................................................................... 47  
FOR THE PERIOD AFTER 2013 ................................................................................................... 47  
1. Overview of replies to closed questions ................................................................................ 48  
2.  Overview of replies to  open questions .................................................................................. 53  
3.  Full Statistics................................................................................................................ ........... 56  
 
 
EN 2   EN 1 INTRODUCTION 
 
During the current financial perspective 2007-2013 EU-funding in the area of justice and 
rights is provided through th e following six programmes:  
- Civil Justice (JCIV),  - Criminal Justice (JPEN),  - Fundamental Rights and Citizenship (FRC),  - Daphne III (DAP),  - Drug Prevention and Informati on Programme (DPIP) and by  
- the Sections "Antidiscrimination and Divers ity" and "Gender Equality" of the Programme 
for Employment and Social Solidarity (PROGRESS).   In accordance with the Communi cation on the EU Budget Review
1, a fresh look was taken at 
funding instruments and delivery mechanisms in order to streamline fundi ng that supports the 
policy objectives in the justice and rights area, to ensure clear focus on European added value 
and to examine how best to achi eve tangible results in delivering benefits to the EU citizens. 
The present document constitutes the impact assessment that will accompany the legislative proposals for the future "Justice" and "Rights and Citizenship" programmes. 
2 PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
 
2.1 Evaluations of the programmes 
In preparation of the proposals for the new ge neration of funding programmes for the period 
of 2014-2020 the results of the current programme s, as well as their overall impact were 
evaluated.   The evaluations of JCIV and JPEN were ca rried out by the Commi ssion and for FRC, DAP 
and DPIP the Commission was supported by  an independent external evaluator
2. The 
evaluations focused on the resu lts obtained so far by the programmes and the qualitative and 
quantitative aspects of their implementation.   The PROGRESS programme was evaluated by its annual perf ormance reports
3. These 
findings are also complemented by the interim re sults of the programme mid-term evaluation, 
as well as by the public consultation on a possi ble successor instrument to the EU programme 
for employment and social solidarity – Pr ogress 2007-2013. This co nsultation took place 
between 4 April 2011 and 27 May 2011. 
                                                 
1  Communication on the EU Budget Review, COM(2010)700 final of 19.10.2010. 
2 Interim evaluation report on the results obtained from and the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the 
implementation of the Civil Justice financing programme, COM(2011) 351 final of 15.06.2011; 
Interim evaluation report on the Criminal Justice Programme, COM(2011) 255 final of 11.5.2011; 
Report on the interim evaluation of the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme 2007 – 2013, COM(2011) 249 final of 5.5.2011; 
Report on the interim evaluation of the Daphne III Programme 2007 – 2013, COM(2011) 254 final of 
11.05.2011; 
Report on the interim evaluation of the specific Programme Drug prevention and information (DPIP) 2007 – 
2013, COM(2011) 246 final of 5.5.2011. 
3  The PROGRESS Annual Performance Reports for the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 are available online:  
http://ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocuments.jsp?type=0 &policyArea=86&subCategory=327&country=0&year=0
&advSearchKey=PerformanceMonitoringReports&mode=advancedSubmit&langId=en   
 
EN 3   EN  
More specifically the evaluations  of all programmes assessed:  
(1) The relevance of the programmes;  (2) The effectiveness of the programmes; (3) The efficiency of the programmes.   
2.2 Stakeholder consultation 
A public stakeholder consultation on future f unding activities in the area of Justice, 
Fundamental Rights and Equality for the period after 2013
4 was launched on 20 April 2011 
using the on-line tool of Your Voice in Eur ope and was available fo r two months (until 20 
June 2011). Interested parties were informed through the tools of Your  Voice in Europe,  
through the website of DG Justice and thr ough an electronic flyer which wassent to 
beneficiaries, stakeholders and programme committee members. The consultation focused on 
four areas: 1.  Objectives and focus of funding after 2013  2. Measures of simplification and improvement  3.  Types of activities  4.  Delivery mechanisms  
 
The consultation attracted considerable interest  and a total of 187 res pondents (37 individuals 
and 150 organisations) submitted their contribu tion. The responses covered most Member 
States (except for Denmark, Greece and Luxem bourg). The majority of respondents (55%) 
were NGOs, but representatives from all st akeholders, including national and regional 
authorities, European networks and private comp anies were represented. The majority of all 
respondents (60%) indicated that they had not received funding from the programmes in the area of justice, rights and equality.   The respondents evaluated positively the policy objectives of the funding programmes and confirmed the need for funding in the areas covered. The EU added value was acknowledged 
in all areas and no area was identified where funding should be discontinued or decreased.  
 The respondents expressed the need for simp lification and improvement and most of the 
proposed measures to achieve this received a pos itive response. In particular measures such as 
the simplification of selection procedures, the simplification of reporting obligations and the wider use of IT tools were seen as very appropriate. The reduction in the number of 
programmes was also met with approval. In  the open questions allowing respondents to 
further elaborate their replies, the time-consum ing and bureaucratic procedures were some of 
the main concerns expressed by stakeholders.  The stakeholders identified EU added value in funding activities which aim to improve the 
knowledge of the population on th eir rights and obligations, to  fight discrimination, to 
promote fundamental rights, equality and EU c itizenship, to protect vulnerable persons and to 
improve access to justice. Furthe rmore, the activities were seen as an effective tool to help 
eliminate obstacles and reduce costs of cros s-border judicial proc eedings and consumer 
transactions, and to reduce drug use and drug related crime.  
 
                                                
 
4 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/news_consulting_0010_en.htm   
 
EN 4   EN The proposed types of activities and delivery mechanisms were largely approved by the 
respondents. The stakeholders were in favour of  funding activities such as exchange of good 
practices, training of professionals, informati on and awareness raising activities, support to 
networks, studies etc5. 
 
2.3 Consultation of the IA steering group 
The participating services in the steeri ng group were LS, SG, BUDG, EMPL, HOME, 
SANCO, COMM, EAC, COMP and MARKT. Th e first meeting took place on 20 May 2011 
and focused on preliminary discussions on the st ate of play of the proposals and served as 
sounding board for possible overlap areas.   The second meeting took place on 25 July 2011 and the services were consulted on the basis of the draft text of the impact assessment. Comm ents and observations of the services were 
taken into consideration and they are reflected in the final version of the impact assessment. 
 2.4 Consultation of the Impact Assessment Board 
The Commission's Impact Assessment Board (IAB) was consulted on 3 August 2011 and 
delivered its opinion on 14 September 2011. The IA B delivered a positive opinion subject to 
improvements on certain issues. This revised ve rsion of the report has introduced a number of 
modifications in order to reflect the recommen dations from the IAB: additional information 
was included concerning the results of the ongo ing programmes, more detailed analysis was 
included concerning the problems on effectiven ess and EU added value of the programmes, 
the need for increased focus on policy priorities was further analysed, the analysis of options 
was improved, more detailed information was included concerning impacts on administrative 
burden and length of procedures  and a more operational evalua tion arrangement was included.  
3 THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF FUNDING 
 
3.1 The structure of the current programs 
 
During the ongoing 2007-2013 financial perspectiv e six funding programmes are in place to 
support EU policies of justice, rights and e quality. All of them are implemented via 
centralised direct management. The following fi ve specific programme s are included in the 
Framework Programme on Funda mental Rights and Justice
6: Civil Justice (JCIV), Criminal 
Justice (JPEN), Fundamental Rights and C itizenship (FRC), Daphne III (DAP) and Drug 
Prevention and Information Programme (DPIP).   Every year each programme adopts its annua l work programme, which sets the funding 
priorities for the year. For the implementation of the annual work programmes three types of actions are funded: Specific tran s-national projects of EU interest  (Action Grants), actions to 
support to the activities of non-governmental orga nisations or other ent ities pursuing an aim 
of general European interest (Operating Grants) and specific actions taken by the 
Commission, such as studies, surveys, confer ences, specific IT pr ojects etc (Commission 
initiatives). Approximately 10-13 calls for pr oposals are launched per year under the five 
                                                
 
5 For further details and full statistics, see An nex II - Report on the public consultation. 
6 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament establishing for the period 
2007-2013 a framework programme on Fundamental Right s and Justice, COM(2005) 122 final of 6.4.2005. 
 
EN 5   EN programmes and approximately 140 action grants  and 25 operating grants are concluded. 
Grants account for the biggest part of the programme budgets (on average, about 80%).  
 The objective of the Civil Justice Programme (JCIV)
7 is to promote judicial cooperation 
with the aim of contributing to the creation of a genuine European area of justice in civil and 
commercial matters. The financial envelope allo cated to the JCIV programme for the whole 
period (2007-2013) is € 109.58 million. In the period 2007-2010 the programme has awarded 
85 action grants and 11 operating grants a nd it has launched 66 Commission initiatives. 
 The objective of the Criminal Justice Programme (JPEN)
 9 is to promote judicial 
cooperation with the aim of contri buting to the creation of a genui ne European area of justice 
in criminal matters. The financial envelope allocated to the JPEN programme for the whole period (2007-2013) is € 199.3
8 million. In the period 2007-2010 the programme has awarded 
181 action grants, 4 framework partnership ag reements and 30 operating grants and it has 
launched 64 Commission initiatives.  The Fundamental Rights a nd Citizenship Programme  (FRC)
10 aims to promote the 
development of a European society based on Eu ropean Union citizenship, which is respectful 
of fundamental rights as provided for in the Ch arter of Fundamental Rights, to fight racism, 
xenophobia and anti-semitism and to strengthen ci vil society in the field of fundamental 
rights. The financial envelope allocated to the FRC programme for the whole period (2007-
2013) is € 97.258 million. In the period 2007-2010 the programme has awarded 91 action 
grants and 20 operating grants and it  has launched 61 Commission initiatives. 
 The Daphne III Programme (DAP)
11 aims to contribute to the protection of children, young 
people and  women against all forms of violence and to attain a high level of  health protection, 
well-being and social cohesion. The financial envelope alloca ted to the DAP programme for 
the whole period (2007-2013) is € 121.438 million. In the period 2007-2010 the programme 
has awarded 167 action grants a nd 33 operating grants and it  has launched 14 Commission 
initiatives.  The Drug Prevention and Information Programme  (DPIP)
12 aims to prevent and reduce 
drug use, dependence and drug related harm, to c ontribute to the improvement of information 
on drug use and to support the implementatio n of the EU Drugs Strategy. The financial 
                                                 
7  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 257/16 of 3.10.2007 
8 These figures are based on the Commission's proposal  for the 2012 budget and include both operational and 
administrative support appropriations . 
9  Council Decision of 12 February 2007 establishing for the period 2007-2013, as part of the General 
programme on Fundamental Rights and Justice, the Specific Programme 'C riminal Justice' (2007/126/JHA), 
OJ L 58/13 of 24.2.2007. 
10  Council Decision of 19 April 2007 establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programme 
'Fundamental rights and citizenship' as part of the General programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice' 
(2007/252/EC), OJ L 110/33 of 27.4.2007 and Corrigendum OJ L141 of 2.6.2007. 
11  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 173/19 of 3.7.2007. 
12  Decision No 1150/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 September 2007 establishing 
for the period 2007-2013 the Specific Programme 'Drug prevention and information' as part of the General 
programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice', OJ L 257/23 of 3.10.2007. 
 
EN 6   EN envelope allocated to the DPIP programme  for the whole period (2007-2013) is € 22.358 
million. In the period 2007-2010 the programme has awarded 25 action grants and 12 operating grants and it has launc hed 18 Commission initiatives. 
 In addition, funding in the area in question is al so provided by two sections of the Community 
Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity (PROGRESS). The section  
Antidiscrimination and Diversity supports the effective implemen tation of the principle of 
non-discrimination and promotes its mainstreami ng in all EU policies, whereas the section  
Gender Equality  supports the effective implementation of the principle of gender equality 
and promotes gender mainstreaming in all EU policies. These sections of the PROGRESS 
programme represent 35% of its overall budge t and amount to € 241.52 million for the whole 
period (2007-2013). They are mainly implem ented through Commission initiatives and 
framework partnership agreemen ts with institutional benefici aries and to a lesser extent 
through calls for proposals addressed to Member St ates (one or two per year). In the period 
2007-2009 55 activities were funded under the Antid iscrimination section and 46 activities 
were funded under the Gender Equality section.   
Overview of funding per programme (2007-2013)
121.43
22.35
97.25
109.5
199.3241.52DAP
DPIP
FRC
JCIV
JPEN
PROGRESS (Anti-
discrimination & Equality)
 
 
3.2 Achievements of the current programmes 
 
The implementation of the current programmes was evaluated by mid-term evaluations as 
foreseen by the respective le gal acts. Some of the evaluations (JCIV, FRC, DPIP) underline 
that the timing of the evaluati on (held three years after the be ginning of the programme) was 
premature and did not allow for an in depth anal ysis and for far-reaching conclusions. This is 
due to the limited financial resources of th e programmes in combination with the limited 
number of finalised actions and the long duration of th ese projects. As a result, at the time of 
the evaluation only few projects had been complete d and could be used as a basis to draw the 
conclusions for the evaluation.  
Besides these limitations the overall findings of the evaluations were positive for all six 
programmes. They concluded that the programme s are highly relevant to respond to the needs 
 
EN 7   EN they were designed to address and they confirme d the importance of their impact for the target 
groups. They confirmed the effectiveness a nd efficiency of all programmes and they 
recommended their continuation.  
The stakeholder consultation has also confir med these overall findings. No policy area was 
identified where funding should be decreased or  discontinued. On the contrary, the majority 
of the respondents confirmed the need for fundi ng in most of the policy areas. Respectively, 
very positive opinions were e xpressed concerning the added va lue of providing funding for 
these areas at EU level. These results are partic ularly indicative taking into consideration that 
they reflect rather "objective" opinions: 60% of  the respondents did not receive funding from 
these programmes13. It should also be flagged that the majority of the action grant managers 
interviewed for the mid-term evaluations repor ted that without EU funding their activities 
would discontinue as it would be impossible to  receive any national funding for their causes. 
This is more the case in the current times of the financial constraints where these areas are losing out to the areas influenc ing directly economic growth. 
Despite the management strains and burde n for the Commission the above mentioned 
programmes and, in particular FRC and DAP, are among the few EU programmes allocating 
funding mostly (80%) to grants which support activities of grass -root organisations across the 
Member States and to lesser extend to procur ement transactions, where beneficiaries are 
mainly research or consultancy organisations. T hus they have helped to create sustainable 
partnerships in the EU whereby on averag e 4-5 and in some cases up to 15 partner 
organisations from different Member States ta ke part in the implementation of a project. 
Support to partnerships and to transnatio nal cooperation is commonly acknowledged as 
particularly relevant for the achievement of the programmes' objectibes. The evaluations of 
FRC, DAP and PROGRESS highlight the importa nce of creating and su pporting partnerships, 
while JCIV and JPEN acknowledge the need to take additional action to promote them. The 
respondents to the public consultation have also expressed clearly  their agreement on 
providing funding for the abovementioned activiti es in the area of justice and rights. 
According to the mid-term evaluations the activities of NGOs or  other non-profit 
organisations funded under the action grants and operating grants aimed to have impact on 
national policies and, according to action grant managers, the majo rity of them achieved this 
objective. Despite being low valu e, covering only few Member St ates and not always run by 
professional project managers, these activities greatly contributed in advocating for justice 
and in respecting fundamental rights.  
However, the drawback of such funding is it s competitive nature, which cannot guarantee that 
the beneficiaries would receive funding under th e next call for proposals to ensure the 
continuation of their activities, the sustainabili ty of the results of their projects and the 
adequate follow-up of the outputs of their projects.  
 The chart below presents the volume of the ac tion and operating grants awarded to different 
organisations under JCIV, JPEN, FRC, DAP and DPIP programmes during the reporting 
period (as from the start of the programmes until now) and its geographical coverage
14. In the 
period 2007-2010 the five programmes have awarded 659 grants.  
                                                 
13 For more detailed information on the results of the public consultation please refer to Annex II.  
14 The geographical allocation is based on the country wh ere the coordinating organisation of each project is 
officially established. However, in the majority of th e cases the projects are implem ented by a partnership of 
organisations from different Member States and the funds are divided between all partners of the project.  
 
EN 8   EN  
Geographical breakdown - Total number of grants
2494
14
41166
11
253
739
1116
5104
8314
336
13101211
2776
21
020406080100120
Series1 24 94 14 4 11 66 11 2 53 7 39 11 16 5 104 8 3 14 3 36 13 10 12 11 2 7 76 2 1AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SI SK SE UK NOIO
M
 
 
The main activities implemented by these proj ects are studies and researches, mapping of 
national policies and legislati on, case studies, training of pr actitioners and professionals, 
capacity building, awareness ra ising events, conferences a nd seminars. Some indicative 
examples of the results achieved by the programmes are mentioned below.  
 
Information and Awareness-raising  
 
EU funding is supporting the deve lopment of the European e-Ju stice systems. These systems 
serve to improve citizens' access to justice, to f acilitate procedures within  the EU and to make 
the resolution of disputes or the punishment of criminal be haviour more effective. They 
ensure better access to justice a nd strengthen cooperation between administrative and judicial 
authorities. The most visible pa rt of European e-Justice is the European e-Justice Portal, 
which provides concrete benefits  to citizens and businesses. Citizens can get answers on how 
the 27 EU countries' legal systems function. The Po rtal helps them find relevant information 
when dealing with events such as divorce, d eath, litigation or even moving house. Businesses 
can find links to insolvency and land register s and information on cross-border proceedings 
and the laws that apply.  The European Day of Civil Justice is celebrate d yearly on 25 October. The central event co-
organised by the Council of Europe and th e European Commission is supported by EU 
funding. These yearly events aim to bring justice closer to citizens, to inform them on their 
rights through simulation of procedures and information sessions open to students, 
professionals of justice and ge neral public and also through open doors to their courts.  
 National and European awareness-raising activi ties have been implemented in all supported 
policy areas. An indicative example is th e EU-wide campaign on the gender pay gap, which 
included among others national events, advertisi ng in EU press, 47 examples of national good 
practices, mapping of pay gap, a campaign tool kit etc. Some other examples are: the 
development and maintenance of websites in ar eas of Justice, Rights of the Child and 
Consular protection; the development and broa dcasting of video clips on multiple aspects of 
Roma life by a partnership of Bulgarian, Sl ovak, Hungarian and Roma nian organisations, 
 
EN 9   EN which encouraged a more nuanced coverage of Roma issues, greater pa rticipation of Roma 
journalists in mainstream media operations, and encouraged inter-cultural dialogue and 
mutual understanding; the devel opment of awareness raising acti ons targeting children at risk 
and victims of trafficking by a partnership of  Bulgarian, Danish, Italian and Romanian 
organisations, using their speci fic knowledge and expertise in  the field of trafficking, 
children’s rights and the use of new informati on technologies and the i nvolvement of children 
themselves; a European information campa ign on the 116000 telephone number for missing 
children implemented in 10 Member States, etc.  These activities have been complemented by di fferent debates and platforms (for example, 
European Platform for Roma, the Forum on  the Rights of the Child) initiated by the 
Commission in the field of an tidiscrimination, rights and equality to enhance knowledge and 
awareness of the problems within the circles of politicians, professionals, lawyers, public 
officials. In 2009 EU funding has supported across the Member  States more than 130 high-
quality and participatory debate events in th e area of antidiscrimina tion and gender equality, 
reaching a total estimated audience of more than  12,000 politicians, public officials, lawyers, 
educational institutions and NGOs, and similar target groups.
15  
 
Training 
 
Judicial training has been provided by the Eur opean Judicial Training Network (EJTN), which 
covers all Member States. It develops training  standards and curriculum, coordinates judicial 
training exchanges and programme s and fosters cooperation be tween EU national training 
bodies. Since 2005 over 3817 participants have take n part in exchange visits ranging from 
group study visits to short (up to 1 month) a nd longer term exchanges (1 year). Additionally 
to the EJTN activities 39 grants were given to  promote judicial trai ning in more than 10 
Member States. Other activities in the area of judicial traini ng, include indicatively training 
initiatives to promote alternative dispute resolution, cross border mediation, promoting 
mediation techniques for the Euro pean practitioners of justice, etc. The participants were 
judges and legal professionals from different Member States . The added value of these 
activities lies both in informing and training th e professionals who have to apply EU law and 
in promoting communication between them as a tool for the development of mutual trust.  
 EU funding is also provided to support the de velopment of training modules and the delivery 
of training to other professiona ls. Some indicative examples of funded activities are: the 
development of material and training on hea lth symptoms caused by violence (post-traumatic 
health disorder –PTSD) through the implementa tion of four successive grants, which allowed 
for the adaptation and dissemination of the material in all Member States; the development of training pact for professionals working with abusive and violent high risk families; etc.   
Cooperation on enforcement 
 
The European e-Justice Portal provides concre te benefits to lawyers and judges with cross-
border legal questions and boosts mutual unde rstanding of different legal systems by 
contributing to the creation of a single European area of justice. Through the e-Justice Portal 
lawyers, notaries and judges have access to legal databases, contact colleagues through 
judicial networks and find in formation on European judicial  training. Another e-Justice 
                                                
 
15 Progress Annual Performance Monitoring Report 2009, p. 48. 
 
EN 10   EN system, is the e-CODEX (e-Justice Communica tion via Online Data Exchange), which aims 
to find solutions to challenges su ch as e-ID and e-Signature.  
 The European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) was established to achieve an efficient exchange of information on criminal convictions between EU countries. Eleven EU 
countries (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Fran ce, Germany, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, the 
Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia and the UK) alrea dy exchange information on criminal records 
electronically in the framework of the 'Network of Judicial Registers' pilot project. This 
system is implemented through awarding grants to Member States in order to set up the 
appropriate systems to allow the electronic interconnection of their national criminal records databases.   Moreover, the Commission further enhances the Eu ropean judicial atlas, an online database 
available in all EU languages. The purpose of th e tool is to provide user-friendly access to 
information relevant for judicial cooperation in  civil matters. It enables professionals and the 
general public to easily identify which authoritie s to contact and is particularly useful for 
finding courts with territorial jurisdiction, se rving documents, taking evidence, enforcing 
judgments etc. Another database developed by the Commission is JURE, which contains 
information on the case law of the European Cour t of Justice and Member States' courts, on 
the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, on 
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and on the interpretation of the 1968 Brussels Convention and the 1988 Lugano 
Convention. Currently it includes cas e law of more than 2000 national cases
16. 
 Other examples of the supporting cooperation be tween Member States include the support for 
putting in place child alert systems, the operation of the 116000 hotline for missing children, activities for the coordination of operational and cross-bord er anti-drug co-operation, the 
development of methodology for the assessment of the human rights impact  of anti trafficking 
laws and measures, etc. 
 
Networks 
 
Funding in the area of justice,  rights and equality supports th e development of Europe-wide 
networks of organisations, which aim at shar ing experiences, exchanging information and 
good practices, cooperating in promoting policies,  coordinating their work in research and 
gathering information. The EU wi de cooperation gives clear added value to the work of these 
networks and at the same time helps the orga nisations in each country to learn from each 
other and improve their capacity. A number of  networks are supported in the areas of 
antidiscrimination, violence against women, equalit y, children's rights, victim support, etc.  
 
Research and analysis 
 
In addition to the above the Commission itself ha s contributed significantly in attaining the 
programmes' objectives through funding for Commi ssion initiatives. It allocates funding for 
the implementation of opinion polls, researches  and surveys, formula tion of methodologies, 
collection of data and statistics, studies and im pact assessment. These activities assist in the 
                                                
 
16 The case law is available to judges and legal practitioners throughout EU in the original language and in 
summary in three languages. 
 
EN 11   EN development of policies and legislation and their main aim is to ensure evidence-based policy 
making.   
4 PROBLEM DEFINITION  
 
As confirmed by the Stockholm Programme, the de velopment of an area of freedom, security 
and justice remains a priority for the Eur opean Union. Although significant progress has 
already been achieved in this fi eld, Europe still f aces challenges, which should be addressed 
in a comprehensive manner. The Stockholm program me sets the political priorities for the 
period 2010-2014. Most of these priorities will c ontinue to be relevant beyond this timeframe. 
In addition to this, tackling social, economic a nd legal injustices, inequalities and imbalances 
at local, regional and European level is perp etual objective of the EU. The promotion of 
citizenship and fundamental rights as well as the achievement of  a European area of justice 
significantly contribute to attaining this object ive and thus will remain at the heart of EU 
activity in the next decade. Funding, in addition to legislation, is identifi ed as one of the tools 
to be used for the achievement of these objectives.   The area of freedom, security and justice became very prominent only recently and is 
currently dominating the EU agenda. This is li nked to the creation of  the Schengen area and 
the current challenges posed by migration flows, the abolishment of the Third Pillar in the 
Treaties and the binding character of the F undamental Rights Charter. Although new policies 
and corresponding legislation in the area of justice are being c onceived expeditiously, due to a 
short lead time they cannot yet show their desired effects. Moreover, the promotion of 
fundamental rights, equality  and non-discrimination is a long-term objective and its 
responsiveness to legislation is  relatively low. Therefore it re quires long-term and persistent 
non-legislative efforts in order to deliver its objectives. In this cont ext the non-legislative 
measures implemented with the help of funding are appropriate tools to  continue and further 
pursue and implement EU policies.   
4.1 Challenges at policy level 
 
4.1.1 Obstacles remain in the functioning of a European area of justice, respectful of 
fundamental rights, non-discrimination and equality  
As a prerequisite for the realisation of a European area of justice, justice systems should have 
faith in each others' standards of fairness and ju stice, whereby the principles of mutual trust 
and mutual recognition of judici al decisions are essential elem ents. Due to limited legislation 
and policy instruments, obstacles remain in th e proper functioning of cross-border judicial 
proceedings. Judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters  is insufficient.  
 According to the Special Eurobarometer on civil justice in 2010
17 56% of Europeans believe 
that access to civil justice in another Member St ate is 'difficult'. Their main difficulties are 
that they don’t know the applic able legislation (42%) or the appropriate procedures (38%). 
The awareness of the existing three European cro ss-border procedures is  relatively low: 12% 
for legal aid, 8% for small claims and 6% for the European payment order.  
 
                                                 
17 Special Eurobarometer 351on Civil Justice, published in October 2010, 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_351_en.pdf   
 
EN 12   EN Access to justice should become a reality, as EU citizens need to have confidence that the 
same level of minimum rules will be applied sh ould they travel or live abroad. This becomes 
more important as the mobility of EU citizen s within the EU area increases. The total number 
of EU citizens who live in th e territory of another EU Member State is 11.3 million people 
(2.3 % of the EU population). This number has increased by 55% between 2001 and 2008. In 
2008, 90% of 1.4 billion journeys by Europeans were within the EU18. 
 Since 56% of EU GDP is based on consumer  spending, consumer confidence is very 
important for the EU economy
19. Consumer protection can give consumers the necessary 
confidence to fully participate in the intern al market. The development of today's online 
marketplace and the growing importance of digita l goods call for bringing up to date the EU 
consumer legislation. At presen t, 36% of Europeans do not f eel knowledgeable as consumers 
and 40% do not feel protected by consum er law when purchasing goods and services.20 
Indeed, the outdated legislation causes significant detriment for consumers. For example, it 
has been estimated that the consumer detriment21 in the area of dynamic travel packages22 
amounts to more than €1 billion annually23 and the consumer detriment for digital content 
products amounts to approximately €64 billion24. Consumer rights are however of little value 
if consumers are not aware of them and if th ey are not enforced in practice. The recent 
Eurobarometer on Consumer Empowerment shows that only 2% of consumers were able to 
answer correctly seven basic questions concerning their main consumer rights.25 
 Differences in contract law between Member St ates create a barrier to trade within the 
internal market (i.e. additional transaction costs, increased legal uncertainty for businesses and lack of consumer confidence). It has been estimated that each year those companies that 
do export into new Member State markets face unn ecessary entry (transaction) costs of about 
€1 billion. The value of trade foregone each year  between Member States  (due to differences 
in contract law), amounts to some tens of billions  of euro. The complexity of different foreign 
laws also impacts negatively on consumer c onfidence in cross-border shopping. Data show
26 
that the potential for cross-border trade is sti ll largely untapped and th at the persistence of 
                                                 
18 Eurostat, Citizens of the European countries account for the majority of the foreign population in EU-27 in 
2008, Statistics in focus 94/2009; Communication on Europe, the world's No 1 tourist destination – a new 
political framework for tourism in Europe, COM(2010)352 final of 30.06.2010.  
19 Commission Staff Working Paper on Consumer Empowerment in the EU, SEC(2011)469 final, of 7.4.2011. 
20 Special Eurobarometer 342 on Consumer Empowerment, published in April 2011, 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_empowerment/docs/report_eurobarometer_342_en.pdf   
21 The consumer detriment is understood as the negativ e outcomes that consumers experience when using certain 
products or services including financial and time loss. 
22 A “dynamic travel package” is when two or more services for a single holiday or trip (such as flights, hotel or 
car rental) are bought at the same time and from the same supplier, or from different suppliers that are 
commercially linked (such as airlines, hotel chains and car rental companies), and are put together according 
to the consumer's specific needs.  
23 Study on Consumer Detriment in the area of Dy namic Packages, The European Commission Health and 
Consumers DG, prepared by London Economics, November 2009. 
24 Digital Content Services for Consumers: Assessment of Problems Experienced by Consumers- LOT 1, not 
published. 
25 Special Eurobarometer 342 on Consumer Empowerment, published in April 2011, 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_empowerment/docs/report_eurobarometer_342_en.pdf  
26 According to the Eurobarometer on business attitudes towards cross-border sales and consumer protection, the 
additional costs of compliance with different consumer  protection regulations is the third most important 
obstacle to B2C cross border trade (60 % consider it a very or fairly important obstacle). See flash 
Eurobarometer 224 on business attitudes towards cross- border sales and consumer protection, published in 
July 2008,  http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/docs/fl224%20_eurobar_cbs_analrep.pdf   
 
EN 13   EN legal (next to administrative, cultural and tech nical) barriers is one of the main reasons for 
businesses' and consumers' reluctance to buy on-line and/or across borders27. 
 The internal market in data protection is not fully achieved. There are to o large variations in 
the transposition of the current directive, and Data Protection authorities do not have the same 
powers nor take consistent decisions across the EU. This creates unnecessary costs and 
administrative burden within the internal ma rket. There is no appr opriate coordination 
mechanism to ensure consistency across the inte rnal market. There are weaknesses as regards 
the protection of Individual's Da ta subject rights, for instance in the online world where rights 
such as deletion of one's own data (the "right to be forgotten") are not easily enforced. Data 
Protection authorities lack c oordination mechanisms and enfo rcement powers in order to 
enforce the rights of individuals  online. Europe lacks coordina tion mechanisms in order to 
guarantee effectively the data protection rights of  individuals in a globalized and online 
environment.  According to Eurostat data, roughly 15% of th e EU's population suffers directly from serious 
crime every year: around 30 million serious offen ces, excluding minor crimes, were recorded 
in 2007, and most crimes are never reported. Many of these offences involve more than one 
victim and those close to the victim also suffer indirectly from the crimes
28. 
 To prevent criminals from taking profit from the abolition of borders in the EU, 12 instruments have been adopted by the EU legislator to  ensure that crimin al procedures do not 
stop at borders, based on the principles of mu tual recognition of judicial decisions and on 
direct cooperation between the j udicial authorities of the Memb er States. However, there is 
widespread recognition that implementation of th ese third pillar instru ments has been very 
poor, since under the former Tr eaty the Commission did not have enforcement powers and 
therefore could not start infr ingement procedures against Member States who did not 
implement them at all or implemented them ba dly. Only one instrument, the European Arrest 
Warrant, has been implemented satisfactorily and on time.   Recent impact assessments
29 show that a main obstacle to mutual recognition and judicial 
cooperation is the lack of trust in the judicial systems of other Member States. This lack of 
trust relates both to the level of procedural safeguards benefitting to persons suspected or accused of having committed a crime as well as to  quality of treatment that victims receive in 
the aftermath of crime and during th e criminal proceeding that follow. 
 Also the prevention of drug-related crime  requires a long-term, integrated and 
multidisciplinary approach. The study on develo pments in the global illicit drugs market
30 
found no evidence of any improvement in the re cent period. In some countries the problem 
                                                 
27 See also the Special Eurobarometer 342 on Consumer Empowerment, published in April 2011, 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_empowerment/docs/report_eurobarometer_342_en.pdf   
28  Eurostat, Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, Statistics in focus, 36/2009. 
29 Impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a Fram ework Decision on the right to interpretation and to 
translation in criminal proceedings, SEC(2009) 916 of 8.7.2009; 
 Impact assessment accompanying the communication for a proposal of a directiv e establishing minimum 
standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime and for proposal for a regulation on mutual 
recognition of protection measures in civil matters, SEC(2011) 580 final of 18.5.2011;  
Impact assessment accompanying the pr oposal for a directive on the rights  of access to a lawyer and of 
notification of custody to a third person in crimin al proceedings, SEC(2011) 686 final of 8.6.2011. 
30 Study on Detailed analysis of the operation of the world market in illicit drugs and of policy measures to 
curtail it, not published. 
 
EN 14   EN diminished, but in others it worsened, in some  cases sharply. At the same time every year 
6.400 to 8.500 individuals die in the EU because  of drug overdose and for the first time in 
years the number of fatalities is going up31. The need for action in this area remains high as 
the Member States are unable to sustainably tackle the cross-border drugs problem on their 
own. They would struggle individually to cont rol the emergence and spread of new drugs on 
the EU market, the prevention of drug traffick ing across borders and to ensure the provision 
of quality treatment and care.  EU citizenship rights are now firmly anchored in  primary EU law and substantially 
developed in secondary law. However, the EU Citizenship Report 2010
32, as well as the 
Report on progress towards effective EU Citizenship 2007-201033 concluded that EU citizens 
still encounter difficulties when exercising th eir citizenship rights. The most recurrent 
complaints include difficulties, additional bur eaucratic requirements and unacceptable delays 
in the administrative procedures for registrati on and for issuance of residence cards. These are 
attributed to a certain extent  to excessive bureaucracy, but also, partly, to the incorrect 
interpretation and implementation of relevant EU rules by the national authorities. In October 
2010, there were 63 infringement proceedings launc hed against Member States in the area of 
free movement and residence of EU citizens. Ob stacles are identified regarding the exercise 
of electoral rights34 and the effectiveness of EU citizens'  right to consular protection remains 
to be proven35. At the same time the EU citizens are not  fully aware of their rights. Almost 
half of European citizens (48%) indicate that they are not well informed about their rights as 
Union citizens36. Lack of information is considered by EU citizens as one of the most 
important barriers to cross-border commuting37 and to exercising th eir right to free 
movement38. 
 The 2010 Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
39 found that 
people’s interest in and expectations about th e enforcement of the Charter are high. However, 
the Charter does not apply to all situations in  which fundamental rights are at issue in the 
European Union. In 2010, the Commission received more than 4.000 letters from the general public regarding fundamental rights. Approximate ly three quarters of these concerned cases 
outside the remit of EU law. This reflects a frequent misunde rstanding about the purpose of 
the Charter and the situations where th e Charter applies or does not apply.  
                                                
 
31 2010 Annual Report on the state of the drugs problem in Europe, EMCDDA, November 2010,  
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_120104_EN_EMCDDA_AR2010_EN.pdf  . 
32 EU Citizenship Report 2010, COM(2010) 603 final of 27.10.2010. The report was based on the large number 
of complaints and enquiries the Commission receive s every year, on recent Eur obarometer surveys, on 
discussions with stakeholders, on the outcome of a public consultation concluded on 15 June 2010 and a 
conference on ‘EU citizens’ right s-the way forward’ that took  place on 1 and 2 July 2010. 
33 Report on progress towards effective EU Citizenship 2007-2010, COM(2010) 602 final of 27.10.2010. 
34 EU Citizenship Report 2010 COM (2010) 603 final of 27.10.2010; Report on the election of Members of the 
European Parliament (1976 Act as amended by Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom) and on the participation of European Union citizens in elections for the European Parliament in the Member State of residence (Directive 
93/109/EC), COM(2010) 605 final of 27.10.2010.  
35 EU Citizenship Report 2010 COM (2010) 603 final of 27.10.2010; Communication on Consular protection for 
EU citizens in third countries: State of play and way forward, COM(2011) 149 final of 23.3.2011. 
36 Flash Eurobarometer 294 on European Union Citizenship, published in October 2010, 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_294_en.pdf   
37 Scientific Report on the Mobility of Cross-Border Workers within the EU-27/EEA /EFTA Countries, January 
2009. 
38 Eurobarometer Qualitative study "European Citizenship – Cross-border mobility" Aggregate Report of  
August 2010, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/quali/5823_citizenship_en.pdf   
39 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/rights/docs/report_EU_charter_FR_2010_en.pdf   
 
EN 15   EN  
The specific area of the Rights of the Child  also suffers from a general lack of awareness. 
The results of two Eurobarometer surveys of 2008 and 200940 showed that 76  % of children 
interviewed were not aware of having rights and 79  % did not know who to contact in case of 
need. When asked what action the EU should take  to promote and protect the rights of the 
child, 88  % of respondents indicated th at the EU should provide mo re information to children 
about their rights in an accessible way.   Despite remarkable advances towards equality between women and men  in the past few 
decades significant inequalities persist at global and EU level and there are still significant 
gender gaps, in both quantita tive and qualitative terms
41, which are incompatible with the 
fundamental goals of the Union. The current c ontext is characterised, for instance, by an 
unequal participation of women and men in the labour market, an EU average gender pay gap 
of 17.5%, an unbalanced representation of women and men in decision-making (the 
proportion of female members of national pa rliaments is approximately 24%) and the 
enduring violation of fundamental rights such as gender-based violence. The Eurobarometer 
conducted at the end of 2009 shows that 62% of the respondents perceive  gender inequality as 
a widespread phenomenon and violence against women  and the gender pay gap are 
considered as the two main priorities for action42.  
 According to the special Eurobarometer on discrimination  in the EU in 2009
43, 16% of 
Europeans reported experiencing discrimination in 2009. This percentage is much higher if 
we consider the interviewees declaring themselv es as belonging to a minority group (33% of 
disabled people, 25% of people having a diffe rent ethnic background). Only 1 out of 3 of 
Europeans are aware of their rights should th ey become a victim of discrimination or 
harassment. The figures show also a strong in crease in the perception of the existence of 
discrimination based on age and disability comp ared to 2008. There is a strong link between 
the economic crisis and the increased perceptio n of age discrimination. The advent of the 
economical crisis has lowered confidence that European governments will continue to address issues of discrimination with the same level of funding and sense of priority.  
 Furthermore, the EU has become a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities  in January 2011 and 18 Member States have ratified it while the rest are in the 
process of doing so. The Convention is the first international human right s instrument that the 
EU adheres to. However persons with disabilities are not yet able to fully enjoy the rights and 
fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Conve ntion. Recent data shows for example a 
considerable gap between persons with disabilities and those without disabili ties in relation to 
                                                
 
40 Flash Eurobarometer 235 on The Rights of the Child, published in April 2008,  
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_235_en.pdf ; 
Flash Eurobarometer 273 on The Rights of the Child, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_273_en.pdf . 
41 Commission Staff Working Document, Background document accompanying the Strategy for Equality 
between Women and Men 2010-2015, SEC(2010) 1080 final of 21.9.2010. 
42  Special Eurobarometer 326 on Gender equality in the EU in 2009, published in February 2010, 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_326_en.pdf   
See also Special Eurobarometer 344 on Domestic Violence against Women, published in September 2010, 
where 87% of the respondents agreed that action should be taken at EU level.  
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_344_en.pdf   
43 Special Eurobarometer 317 on Discrimination in the EU in 2009, published in November 2009,  
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_317_en.pdf   
 
EN 16   EN access to employment, education and risk of poverty44 representing a challenge to achieve the 
Europe 2020 headline targets. Furthermore, it is  important to mention th at the Convention is a 
wide instrument that mainstreams disability matters in a wide range of EU policies. To 
address those challenges the Commission issu ed a European disabi lity strategy 2010-2020 
proposing a wide number of actions.  
4.1.2 The role of funding in overcoming th ese obstacles and its added value  
The EU is addressing the challenges mentioned above by developing a strong set of 
legislative and policy measures and by pr omoting their coherent implementation.  
 The role of funding is to support the EU legisla tive and policy activity and to provide concrete 
solutions to specific problems that are comm on in all policy fields analysed above. The 
specific problems to be addressed by funding activities are summarised below: 
 
 
- Insufficient knowledge of th e EU acquis and of EU policie s by the persons who derive 
rights from it.   
- Insufficient knowledge of the EU acqui s and of EU policies by the relevant 
practitioners, leading to inconsistent and insu fficient application of EU law and policies. 
 - Insufficient cooperation and exchange of in formation at transnational level and lack of 
mutual trust between authorities, such as judicial authorities. 
 - Need for concrete informatio n, evidence, research and good practices concerning the 
situation and the needs on the ground, in order to feed to th e development of EU 
legislation and policies.   
 
Funding therefore is an  essential tool:  
(i) to bridge the period until legi slation is prepared and adopt ed and to help to prepare 
state-of-art legislation,  
(ii) to enhance the quality implementation and application of the adopted legislation 
and  
(iii) to bridge the gap where legislation alone  might appear to be ineffective.  
 
In this context the role of funding is to provide  adequate support in an effective and efficient 
manner. Its focus has to be on activities with  clear added value that can produce maximum 
benefit in addressing policy challenges. The added value of the ac tivities funded under the 
current programmes was confirmed by the evaluations. More specifically:  
 Funding should enhance the effectiveness of legislation  by supporting: 
 
                                                
 
44 On the basis of the EU Statistics on Income and Living  Conditions (SILC) from 2008, it is estimated that the 
percentage of persons with disabilities having completed te rtiary education or equivalent in the age group 30-
34 is around 19%, while for those without disabilities the figure is around 31%. The employment rate (from 
the same source) among those between 20-64 years old w ith disabilities is 45 % compared to 73% for persons 
without disabilities. The poverty risk for persons with disabilities older than sixteen years is 21% while for 
those without disabilities it is about 15%.  
 
EN 17   EN  Information and public awareness raising , including support for national and 
European campaigns to inform people of th eir rights, as guarant eed under EU law;  
 
 Training and capacity building for legal professionals (such as judges and 
prosecutors) and other practitioners, to equip them with the tools to effectively put 
EU rights and policies into practice.  
 
These types of activities contribute to increasing knowledge, aw areness and capacity 
of citizens, professionals and stakeholders. Only action at EU level  can provide 
coordinated activities that can reach all EU Member States and consistently contribute 
to developing mutual understanding and reduc ing the barriers that citizens face in their 
mobility within the internal market.  
 Funding has a central role in promoting cooperation at transnational level , through : 
 
 Strengthening networks , i.e. EU-wide organisations to assist with the preparation of 
future initiatives in this area, as well as  to promote their consistent implementation 
across Europe;  
 
 Cross-border cooperation on enforcement , for example establishing missing child 
alert systems, coordination of operational and cross-borde r anti-drug co-operation;  
 These types of activities promote networ king, mutual cooperation and mutual trust 
among the participants. Their EU added value lies  mainly in generating, sharing and 
disseminating information, data, and knowle dge between the numerous stakeholders 
concerned. Without EU support, these stak eholders would tend to address similar 
problems in a fragmented and disconn ected way. Collaboration and networking 
between them lead to the dissemination of best practices, in particular innovative and 
integrated approaches in different Member St ates. The participants in these activities 
can act as multipliers in their respective professional activities and disseminate wider the best practices within their Member Stat e. Furthermore, support of cooperation in 
enforcement not only improves the effectiveness and efficiency of cross-border actions and the speed with which they can be  carried out, but also benefits directly 
Member States at national level.  
Additionally, funding should support:   
 Research, analysis and other support activities,  to provide to the legislator clear and 
detailed information on the problem s and the situation on the ground.  
 The results of these activities  feed into the development and the implementation of EU 
policies and ensure that they are evidence -based, well targeted and well structured. 
This type of research, anal ysis and support activities can only be funded at EU level  in 
order to obtain comprehensive informati on covering all Member States. Funding at 
national level would not provide the same re sults, but would result in a fragmented 
and limited approach. 
 
 
EN 18   EN 4.2 Challenges in management and delivery 
Besides the positive role of funding and the achievements of the ongoing programmes, the 
mid-term evaluations identified also key area s where improvement is needed in order to 
maximise the results and impact of the programme s. The issues identified are to a great extent 
common for the five programmes and some of them apply also to PROGRESS. The analysis 
below is structured on the basis of the key areas where common problems are identified. 
Additional reference, where applicable, is  made to problems faced by each specific 
programme.  
4.2.1 Relevance/Scope 
The mid-term evaluations of all programmes did not put in question the content of the 
programmes. They concluded that the programme s are highly relevant to respond to the needs 
they were designed to address and they confirme d the importance of their impact for the target 
groups. They confirmed the need for fundi ng in the respective areas  and acknowledged 
that the funded activities contribu te to the achievement of the fo reseen objectives. In terms of 
scope, some recommendations were made, but the issues raised did not put in doubt the need 
for the continuation of funding.  
The same view was expressed by the respondent s in the public cons ultation, who confirmed 
the relevance of the program mes' scope. The overwhelming majority of the respondents 
agreed that funding should be maintained an d acknowledged the EU added value in allocating 
funding in these areas.  
 
The area of justice and rights has a deve loping and very dynamic policy agenda. An 
indication of this is that issues related to this area make up 14% of  the Commission’s overall 
work programme. Within this context funding has to address two challenges: to provide 
support to the development of a wi de policy area and to ensure that th is support can also focus 
on specific needs of the ongoing policy developments . This approach is consistent with the 
goals set by the Commission in the EU Budget Review and in  the Budget for Europe 2020
45. 
In practice it means that the stru cture of the budget has to ensure flexibility .  
 The existence of six different, small-scale f unding programmes in this policy area does not 
support flexibility, but rather presents a fragmented and ri gid approach. Each programme 
focuses only on a specific, limite d policy area, setting a small- scale scope for its activities 
(e.g. Criminal Justice, Civil Justice, Viol ence against women, children and young people, 
Drug Prevention and Infromation). This means in  practice that six s ub-areas of funding are 
maintained.   In this context horizontal and cross-cutting i ssues cannot be addressed in a comprehensive 
way or they are only partially addressed within  the specific scope of  each programme. Greater 
flexibility in the allocation of funds between programmes in  order to adapt to policy 
developments and needs is not possible. From a policy perspective this fragmentation poses 
substantial limitations to the use of funding as a tool for th e development of a strong and 
coherent policy area. This situati on is clearly evident in the area of criminal and civil justice, 
as each programme partially covers issues such  as judicial training or e-Justice, while a 
comprehensive approach is missing.  
                                                
 
45 Communication on A Budget for Europe 2020, COM(2011) 500 final of 29.06.2011. 
 
EN 19   EN  
In addition to this fragmentation a number of overlaps  can be identified among the different 
programmes, as they address interlinked issues with common aspects. Some indicative 
examples are presented below:  - In the area of promoting judicial cooperati on, funding can be obtained from two different 
programmes, Civil Justice or Criminal Just ice, depending on the objective of the action. 
However, horizontal issues such as e-justi ce or judicial training can be addressed only 
partially by these programmes, either from the cr iminal justice or the civl justice point of 
view.  
 - In the area of children’s ri ghts, child protecti on and prevention of violence against 
children the Fundamental Rights and Citizen ship programme overlaps with the Daphne 
programme. 
 - In preventing drug addiction and violence between young people, Daphne and the Drugs 
Prevention and Information pr ogramme overlap, whereas some  aspects could also be 
relevant to the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship programme.  
 
- Non-discrimination is within the scope of  both Fundamental Rights and Citizenship 
programme and PROGRESS/Non-discrimination. 
 - Violence against women is the focus of Daphn e programme, but it has also strong links 
with PROGRESS/Gender Equality, with Funda mental Rights and Citizenship and with 
Criminal Justice. 
 The overlaps between programmes allow benefici aries to submit simila r funding applications 
under several programmes or to choose the programme for submitting their application not based on thematic relevance, but based on the average success-rate under a given programme. 
As a result, different programmes  could fund similar act ivities, which have not been evaluated 
against each other. This duplica tion of activities reduces the co st-effectiveness and the impact 
of funding.   The fragmentation and overlaps between the pr ogrammes are evident also while comparing 
the annual priorities of the programmes
46. The overlaps in the scope between some of the 
programmes, as indicated above, have often as co nsequence overlaps in their annual priorities. 
For example, the annual priori ties of both FRC and DAP cover issues related to children's 
rights. This problem was pointed out by the mi d-term evaluations of the programmes, which 
recommended that the focus of the programmes should be improved. It should be noted that 
the recommendations of these mid-term evaluations aim to improve the implementation of the 
                                                 
46  For the allocation of funding in different policy ar eas the setting of objectives and the setting of priorities 
take place at different points in time. The general and specific objectives  are identified in the legal act, 
which provides the general legal framework for the implementation of the programme. These objectives 
cannot be changed throughout the duration of the programme and thus they should be formulated in a way 
that would remain valid until the end of the programme's duration. They define the scope  of the programme. 
In addition there are the annual priorities  which are set on an annual basis in the annual work programmes 
for each programme. These are more operational and de termine the focus of funding for the coming year. 
The annual priorities are within the scope of the gene ral and specific objectives and depend on and reflect 
the current developments. 
 
EN 20   EN ongoing programmes and propose solutions comp atible within the current programme 
structure. In these terms and since the objectives of  the ongoing programmes cannot be 
changed, the solution proposed by  the mid-term evaluations was to improve the focus by 
identifying the annual priorities carefully. Howeve r the root cause of the overlaps lies in the 
definition of the programmes’ scope, which is a problem to be addressed at the stage of 
designing the structure of the funding programmes.  
 The fragmentation of the funds in this ar ea under six different small-scale programmes 
compromises also the ability of the programmes to align their a nnual priorities with the policy 
needs. For example, addressing priorities conc erning judicial cooperatio n can only be partly 
covered by JCIV and only to the exte nt that it relates to civil justice. Mirror priorities referring 
to criminal justice should be foreseen under the JPEN programme in order to ensure coverage 
of the whole justice area. This split approach does not allow th e flexible allocation of funds 
according to the annual needs and prevents the development of one comprehensive and coherent approach on horizontal issues, such as e-justice. In this respect the current small-scale approach does not present an effective to ol to address the emer ging wider-scale policy 
needs of a quickly developing policy area.   
Furthermore, the fragmentation and overlaps re sult in a dilution of the programmes' funds. 
Relatively small amounts are allocated to se parate programmes which are implemented in 
parallel but without a common a pproach. This situation prevents  the creation of economies of 
scale and does not allow funding to  be used annually in a focused way in order to produce its 
maximum impact.   
Complementarity and synergies with fundin g programmes in other areas of EU policy 
 
The scope of the current f unding activities has certain common aspects with funding 
programmes in other areas of EU policy. Over laps between small-scale programmes within 
the same policy area result in the deficiencies described above . On the other hand, overlaps 
between programmes in different policy areas ha ve the potential of increased impact as they 
can provide a complementary approach to problems. Within this context the funding 
objectives of the area of justice and rights ar e complementary to the funding objectives of 
specific other EU policies:   
- Home Affairs policies 
The Home Affairs and Justice policies form an  integral part of the EU policies for the 
development of an area of freedom, security  and justice as set out in the Stockholm 
Programme. Funding in the area of Home Affair s policies aims to enhance the effective 
management of migration flows to the EU and to enhance EU's internal security. In these 
terms it has a different angle than the policie s on justice and rights . Examples of funding 
synergies in these two areas ar e the support to victims of diff erent crimes, the prevention of 
sexual crimes and combating drug-related crimes.   
- Citizenship 
Both the current Fundamental Rights and Citi zenship programme (FRC) and the Europe for 
Citizens programme (EfCP) deal with 'citizenship  issues'. However, the term 'citizenship' is 
used with a different meaning and the prog rammes follow different objectives. Whereas FRC 
addresses the issue of the 'Union citizenship ' in the sense of the EU treaty (e.g. free 
movement, participation in European and local elections in the Member State of residence, 
consular protection, citizenship- related obstacles to EU citize ns' rights), EfCP addresses the 
 
EN 21   EN participatory dimensions of citizenship, referrin g to a sense of belongi ng and of ownership, 
general/institutional issues, values, (so-called 'active citizenship').  
 
- Employment and Social policies  
The policies on equality and anti-discriminati on have close links both to the policies on 
justice and rights and to the policies on employ ment and social policies. Funding in these 
areas is currently included in the PROGRESS  programme, but managed by DG Justice. The 
integration of funding for these two areas in th e future programmes of the area of justice and 
rights is necessary in order to present a clear solution, consistent with the policy 
developments. Synergies with the employment and social po licies would be continued and 
further developed.    
- Consumer Protection  
The funding needs of the consumer protection po licies are currently cove red by the Consumer 
Programme. However, a number of consumer prot ection issues are addressed within the scope 
of civil law and rights of ci tizens. The Consumer Programme and its likely successor focus on 
the safety and empowerment of consumers via fo stering consumer education and information, 
enhancing safety of products, supporting cons umer organisations and enforcing consumer 
rights through networks of enfor cement authorities. Funding in th e area of jus tice and rights, 
on the other hand, would aim to cover the prepar ation and quality implementation of a major 
part of consumer legislation, namely contra ct, marketing and unfai r commercial practices 
legislation, as well as related information, redress and enforcem ent activities. In practical 
terms this means that funding mu st be targeted to support the alignment of the existing legal 
framework to the technological developments, to enhance pub lic awareness and knowledge of 
EU law in this area and to support its implemen tation and application by the Member States. 
As a result, target groups and bene ficiaries of funding are different.  
 
4.2.2 Effectiveness  
The mid-term evaluations have confirmed the overall effectiveness of the programmes. The 
programmes’ objectives and the an nual priorities are fully addr essed by the awarded grants 
and the Commission initiatives. Wh en evaluating the impact of  the programmes as a whole 
(i.e. the full impact of all funded activities), the mid-term evaluations confirmed that the 
programmes are effective in reaching their objec tives. However, when evaluating the impact 
of separate activities, the mid-term evaluations  have identified a number of problems to be 
addressed.  A dilution of funds  ('saupoudrage' ) has been identified within the five programmes: the 
funds are divided among many rather small- scale projects. Due to  the low upper funding 
ceilings per project, the applic ants can only design and submit applications for small-scale 
projects, i.e. projects with limited number of partners, projects covering only a few Member 
States, projects developing only a limited set of activities. As an example, under FRC the 
average partnership per project is 4.5 organisations from at least two Member States, with 
average funding of € 341.000 per project and an av erage duration of 21 months. The result of 
this allocation is that each organisation woul d receive in average less than € 50.000 per year 
in order to implement the project activities. This  scale of funding is evidently small-scale and 
in consequence the impact of each project is re latively small-scale. The effectiveness of the 
programmes as a whole is not severely compro mised by this problem, as it is boosted by the 
combined implementation of a multitude of pr ojects (111 projects were funded by FRC during 
2007-2010). However, since at implementation st age many different projects develop their 
 
EN 22   EN activities in parallel, overlap s and duplication among them ca nnot be excluded. Through this 
model, although each awarded action has a clear imp act within its scope of activities, the fact 
that the scope of each project is limited prev ents the programmes themselves from achieving 
economies of scale and aiming strongly for Europe-wide large-scale impact.   The small-scale partnerships and the small-scale projects have led the mid-term evaluations to 
recommend that the awarded projects should have a stronger EU dimension . The vast 
majority of the funded projects are not na tional projects, but they are implemented by 
transnational partnerships. This cooperation be tween organisations promotes mutual learning 
and exchange of good practices and cont ributes to improved and more coherent 
implementation of policies and legislation. In th ese terms there is clear EU added value for a 
project when it reaches, e.g. 3 Member Stat es. However this EU added value can be 
strengthened by the cooperation of a wider part nership of organisations, from more Member 
States working together for the implementation of a single action. 
 Despite the fact that funding is allocated  to a multitude of projects, there is no balanced 
geographical spread  among the organisations which receive funding. This imbalance is 
evident in the relevant statisti cs and is pointed out both by the mid-term evaluations and by 
respondents to the public consulta tion, in particular those from the new Member States. This 
is the result of a number of factors, such as the extent of the problem in each Member State, 
the awareness of and interest in  the problem, the lack or the ex istence of similar national or 
other funding mechanisms, the experience of or ganisations in submitting applications or 
managing projects, the willingness of organisati ons to undertake the management of a project 
or to participate onl y as a partner etc. 
 The results of all mid-term evaluations agr ee that more should be done to improve the 
dissemination and use of the results and outputs  of the funded activities. Dissemination to 
a wider public is identified as key element for ensuring better impact for the five programmes 
(JCIV, JPEN, FRC, DAP, DPIP). Also the inte rim results of the mid-term evaluation and the 
annual performance monitoring reports of PROG RESS confirm that despite continued efforts 
in the last years, visibility and disseminati on of the programme's results deserve further 
improvement to ensure sustainability and th e long-term exploitation of funded projects.  
 Improvement in dissemination goes hand in hand with improvement in the evaluation and 
monitoring . Different evaluation and monitoring systems have been used by the six 
programmes. The five specific programmes of the Framework Programme on Fundamental 
Rights and Justice (JCIV, JPEN, FRC, DAP, DPIP) foresee only a mid-term and a final 
evaluation. The evaluation and re porting for these programmes focuses more on quantitative 
aspects (number of projects and beneficiaries funded, etc)  and highlights management 
problems. The lack of a stronge r link between the project resu lts and their impact on the 
relevant policies is identified as a defici ency of the evaluation and monitoring system 
currently in place. The monitoring and evaluati on system of PROGRESS includes in addition 
annual activity reports, focusing on the results of the programme. This annual reporting 
allows better monitoring to ensure that proj ect outputs reach policy objectives. This method of 
evaluation proved to be successf ul in demonstrating the pr ogramme’s achievements and 
added value, as well as in enhancing the EU’s  accountability and the preliminary findings of 
its mid-term evaluation recommend maintaini ng this approach. The comparison between the 
two systems shows the added value of the resu lts-based management and the annual reporting 
cycle. A limited additional administrative burde n would be linked to complying with the 
 
EN 23   EN requirements of this system and this would n eed to be accommodated within the management 
resources of the future programmes.  
4.2.3 Efficiency 
As already noted in the Budget for Europe 2020
47 the complexity of programme structures 
and the multiplication of programmes hamper the impact of EU spending and create 
administrative burden for applicants. In the EU budget there are too many separate 
programmes and instruments serving similar or complementary objectives , to which different 
management rules apply. An indi cative example of this fragment ation is funding in the area of 
justice and rights, as al ready analysed above.  
 Both the mid-term evaluations a nd the public consultation note the complex and 
bureaucratic procedures that  the applicants are facing . Each year prospective applicants 
for a grant must keep track of approximately 10-13 different calls for proposals (one or more 
calls for action grants and one call for opera ting grants under each programme) and have to 
work through different priorities, eligibility, selection and award crit eria, different supporting 
documents and different deadlines for submissi on. During the implementation of a project the 
rules governing the different pr ogrammes are similar, but ther e are deviations which can 
confuse and mislead the beneficiaries. Simila rly, after the end of a project the reporting 
documents and the reporting obligations have many similarities, but ar e not uniform for all 
programmes. The difficult and complicated proce dures are identified by the respondents of 
the public consultation as an important obstacl e that may discourage and prevent potential 
applicants from submitting an application and re ceiving EU funding. It is indicative that 79% 
of the respondents in the public consultation confirm that there is need for simplification and improvement of the programmes.  From the administrative point of view the mu ltiplication of the same procedures for the 
different programmes imposes high administrative burden on the Commission . The 
differences between the six programmes require an equal number of annual work 
programmes, calls for proposals, selection pro cedures and award decisions. Human resources 
are dispersed among the different programmes and extra time and effort is needed to ensure 
coordination and coherence and to  avoid overlaps and duplication.  This results in allocating 
significant resources to the fina ncial management, although the budget for this area is only a 
small part of the overall EU  budget (approx. 0,1%). The heavy wo rkload obliges the resources 
to focus on management tasks at the expense of tasks that can improve the effectiveness of the 
programmes, such as dissemination of results  and result-based monitoring and evaluation. 
Also the dilution of funds among many rather  small-scale projects  and the corresponding 
heavy workload for their management do not pr esent a good case of cost effectiveness for the 
Commission (small-scale impact – significant resources) and steps for improvement are 
required.   The multiplication of procedures and the high administrative burden contribute to increasing 
the length of procedures . The period between the submission of applications and the start of 
the selected projects cannot be  very short due to the procedural requirements imposed by the 
                                                
 
47 Commission Staff Working Paper, A Budget for Europe 2020: the current system of funding, the challenges 
ahead, the results of stakeholders consultation and different option on the main horizontal and sectoral issues, 
SEC(2011) 868 final, Accompanying the Communication on A Budget for Europe 2020, COM(2011) 500 
final of 29.6.2011. 
 
EN 24   EN basic act (consultation of  the Member States and the right  of scrutiny of the European 
Parliament). The high administrative burden fo r the Commission to finalise six different 
procedures with the challeng es that are noted above prol ongs this period further. The 
available human resources are dispersed in implementing the procedures for the different 
programmes and any effort to acce lerate work is equally fragmented within each programme, 
preventing a considerable improvement.   The administrative and control pr ocedures in the financial mana gement cycle are designed to 
ensure sound financial management, prevention  of fraud and protec tion of the financial 
interests of EU, as well as the necessary cons ultation within the EU institutions. Within the 
context of these procedures, the high number of  programmes and the differences in approach, 
structure, rules and requirements of each di fferent programme complicate additionally the 
funding procedures for potential applicants  and beneficiaries and impose additional 
administrative burden.   An important step in overcoming the problem s of efficiency was the introduction of the 
electronic grant management system. The proce dures were somewhat simplified and unified, 
some Commission resources (especially in te rms of administrative tasks related to the 
physical handling and registering of the applications) were freed  and there was some, but not 
a significant acceleration of the procedure. Howe ver, the root cause of the problems described 
above remains the high number of programme s and the need for duplication of the same 
procedures for each programme.  
5 EU'S RIGHT TO ACT 
 
5.1 The EU’s right to act 
The EU’s right to act derives from different lega l bases both within and outside Title V of Part 
Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.   Within Title V:   Æ Judicial cooperation in civil matters (Article 81(1) and (2) TFEU); 
Æ Judicial cooperation in criminal  matters (Article 82(1) TFEU); 
Æ Crime prevention (Article 84 TFEU). 
 Outside Title V:  Æ Non-discrimination (Ar ticle 19(2) TFEU); 
Æ EU citizenship (Article 21(2) TFEU); 
Æ Internal Market (A rticle 114 TFEU); 
Æ Public health (Article 168 TFEU); 
Æ Consumer protection (Article 169 TFEU); 
Æ Administrative cooperati on (Article 197 TFEU); 
 
5.2 Subsidiarity principle 
To overcome the issues identified above, action at EU level is necessa ry and produces clear 
benefits compared to action at the level of Me mber States alone. The creation of a European 
area of justice and rights requires transnat ional cooperation mechanisms and networking 
 
EN 25   EN opportunities for the professionals concerned, whic h can typically not be achieved by Member 
States acting alone. Mutual trus t between Member States cannot be satisfactorily developed 
without incentives at EU level. Moreover, Member States are not in the best position to ensure 
consistent interpretation and coherent applic ation of legislative instruments throughout the 
EU.  Action at EU level allows for objectives to be pursued consistently across the EU, and brings 
economies of scale and synergies. Moreover, the European Union is in a better position than 
Member States to ensure that people and bus inesses are made aware of their rights in 
particular in cross-border situations, to pr omote transnational cooperation and networking, 
and to support the consistent implementation of  EU law by training the judiciary and judicial 
staff on EU law. A few examples:  In the area of justice, the key principles of mu tual trust and mutual recognition of judicial and 
extra-judicial decisions can be  supported more efficiently by action at EU level. Member 
States judicial authorities generally don’t have a traditio n of cooperating or exchanging 
information with each other, and will tend to ha ve bi-lateral contacts rather than to work 
within EU-wide networks. Access to  justice in cross-border cases can also be facilitated more 
efficiently by action at EU level. 
 In the area of data protecti on, the lack of a cons istent enforcement of EU rules and of 
cooperation mechanisms between Member States  can only be addressed satisfactorily by EU-
level action.  In many areas, such as consumer law, equa lity and non-discrimination or citizenship, 
individuals are protected by Eur opean legislation, but are not sufficiently aware about their 
rights. Only awareness-raising actions at EU level can ensure that persons in all Member 
States are reached, and that a consistent messa ge is passed on. Moreov er, action at EU level 
such as a EU-wide campaign will bring economies of scale compared to action at the level of 
Member States. The same is true for profession als who have to apply the law, be it legal 
advisors, judges or public au thorities. Information material or training modules on EU 
legislation or EU instruments developed at EU level with the aim to be used in all Member 
States are more efficient than to have all Member States deve loping their own material, if at 
all.  
6 OBJECTIVES 
 
The Budget for Europe 2020 aims to support in pr actice the objectives for smart, sustainable 
and inclusive growth as set out  by the Communication on Europe 2020
48. Funding in the area 
of justice and rights supports the flagship in itiatives of Europe 2020: Developing a well-
functioning area of justice, promoting fundament al rights and gender eq uality and combating 
discrimination are crucial aspects in achieving sustainable and inclusiv e growth, in improving 
skills, in ensuring social cohesi on and increasing levels of empl oyment and in fighting social 
exclusion and poverty. Concrete ly, the funding in the area of  civil law contributes to 
sustainable growth by ensuring  that national lega l orders allow economic operators and 
consumers to take full advantage of the intern al market and by putting in place a system of 
laws designed to remove obstacles and facilitate the expansion of cross-border activities. The development of contract and consumer law pr ovides practical solutions for businesses and 
                                                
 
48 Communication on Europe 2020, COM(2010) 2020 final of 3.3.2010. 
 
EN 26   EN consumers to address the bottlenecks in the internal market. Achieving gender equality and 
combating discriminations is also crucial for th e EU’s growth and exit of the crisis, and for 
achieving full employment and social cohesion objectives. The objective of reducing poverty 
implies fighting against discrimination and re ducing women's poverty. Education and training 
of all are essential to the de velopment of Europe as a “knowledge-based society”, which is 
one of the key components for a sound and competitive economy.  
General objective:  
 
The general objective of all f unding activities in the area of  justice and rights is:  
 
• To provide focused, effective and efficient suppo rt to the development of a European area 
of justice, respectful of rights and equality 
 
Specific and operational objectives:  
 
The following specific and operational objectives are identified in line with the objectives of 
the Communication for A B udget for Europe 2020:  
 
• Ensure that the scope  of each programme is appropriate to provide support to the policies 
and to be responsive to the annual policy priorities  
¾ Ensure flexibility in the allocation of  funds within this area of funding  
¾ Reduce overlaps and fragmenta tion between the programmes  
• Focus funding on specific areas of action which have clear added value and are 
responsive to the a nnual policy priorities  
¾ Enhance public awareness and know ledge of EU law and policies  
¾ Support the implementation of EU law and policies in Member States  
¾ Promote cooperation and build up mutual knowledge and mutual trust 
¾ Improve knowledge and understanding of potential issues affecting the smooth 
functioning of a European area  of justice, the exercise  of rights guaranteed by the 
Treaty, by the Charter of Fundamental Right s or by secondary EU legislation, with 
view to ensuring eviden ce-based policy making 
• Improve the effectiveness  and performance-orientation of the programmes 
¾ Prevent dilution of funds  
¾ Ensure better geographical coverage 
¾ Improve dissemination and use of the results 
¾ Improve monitoring and evaluation of the programmes  
• Improve the efficiency  of the programmes (simplification) 
 
EN 27   EN ¾ Simplify the (application, monitoring, repor ting) procedures for applicants and 
beneficiaries  
¾ Reduce the administrative burden for the Commission 
¾ Take action to minimise th e length of procedures 
7 POLICY OPTIONS  
 
7.1 Option 0 – Baseline scenario 
The baseline scenario would be that the current situation con tinues and no action is taken to 
address the identified problems.   
7.2 Option A – 6 programmes – Status quo and improvements at management level 
Under this option the current number of  programmes would be maintained.  
 The problems in scope  would be addressed through changes in the objectives of the 
programmes. The programmes would be st ructured on the following basis:  
 The legal act
 of each programme would provide a broad but structured framework, 
identifying: 
- broad general and specific objectives, in order to cover fully the relevant policy area, and  
- concrete areas of action focuse d on the types of funding that ca n be of specific assistance to 
policy as identified above under 6.  The general and specific  objectives would be different for each programme, while the areas of 
action would be the same for all programmes.  The additional improvement would be the deve lopment of strong synergies between the 
programmes at the stage of identifying the pr iorities of their annu al work programmes.
 
Through close cooperation at this stage the pr ogrammes would aim to  reduce the overlaps 
between them and to achieve more fo cus on the relevant policy priorities. 
 However for the implementation of the progr ammes multiple and separate, programme-
specific procedures (annual work programmes,  calls for proposals, selection procedures, 
award decisions) would still be necessary.  Under this option the main tool to address the challenges in effe ctiveness and efficiency would 
be the harmonisation and streamlining of the pr ocedures during the annual management cycle 
of the programmes. More specifically the following actions would be envisaged:  
- Removing the maximum limit of EU funding fo r each project: this action would invite 
applications for bigger projects , in order to address the di lution of funds; and at the 
same time it would encourage a wider geographical coverage of each project; 
- Identifying Member States with low rate s of participation in the programmes and 
organising information or support activities to stimulate interest and improve their 
participation, aiming at improving the ge ographical coverage of the programmes; 
- Prioritising the dissemination of results by actively using the programme websites; 
 
EN 28   EN - Developing an improved system for monito ring projects and focusing on a results-
based approach and performance orientation;  
- Developing uniform documents, rules and proce dures for all stages of the project life-
cycle (application, implemen tation, reporting) and applic able to all programmes, 
aiming to simplify the procedures for applicants; 
- Full or partial externalisati on of the programme management  to an executive agency.  
 
7.3 Option B – 2 programmes  
The current six programmes would be merged in to two programmes, a "Justice Programme" 
and a "Rights and Citizenship Programme".   In terms of scope , the measures of option A would be applicable also under option B: the 
general and specific objectives of each progra mme would define the relevant policy area. 
They would be limited in number and clearly fo cus on their respective area, in order to avoid 
overlaps with programmes of other EU polic y areas. The areas of action of the two 
programmes would be formulated in a horizontal  way, encompassing all identified areas with 
clear added value.   
Additionally, the reduction in the number of programmes w ould have direct impact on 
addressing the problems of scope, i.e. the need  for flexibility and for increased focus on 
priorities. Each programme woul d cover a wider policy area and within this wider scope, the 
programmes would be by definition more responsi ve and adaptable to an nual policy priorities: 
e.g. no further fragmentation would be needed be tween Criminal and Civil Justice or between 
fundamental rights and anti-dis crimination. At the same time the risk of overlaps would be 
reduced.   As a result of the merge into two programmes  all procedures (annual work programmes, calls 
for proposals, selection procedur es, award decisions) would need  to be implemented only for 
two (and not anymore for six) programmes. Th is would have direct impact both on the 
effectiveness and the efficiency  of the programmes. 
 In addition all measures foreseen under Option  A in terms of addressing the problems of 
effectiveness and efficiency would be applicab le and they would be fully implemented under 
this option.   
7.4 Option C – 1 programme  
Under this option only one programme would be  implemented in the area of justice and 
rights.   The aim of implementing this option is to address fully all problems of sc ope, effectiveness 
and efficiency  that are linked with the implementation of multiple programmes and to achieve 
the maximum possible simplification.    Each procedure (annual work programmes, calls  for proposals, selection procedures, award 
decisions) would have to be implemented only once. In addition all measures foreseen under 
 
EN 29   EN options A and B in terms of addressing the probl ems of effectiveness and efficiency would be 
applicable and they would be fully implemented under this option.   However, the implementation of this option in the area of justice and rights would not achieve 
this maximum impact due to the legal constrai nts of the Title V TFEU. It would imply that 
funding would cease for one of the two identifie d policy areas. A choice would have to be 
made and funding would be provided under eith er a "Justice Programme" or a "Rights and 
Citizenship Programme". Funding for the other area would not be provided and consequently 
it would not be possible to address suffici ently the policy priorities and needs. 
 
7.5 Discarded options 
In aiming for streamlining and simplification a theoretical option could be to change the 
management mode of the programmes and possi bly abandon centralised direct management. 
A change from centralised management to shared management (management of the budget 
directly by the Member States)  is discarded due to the small am ount allocated to this area of 
funding. The available budget is € 911 million for a 7 year period for the whole scope of this 
area. A simple division of the yearly amount among the 27 Member States would result in an 
amount of approximately € 4.8 million per Me mber State per year. Such limited amount 
would result in activities with small-scale imp act and limited or no EU added value. It would 
lead to an additional fragmentation and diluti on of funds among the Member States and it 
would prevent funding from focusing on areas with  clear added value and mutual benefits and 
from developing economies of scale. Thus fo r such limited funding the shared management 
mode is not an appropriate option as it is not possible to achieve results with a significant 
impact and a clear EU added value. Its impact would be more limited than the impact of the 
centralised management mode of the current programmes.   A moderate change of the centralised direct ma nagement mode would be to insert objectives 
supporting justice, rights and equality policies into other EU funding programmes . This 
option is discarded, because it  would not provide adequate support to the policies. The 
objectives of this policy area would be spread across different other policy areas and different 
programmes. The fragmentation of the current funding programmes woul d not be addressed, 
but would be rather amplified, and all identi fied problems would remain. Furthermore, the 
achievement of the objectives of justice, rights and equality w ould be more difficult, as they 
would be adjacent and secondary to the primary aims of each funding programme. Under this 
option funding would become a very ineffective t ool and its usefulness for this policy area 
would be doubtful.   Discontinuing funding  in this area is also a discarded op tion. As demonstrated above, funding 
is a substantial tool for supporting the develo pment and implementation of EU policies and 
for providing information and raising awareness in this field. The Commission has – and will continue to – put forward many  legislative proposals in the area of justice, based on 
strengthened provisions of the Lisbon Treaty.  Within this context discontinuing funding 
activities would pose an obstacle to the deve lopment and implementation of legislation. 
Furthermore it should be noted that besides it s support to legislation, funding has been an 
important tool for policy-making in a number of  areas, such as children’s rights or combating 
violence. Discontinuing funding in these areas, where no hard law is adopted, would stop the 
relevant EU policy and it would deprive the relevant fields fr om substantial support in the 
promotion of their work and agenda.  
 
EN 30   EN 8 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 
 
8.1 Option 0 – Baseline scenario 
The impact of this option would reflect the current situation and the problems that were 
identified above, especially under secti on 4.2, would remain. The programmes would 
continue to achieve an overall successful impl ementation, but their deficiencies would still 
prevent them from developing the full scale of their potential. These deficiencies are even 
more important in an area of funding, where the overall amount of the available budget is 
rather limited and where maximum efforts should be concentrated on the efficient allocation 
and management of each available fund, in order to achieve tangible results. 
 The lack of flexibility in the funding instruments would be an ever increasing problem in this 
rapidly developing policy area. Especially in cases where funding would be needed to support 
horizontal and cross-cutting issues the limitations  due to fragmentation could potentially delay 
or hinder the efficient development of policy.   The current state of play does not suggest that – in the absence of any action of improvement 
– there could be a substantial change in the scope and the impact of the problems due to 
external parameters. However, the policy agenda  is very dynamic, ai ming to address a wide 
set of challenges and it will require the most effec tive financial tool to s upport its activities. In 
this sense, the need for flexibility and effec tiveness in funding will be of high importance. 
 It should also be noted that the current financial crisis has the potential to increase the demand 
for EU funding. An increase in the number of applicants for the same funds would further 
increase the need for efficient management of the procedures and effective implementation of 
the programmes. In a funding area where overla ps and fragmentation a llows applicants to 
submit applications to different programmes the increase in applications  would have an even 
heavier impact on the administration (more procedures to manage, each including an 
increasing number of applications). In such a case the administrative burden for the administration and consequently the delays in th e procedures for the beneficiaries would have 
a more negative impact on the efficiency of the programme. 
 
8.2 Option A – 6 programmes – Status quo and improvements at management level 
The main differences between this option and the baseline scenario would be the 
identification of concrete area s of action and the harmonised ma nagement of the programmes. 
The aim would be to develop maximum synergies between the six programmes. The foreseen 
impacts are described in detail below:   
Scope & 
Focus on areas of action, which are responsive to the annual policy priorities  
Funding would be available for all areas and all ac tivities that are covered by the current 
programmes.  The programmes would continue to  deliver results in all areas of action (enhancing awareness 
and knowledge, supporting the implementation of law and policies, promoting cooperation and improving knowledge and understanding). There would be some improvement in 
achieving these results due to the focus of th e programmes on these areas identified for their 
 
EN 31   EN EU added value and due to the improved effect iveness which would result from the measures 
described below. The impact on all areas would be similar: in practical terms, funding bigger 
projects with larger-scale impact and be tter geographical coverage, the improved 
dissemination of project results and the improv ed monitoring and eval uation would directly 
imply that the awareness raising activities w ould be more focused an d would reach a wider 
audience; the support to EU law and policies would be more  comprehensive; the transnational 
cooperation would be wider and of higher quality; and the results of the analyt ical activ ities to 
improve knowledge and understanding would achieve higher quality.  
 However, the lack of flexibility  would not be sufficiently addressed. The route cause of this 
problem lies in the existence of multiple  programmes. Maintaining the number of 
programmes and introducing ha rmonisation measures would not  have an effect on this 
problem. The impact of this option would be the same as the baseline scenario. The support to 
EU law and policy would be more comprehens ive, but it would remain fragmented.   
 A harmonised procedure in defining the annual pr iorities of the progra mmes would bring only 
limited improvement in addressing the overlaps  among them. The scope of all annual work 
programmes would be defined and accepted in pa rallel and this coordinated procedure would 
ensure that the annual priorities of each policy area are neither duplicated, nor omitted. 
However, the small-scale focus of the program mes would not be addre ssed. Maintaining this 
small-scale focus prevents from achieving considerable positive impact in terms of avoiding overlaps. In practical terms a ll overlapping areas as describe d under 4.2.1 would remain: e.g. 
actions on anti-discrimination would sti ll fall in the scope of both FRC and 
PROGRESS/Antidiscrimination and every year while the annual prior ities are identified, 
caution should be taken so that funding is not duplicated. Through the coordinated work and 
the uniform areas of action, horiz ontal and cross-cutting issues would be mutually covered by 
the programmes (e.g. coordinated priorities on judi cial training in bo th JCIV and JPEN 
programmes) and the fragmentation  could be addressed only part ially. However, the general 
objectives for each programme would maintain th e fragmentation of the wider policy area.  
 This coordinated approach in id entifying annual priorities would be  applied also in respect to 
programmes in other EU policy areas with close links to the area of justice and rights. The 
coordination at the level of a nnual programming would make sure that there is no duplication 
of funding and that funds are us ed in a complementary way, to the best interest of public. 
 In achieving the annual policy priorities this opti on would present only limited improvement 
in comparison to the baseline scenario: it wo uld be possible to address the annual policy 
priorities through each programme, however the small-scale and fragmented angle of the 
approach would not be addressed.  
Effectiveness 
 
The harmonisation of management and the fo cused objectives would have a clear positive 
impact on the effectiveness of the programme s in comparison to the baseline scenario. 
 Removing the maximum limit of EU contribution for each project would invite applications 
for more substantial projects: projects with mo re partners from more Member States, projects 
with a wider scope of activities, projects wi th more possibilities for dissemination, i.e. 
projects with increased potential to achieve a considerable impact. This measure aims to 
address the dilution of funds  and at the same time it fosters partnerships . The availability of 
 
EN 32   EN funding for bigger projects woul d contribute substantially to  the development of wider 
partnerships and to providing substantial support to their wor k. In the absence of a maximum 
limit of EU funding the partnerships would not be  obliged to scale down their activities to 
match the available funds, but they would be rath er encouraged to develop projects with the 
maximum potential for impact on the ground. It should be noted that  funding bigger-scale 
projects has received a consider able percentage of negative replies from the respondents to the 
public consultation. However, the explanatio ns added by the respondents lead to the 
conclusion that the objection is actually not to the bigger-scale projects per se, but it focuses 
primarily on the difficulties of small organisations to handle larger budgets. The objections of 
the respondents do not take into consideratio n that this measure doe s not compromise the 
current situation, but it only opens up the additional opportunity to promote wider 
partnerships. The impact of this option on th e effectiveness of the programmes would be 
substantial, as it would preven t the dilution of funds and it w ould promote and support wider 
and stronger partnerships. At the same time th ere would be no substantial difference in the 
allocation of funds to the final beneficiaries: a ll current beneficiaries would be able to receive 
funding, but they would be urged to coordinate their efforts in wider partnerships and bigger 
and more participative programmes. It would be possible to  fund projects of 8-10 partners, 
rather than of 4-5 partners, and this would correspond to highe r impact at EU level. This 
cooperation would promote the deve lopment and growth of civil society, as the organisations 
would have additional benefits from the consid erably wider networking and mutual learning 
possibilities.   The unbalanced geographical sp read among beneficiaries  would be addre ssed by funding 
larger-scale projects and consequently promoti ng wider partnerships of organisations from 
more Member States, as explained above. Additional management measures would be the identification of Member States with low rates of  participation in the programmes in order to 
organise tailor-made informa tion or support activities.  
 The improvement in the evaluation and monitoring of the programmes  is closely linked to 
the identification of focused, specific objectives  which would be aligned for all programmes. 
The system would use results-b ased management and performance measurement on the basis 
of pre-identified indicators a nd annual reporting, as descri bed below under 10. However, the 
fragmentation in many programmes and differe nt areas would require the allocation of 
additional human resour ces to this task.  
 The improvement in the evaluation and monitoring of the programmes is closely linked to the 
dissemination and use of results. The harmonised management and the focused objectives would contribute to improving the dissemination and use of results . A coordinated approach 
for all programmes would create the necessary ec onomies of scale in order to address this 
issue. It would also be possibl e to create a uniform system for all programmes, which would 
facilitate the access and understanding for benefici aries, potential applicants and interested 
public. However, it should be noted that this ta sk would also require the allocation of human 
resources to it.   
Efficiency-Simplification 
 
The development and application of uniform  documents, rules and procedures for all 
programmes would contribute to simplifying to some extent the complex and bureaucratic 
funding procedures . Through harmonisation and coordinati on at management level it would 
be possible to streamline procedures and te mplates focusing on the similarities between 
 
EN 33   EN programmes. However, separate, programme-s pecific procedures (calls for proposals, 
selection procedures and award decisions) w ould still be necessary and would have to 
duplicate the common template adjusting or modifying it according to the objectives and specificities of each programme. The applicants and beneficiaries would still have to deal 
with many different procedures and the only imp rovement would be that these procedures 
would be as similar as possible. In these terms the uniformity in templates, rules and obligations would be welcomed by the benefi ciaries, but maximum improvement would still 
not be achieved.   From the point of view of the administratio n the focus on bigger projects would limit the 
administrative burden  at the implementation and evaluation stage (fewer projects to manage). 
At the same time, as explained under Effectiven ess, additional resources would have to focus 
on dissemination, information activities and monito ring. It can be argued that this kind of 
reallocation of resources  would improve the cost-effectiven ess of the Commission's work, as 
the impact and the effectiveness of the w hole programme would be improved, shifting the 
focus towards more qualitative and result-orien ted activities. However, although on the one 
hand this benefit would be achieved in terms of  effectiveness, on the other hand in terms of 
administrative burden no substantia l improvement would be achieved.  
 
In order to shorten the length of procedures  it is necessary that both abovementioned aspects 
affecting efficiency, i.e. complexity of pr ocedures and administrative burden, would be 
improved. Under this option there is some impr ovement to be found in the simplification of 
procedures, but no improvement in  terms of administrative burde n. In this cont ext and in the 
absence of any other measure that would address directly the length of procedures, the impact 
of this option would be the same as the baseline scenario.   
8.3 Option B – 2 programmes  
This option builds on option A a nd incorporates fully all meas ures described under option A. 
In addition, it would allow that measures are not  only taken at management level (as in Option 
A), but also at the stage of designing the pr ogrammes. The number of  programmes would be 
limited to the extent possible, by merging the current programmes into two thematic entities. Two programmes would be envisaged under th is option: one programme, the Justice 
programme, would merge the current Civil Justic e, Criminal Justice and Drug Prevention and 
Information programmes and a second progra mme, the Rights and Citizenship Programme, 
would merge the current Fundamental Right s and Citizenship programme, the Daphne 
Programme and the Gender Equality and Anti discrimination sections of the PROGRESS 
programme. The design of this option takes into consideration the specificities of the Lisbon 
Treaty in these policy areas: th e first programme would cover all policies under Title V and 
the second one would encompass the policies outside Title V.  This option builds on option A and includes addi tional measures in order to address the 
problems that could not be addressed to a great  extent by option A. Consequently its impact 
would include all benefits of opt ion A and the aim would be to maximise them and to ensure 
improvement in the remaining areas.  
 
Scope  
Funding would be available for all areas and all ac tivities that are covered by the current 
programmes. 
 
EN 34   EN  
The additional measures of this option would maximise the benefits in terms of 
fragmentation  and overlaps : The limited number of programme s and the clear identification 
of general and specific objectives would define  two wide, clearly defined and comprehensive 
funding areas, where horizontal i ssues would be easily addressed. Policies with close links to 
each other would be addressed under the same  programme (e.g. civil justice and criminal 
justice) and no problems of ove rlaps would exist among them. Streamlining between the two 
programmes and synergies with other Commi ssion programmes would be possible through 
the identification of annu al priorities during the annual management cycle. 
 In terms of flexibility  this option is a considerable development in comparison to option A. 
The scope of each programme would cover a wide policy area. Within this structure it would 
be possible to identify each year the necessary priorities in order to promote and support the 
ongoing annual policies. This structure would a llow funding to be more responsive to the 
annual policy needs and to produce its fullest potential. Furthermore, the reduction in the 
number of programmes would be reflected in  the number of budget li nes associated with 
them, which in turn would furt her simplify the administrative  procedures related to budget 
implementation. 
 
Focus on areas of action, which are responsive to the annual policy priorities 
 
As in option A, under option B results would be achieved in all areas of action (enhancing 
awareness and knowledge, supporting the implem entation of law and policies, promoting 
cooperation and improving knowledge and unders tanding). However the results achieved 
under option B would be improved in comparison to the results achieve d under option A. This 
improvement reflects the improved effectiveness of  the programmes, which is a result of the 
measures discussed below under Effectiveness. Furthermore, an additional positive impact under this option is that it woul d be more responsive to the annual policy priorities. Reducing 
the number of programmes would allow greate r flexibility in allo cating funds among the 
topics covered by each programme  and would therefore enable to focus funding annually on 
the areas of greater priority. This would result in more focused activities in terms of awareness raising, of promoting cooperati on and in improving knowledge and understanding, 
which would reflect more directly the annua l needs and priorities of the policy area.  
 
Effectiveness 
 
As already stated above, the measures under opt ion A would achieve a clear improvement in 
all aspects of effectiveness . The combination of these measures with the additional measures 
of option B would increase this impact  and support their sustainability.  
 The reduction in the number of programmes an d their focused objectives would improve the 
effective use of funds and prevent the dilution of funds . The implementation of two 
programmes in two clearly different  areas would have as a result th at all projects with similar 
objectives would be grouped under only one program me and would be evaluated against each 
other. It would allow a better overview of the a pplications and of the funded projects and it 
would prevent dispersing funds by funding in para llel similar activities w ith similar objectives 
under different programmes. This would result in additional positive impact in comparison to 
option A.   
 
EN 35   EN Additionally, as it was already mentioned under option A, the improvement in the evaluation 
and monitoring of the programmes  and in the dissemination of results  would require the 
allocation of additional human resources. The sa me applies also for the implementation of 
information and support activities to Member States with low part icipation, which would 
improve the geographical co verage of the programmes.  The impact of option B would be to 
achieve considerable improvements in terms of administrative burden (see below). These 
resources could then be alloca ted to tasks that would improve  effectiveness and thus they 
would support the sustainability  of these measures. Option B permits the allocation of 
additional human resources for the improvement of the programmes' effe ctiveness and thus it 
would result in improved impact in comparison to option A.   
Efficiency-Simplification 
 
In terms of efficiency the merge of the progr ammes would facilitate the implementation and 
increase the benefits of the measures presented under A.  
 Receiving funding from two rather than six programmes would simplify the funding 
procedures for applicants and beneficiaries . Due to the merge of the funding areas in two 
major funding areas the benefici aries would not need to do "p rogramme-shopping" in order to 
identify the most appropriate of  the six programmes for their appl ication. The number of calls 
and selection procedures would be limited, more comprehensive and focused. At the same time the merge of programmes would result in a merge of the funding envelopes, which 
would not lead to limiting the available funds for be neficiaries. Uniformity in templates, rules, 
procedures and obligations would be more straightforward when only two programmes are 
involved. Thus the level of complexity for applic ants and beneficiaries would be considerably 
reduced.   In terms of administrative burden  option B would present a considerable improvement in 
comparison to the limited benefits of option A. The substantially smaller number of procedures would require substantially fewer human resources and this would add to the 
benefits brought by the management improvement s of option A. The changes would result, in 
particular, in a reduction of the number of annual work progr ammes/financing decisions from 
currently 6 to 2 and therefore fewer adoption pr ocesses to be managed. The number of calls 
for proposals would be reduced at the same tim e and through economies of scale, this would 
both allow for greater efficiency throughout the processes and reduce by half the members of 
staff dedicated to the management of the calls.  Subsequently this improvement could furthe r boost the improvements in dissemination of 
results, monitoring and evaluation and inform ation activities through the reallocation of 
resources. Thus from the point of view of ad ministration the benefits would combine reduced 
administrative burden and increased cost-e fficiency of the administrative work.  
 The improvements in the complexity of the procedures and in the administrative burden would result in speeding up the funding procedures.  This would reduce substantially the 
delays between submitting applications and receiving the results from a current average of up to 9 months to an approximate 6 months and th is would leave applican t organisations with a 
shorter interval of uncertaint y. This would bring th e further added advantage of projects 
starting much shorter after their conception and therefore it would respond much more 
effectively to the concrete needs they seek to address in line with  EU policy priorities. 
 
 
EN 36   EN 8.4 Option C – 1 programme  
Option B presents a considerable improvement in the areas of scope, effectiveness and 
efficiency in comparison to the baseline scenario. However, providing funding through two 
programmes would still be subject to limitations : the funding area would be split in two and 
thus it would be still fragmented and not completely flexible, simplicity would not be 
achieved for beneficiaries as more than one procedure would be necessary and the 
administration would be burdene d by duplicating procedures for the two programmes. Thus 
option C would aim to achieve maximum simp lification through the im plementation of only 
one programme. The actual impact of this opti on when applied in this policy area would be 
the following:   The merge of all areas under one  programme would require that legal bases of Title V are 
combined in the same legal act with legal bases outside Title V. This combination is 
impossible due to the specific voting modalities of Title V which are incompatible with the 
voting modalities of the rest of the Treaty. T hus the option of one comprehensive programme 
covering the whole scope of this policy area woul d not be possible due to  legal constraints. 
 Due to these legal constraints Option C would pract ically mean that only activities of one area 
would be covered: either activities in the area of justice or activities in the area of rights and 
citizenship. This would mean full coverage in te rms of objectives for the selected area and no 
coverage (discontinuing fundi ng) for the other area.  
 
Scope 
 
In terms of fragmentation, overlaps and flexibility  the area which would be supported would 
have maximum positive impact in comparison to  option B. As only one programme would be 
implemented, no problems concerning fragmentati on and overlaps would arise. The impact 
would be the maximum also in te rms of flexibility within this programme, as potentially more 
funds would be allocated  to it and could be us ed for its objectives.  
 However for the other area the impact would be entirely negative as  no funds would be 
available to support it.   
Focus on areas of action, which are responsive to the annual policy priorities 
 
The overall impact of Option C on achieving the objectives and addressing policy priorities 
would be negative. The objectiv es and activities which would fall under the area receiving no 
funding would not be implemented at all. This would reduce substantially the funding 
activities in this area and it would compromise  the development and the implementation of 
the relevant policies.  
 
Effectiveness/Efficiency-Simplification 
 
Similarly the impact of option C in the funded ar ea would be the same as  the impact of option 
B as far as dilution of funds, coverage, di ssemination, simplification of procedures are 
concerned. Additional impact would be identified in terms of efficiency, especially 
concerning administrative burden and length of procedures. The limited scope of the activities 
and the maximum simplification of the procedur es would free additiona l resources and speed 
up the procedures.  
 
EN 37   EN  
However, the impact on the non-funded area would be entirely negative: potential 
beneficiaries would have no acces s to funding for supporting their activities and the relevant 
policies that were supported by the current pr ogrammes would need to identify different 
sources of funding or would have to cease.  
9 COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 
 
The following table presents an overview of the impact analysis for all options. Based on the assessment of impacts as analysed above, the impact of each option is measured against 
Achievement of objectives, Scope, Effectiveness and Efficiency.  
 The evaluation under each objective has been scored on the basis of the following scale, in order to identify the preferred option:  
 
0 No impact - Equal to Baseline scenario 
- Negative Impact 
+ Positive Impact  
++ Significant Positive Impact 
++/-- Significant Positive Impact in one policy area  
& Significant Negative Impact  in the other policy area 
++/n.a. Significant Positive Impact in one policy area.  
Analysis of impact in the other policy area is not applicable.  
+++/-- Maximum Positive Impact in one policy area  
& Significant Negative Impact  in the other policy area 
+++/n.a. Maximum Positive Impact in one policy area.  
Analysis of impact in the other policy area is not applicable.  
 
 
EN 38   EN  
 Baseline 
scenario 
Option 0 
 
6 
programmes
Status quo  
Option A 
  
6  
programmes 
+ management 
improvements  
Option B 
  
2 
programmes 
  
Option C 
  
1 
programme 
 
Scope     
- Ensure flexibility 0 0 + +++/-- 
- Avoid overlaps & fragmentation  0 + ++ +++/-- 
Focus on areas of action which have 
clear added value and are responsive to the annual policy priorities 0 + ++ - 
Enhance public awareness and 
knowledge on EU law and policies  0 + ++ - 
Support the implementation of EU law 
and policies in Member States 0 + ++ - 
Promote cooperation and build up 
mutual knowledge and mutual trust 0 + ++ - 
Improve knowledge and understanding 
of potential issues affecting the smooth functioning of a European area of 
justice, the exercise of rights guaranteed 
by the Treaty, by the Charter of Fundamental Rights or by secondary EU 
legislation, with vies to ensuring 
evidence-based policy making 0 + ++ - 
Effectiveness     
- Prevent dilution of funds 0 + ++ ++/-- 
- Ensure better geographical coverage 0 + ++ ++/-- 
- Improve dissemination and use of 
results 0 + ++ ++/n.a. 
- Improve monitoring and evaluation 0 + ++ ++/n.a. 
Efficiency-Simplification     
- simple and transparent, procedures for 
applicants and beneficiaries 0 + ++ ++/-- 
- reduce the administrative burden for 
the Commission  0 0 + ++ 
- minimise the length of procedures 
 0 0 ++ +++/n.a. 
OVERALL IMPACT 0 + ++ ++/-- 
 
As regards the objectives of the programmes, options A and B would provide full support for 
the development of all policies where funding at EU level delivers added value. On the 
contrary, option C would be unable to deliver this support to all the areas where it is needed. 
This presents a crucial s hortcoming of option C.  
 Option A presents an improvement of the base line scenario. Its benefits would be focused 
mainly on effectiveness. Whereas on scope and e fficiency some benefits  could be achieved, 
the multiplicity of programmes would not allo w them to develop their full potential.  
 Option B is a considerable improvement of opti on A. Benefits would be achieved to address 
all problems, whereas no negative impacts would result from it.  
 
 
EN 39   EN The scope of option C would be limited and this  presents a crucial shortcoming, as already 
stated above. In addition to this, option C does not present any considerable management benefits, which would overcome this crucial shor tcoming: its impact in the areas where it 
would provide funding would not exceed the impact  of option B. Clear additional benefit in 
comparison to option B would only be identified in terms of reducing the administrative burden and shortening the proced ures for the beneficiaries w ho would still have access to 
funding. However, this benefit is not sufficient to justify the limitation of EU support for areas 
where funding is needed and delivers added value.  Due to the absence of a balanced approach 
option C cannot be the preferred option.  
 
The preferred option 
 
The preferred option on the basis of this anal ysis is therefore the implementation of two 
programmes which would cover the full scope of  the current funding pr ogrammes (option B). 
This option encompasses all possible benefits  and no shortcomings in comparison to the 
baseline scenario. Compared to option A, its great er efficiency should mean that it will deliver 
better value for money. This option can guara ntee the maximum benefit in terms of 
simplification, efficient and effective manageme nt and developing synergies. At the same 
time it can provide full support for the developmen t of all policies where funding at EU level 
delivers added value. 
10 MONITORING AND EVALUATION 
 
Both programmes will foresee the obligation for the Commission to provide to the European 
Parliament and the Council with:   (a) an interim evaluation report on the achie vement of the programmes' objectives, the 
efficiency of the use of resources and the progr ammes' European added value, not later than 
mid-2018, with a view to determining whet her funding in the areas covered by the 
programmes should be renewed, modified or suspended after 2020. The evaluation will also 
address the scope for any simplification of the Programme, its internal and external 
coherence, as well as the conti nued relevance of all obj ectives. It will take into account results 
of ex-post evaluations of the progr ammes mentioned in Article 13;  
 (b)  an ex post evaluation re port on the longer-term impacts and th e sustainability of effects of 
the Programme, to feed into a decision on a subsequent programme.   This corresponds broadly to the evaluation re quirements of the current programmes. The 
timing of the interim evaluation in particular has proven useful to feed in to the preparation of 
the future programmes, even though the number of finalised projects wa s still small when the 
evaluations were carried out. Any later date would bear the risk that the interim evaluation 
could not anymore be taken into account for decision-making on the next generation of 
programmes post-2020.  The results of the programmes at policy level will be measured regularly on the basis of 
indicators identified by the program mes. Such indicators would be, inter alia,  the European 
perception of access to justice and of the respect and exercise of rights, the number of cases of 
trans-border cooperation, the number of complaints etc.  
 
EN 40   EN At operational/annual level, the evaluati on and monitoring of the programmes will be 
enhanced by building on the good practices of a nnual reporting that are currently in place in 
the PROGRESS Programme. These annual evaluations w ill also then be able  to feed directly 
into the dynamic process of policy focus and th e setting of annual priorities for the following 
years.  A table of areas of action/ope rational objectives a nd indicators is attached below:  
 
Area of action/Operational objective Indicator 
Enhance public awareness and knowledge of 
EU law and policies and support the implementation of EU law in Member States (1) Number and percentage of persons in 
target group reached by awareness-raising activities (broken down by sex); 
(2) Number and percentage of persons in 
target group reached by training activities (broken down by sex); 
(3) Geographical coverage of those reached; (4) Increase in publ ic awareness and 
knowledge on EU law and policies within the group of trained addre ssees, in comparison 
with both the entire target group and a 
control group; 
(5) Similar initiatives which have been 
developed at national or  European level not 
supported by EU funding, and their (expected) results (EU added value); 
(6) Advantages and/or disadvantages of EU 
funding in comparison with national funding for this type of activity (EU added value);  
(7) Level of funding in relation to the effects 
achieved (efficiency); 
(8) Possible administrative, organisational 
and/or structural obstacles to a smoother, more effective and efficient implementation of the programme (scope for simplification). 
Promote cooperation and build up mutual knowledge and mutual trus t, in particular by 
way of networking, identification, exchange and dissemination of information, good practice and innovative approaches to common issues  (1) Number of stake holders participating 
inter alia in networking, exchanges, study visits (broken down by sex); 
(2) Number of cases of trans-border 
cooperation, including vi a the use of IT tools 
and European procedures; 
(3) Geographical coverage of cooperation 
and networking activities; 
 
EN 41   EN (4) Participants’ view s on the cooperation 
efforts and their (expected) sustainability, and the programme’s contribution thereto (broken down by sex); 
(5) Similar initiatives which have been 
developed at national or  European level not 
supported by EU funding, and their (expected) results (EU added value); 
(6) Advantages and/or disadvantages of EU 
funding in comparison with national funding for this type of activity (EU added value); 
(7) Level of funding in relation to the effects 
achieved (efficiency); 
(8) Possible administrative, organisational 
and/or structural obstacles to a smoother, more effective and efficient implementation of the programme (scope for simplification). 
Improve knowledge and understanding of potential issues affecting the smooth functioning of a European  area of justice, the 
exercise of rights guaranteed by the Treaty, by the Charter of Fundamental Rights or by secondary EU legislation, with view to ensuring evidence-based policy making (1) Policy initiatives designed on the basis of 
evaluations, impact assessments and drawing on comprehensive stakeholders’ and experts’ consultations; 
(2) Number of evaluations and impact 
assessments carried out as a result of the implementation of the programme; 
(3) Quality of the evaluations and impact 
assessments carried out, in the light of existing guides and standards; 
(4) Level of funding in relation to the effects 
achieved (efficiency); 
(5) Possible administrative, organisational 
and/or structural obstacles to a smoother, more effective and efficient implementation of the programme (scope for simplification). 
  
 
EN 42   EN Annex I 
OVERVIEW OF FUNDING UNDER TH E CURRENT PROGRAMMES (2007-2010) 
 
Grants account for the biggest part  of the programme budgets (on 
average, about 80%) for the implementation of the five specific programmes of the framework pr ogramme on Fundamental Rights 
and Justice. Two types of grants are funded:  
• Specific transnational proj ects of EU interest ( Action Grants ) 
• Support to the activities of non- governmental organisations or 
other entities pursuing an aim of general European interest 
(Operating Grants )  
Additionally the JPEN Programme  has concluded to conclude 
framework partnership agreements  in order to establish a long-
term cooperation framework with key actors in the judicial training 
sector. In implementation of these agreements a limited number of grants have been awarded by JPEN.  
The volume of grants varies betw een programmes as shown in the 
chart:  Total Grants per programme
DAP - 200
DPIP - 37
FRC - 111JCIV - 96JPEN - 215DAP
DPIP
FRC
JCIV
JPEN
 
 
EN 43   EN More concretely the following table shows the allocation of grants between programmes:  
  2007 2008 2009-2010      
 AG OGTOTAL 
per year AG FPA OG TOTAL 
per 
year AG FPA 
2009FPA 
2010OG 
2009 OG 
2010TOTAL 
both 
years TOTAL 
AG TOTAL 
FPA TOTAL 
OG TOTAL % 
JCIV 28 2 30 20  3 23 37 0 0 3 3 43 85 0 11 96 14.57% 
JPEN 59 5 64 43 2 6 51 79 1 1 12 7 100 181 4 30 215 32.63% 
FRC 18 3 21 26  7 33 47 0 0 4 6 57 91 0 20 111 16.84% 
DAP 41 9 50 42  12 54 84 0 0 7 5 96 167 0 33 200 30.35% 
DPIP 9 0 9 6  5 11 10 0 0 4 3 17 25 0 12 37 5.61% 
TOTAL 155 19 174 137 2 33 172 257 1 1 30 24 313 549 4 106 659 100.00% 
The current funding programmes are particularly popular  with beneficiaries. In the interviews he ld by the mid-term evaluations of DAP, DPIP 
and FRC programmes the majority of coordinators and partners c onfirmed that funding from these programmes is particularly impor tant, as it is 
very difficult to receive funding from othe r sources. The popularity of the programmes is  shown in the table below, which prese nts the numbers 
of received and awarded applications. 
 JCIV JPEN FRC DAP DPIP 
Number of awarded action 
grants 85 181 91 167 25 
Number of awarded 
operating grants 11 30 20 33 12 
      
Proposals received AG 158 323 415 697 164 
Percentage of success 53.80% 56.04% 21.88% 23.96% 15.24% 
      
Proposals received OG 19 58 62 112 39 
Percentage of success 57.89% 51.72% 32.26% 25.90% 30.77% 
All EU Member States have received funding by the five programmes. However the amounts allocated vary between countries and bet ween 
programmes. The table below shows th e allocation of amounts per country a nd per programme for the period 2007-2010. 
                      
 
EN 44   EN  JCIV JPEN  FRC DAP DPIP      
 AG OG TOTAL AG FPA OG TOTAL  AG OG TOTAL AG OG TOTAL AG OG TOTAL TOTAL 
AG TOTAL 
FPA TOTAL 
OG TOTAL % 
AT 4 1 5 4 0 0 4 1 1 2 7 4 11 0 2 2 16 0 8 24 3.64% 
BE 15 6 21 13 2 9 24 11 5 16 15 15 30 3 1 4 57 2 36 95 14.42% 
BG 1 0 1 4 0 0 4 3 0 3 5 0 5 1 0 1 14 0 0 14 2.12% 
CY 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0.61% 
CZ 3 0 3 4 0 1 5 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 11 1.67% 
DE 14 0 14 20 1 0 21 3 3 6 19 1 20 5 0 5 61 1 4 66 10.02% 
DK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 3 4 7 0 0 0 7 0 4 11 1.67% 
EE 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.30% 
ES 11 0 11 22 0 1 23 4 0 4 11 0 11 2 2 4 50 0 3 53 8.04% 
FI 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 3 1 4 0 0 0 6 0 1 7 1.06% 
FR 6 2 8 10 0 1 11 6 4 10 8 0 8 0 2 2 30 0 9 39 5.92% 
GR 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 3 0 3 5 0 5 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 1.67% 
HU 3 0 3 6 0 0 6 5 0 5 2 0 2 0 0 0 16 0 0 16 2.43% 
IE 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 5 0.76% 
IT 11 1 12 21 0 3 24 24 0 24 36 0 36 6 2 8 98 0 6 104 15.78% 
LT 1 0 1 3 0 0 3 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 8 0 0 8 1.21% 
LU 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0.46% 
LV 4 0 4 8 0 0 8 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 2.12% 
MT 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0.46% 
NL 2 0 2 9 1 4 14 5 0 5 6 7 13 2 0 2 24 1 11 36 5.46% 
PL 1 0 1 4 0 1 5 2 0 2 4 1 5 0 0 0 11 0 2 13 1.97% 
PT 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 1.52% 
RO 3 0 3 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 1.82% 
SI 2 0 2 3 0 1 4 3 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 1 10 0 1 11 1.67% 
SK 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.30% 
SE 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 1 7 1.06% 
UK 1 1 2 21 0 8 29 6 5 11 27 0 27 4 3 7 59 0 17 76 11.53% 
NO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.30% 
Total 85  11 96 181 4 30 215 91 20 111 167 33 200 25 12 37 549 4 106 659 100.00% 
 
EN 45   EN In terms of outputs the activities implemente d by the beneficiaries of these grants in clude studies and researches, mapping of legislation, case 
studies, training of practitioners  and professionals, capacity building, awareness raising events, conferences and seminars. Th ese activities are 
implemented by a high number of partnerships  throughout the EU area. This results in a multitude of activities, de liverables and respondents 
in implementation and support of EU policies .  
The duration of the activities implementation by these programmes vary from 12-36 months . Within this margin the duration of th e majority of 
the projects is longer than 20 months. As  a result of this long dur ation and of the additional time required for reporting and evaluation activities it 
is currently difficult to give specific inform ation on the impact of the funded projects.  
 An estimation of the impact can be derive d on the basis of the indicative table below.  It includes information relating to the outputs of projects 
funded by DAP, FRC and DPIP programmes on the basis of the mid-term  evaluation analysis. Only very  few projects were finalised and could 
be analysed by the mid-term evalua tion reports. More specifically:  
- 19 action grants and 18 operating grants funded by the Daphne III Programme; - 17 action grants and 8 operating grants funded by the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme; 
- 3 action grants funded by the Drugs pr evention and information Programme. 
These 49 action grants and 26 operating grants represent only a small sample of the projects funded by the five programmes (9% of 
action grants and 32% of the operating grants).  However the high numbers of outputs and part icipants show the wide dissemination and im pact of the respective funding activitie s. 
 
       
  Number of activities Number of respondents/participants 
 
 FRC DAP DP
IP TOTAL FRC DAP DPIP TOTAL 
  AG OG AG OG AG AG OG both AG OG AG OG AG AG OG both  
Surveys 13 4 29 5 4 46 9 55 3,613 75 16 48 30 3,659 123 3,782 Research 
Case studies/ 
monitoring/mapping 28 24 8 62 1 37 86 123 n/a* 20 35 18 0 35 38 73 
Networks and 
partnerships 2 29 27 17 2 31 46 77 n/a* 8 n/a* 12 14 14 20 34 Networks 
Large events - 
Conferences/semin
ars / Congresses  18 80 15 57 14 47 137 184 309 243 319 499 253 881 742 1,623 
Training and 
Training to 36 5 6 36 3 45 41 86 176 60 n/a* 70 54 230 130 360 
 
EN 46   EN practitioners 
Workshops for 
practitioners 0 7 0 14 0 0 21 21 0 25 0 60 0 0 85 85 
Workshops for 
target groups 30  13  1 44 0 44 138 n/a* 30 n/a* 42 210 0 210 Capacity 
Building 
Training of target 
groups 182 2 0 3 1 183 5 188 990 100 n/a* 1,000 0 990 1,100 2,090 
Helpline/guidance 
or counselling 
service 0 2 0 4 0 0 6 6 0 n/a* 0 50 0 0 50 50 
Focus groups / 
panel discussions with target group 43 0 8 0 5 56 0 56 808 0 73 n/a* 32 913 0 913 
Events for target 
groups (e.g. field 
trips, tournaments, 
competitions) 39 1 0 6 0 39 7 46 3,062 60 0 n/a* 0 3,062 60 3,122 
Information 
campaigns 14 3 7 6 0 21 9 30 9,872 200 50 n/a* 0 9,922 200 10,122 
Print media (e.g. 
leaflets /posters/ newsletters)  11 56 0 3 0 11 59 70 10,500 n/a* 12,950 47,160 n/a* 23,450 47,160 70,610 
Website or blog  14 5 9 4 0 23 9 32 54,150 8,021 190,000 n/a* n/a* 244,150 8,021 252,171 
Other media: e.g. 
DVD, video, 
film/documentary  32 5 3 4 10 45 9 54 n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a* 0 0 0 Information 
and 
Awareness Raising  
Directories / 
databases 5 5 7 1 2 14 6 20 10,000 n/a* n/a* 90,000 n/a* 10,000 90,000 100,000 
 
* The entries with the reference n/a* (not available) indicate  mainly activities which will deve lop their results after the fin alisation of the project. 
Thus no concrete comparative information could be indicated. 
 
 
EN 47   EN Annex II 
 
REPORT ON THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON FUTURE FUNDING ACTIVITIES IN THE 
AREA OF JUSTICE , FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND EQUALITY  
FOR THE PERIOD AFTER 2013 
 
In the preparations for a new generation of funding programmes in th e area of Justice, 
Fundamental Rights and Equality a public stakeholder consultation was launched on 20 April 
2011  using the on-line tool of "Your Voice in Europe ". Although other possible means of 
consultation including selective targeting of existi ng stakeholders was envisaged, it was preferred 
to open the consultation to a wide r audience in order not to limit the opinions reflected in the 
outcome of the consultation to a known group of ex isting stakeholders, but al so to open the floor 
to contributions form all other interested parties. 
 The consultation was announced and published on DG Justice's website, "Your Voice in Europe" 
and an electronic flyer was wide ly distributed amongst existing beneficiaries, stakeholders, 
networks and through the Member States' repres entatives in the progra mme committees of the 
existing funding programmes, in order to ensu re reaching a diversified target audience. 
 
Structure of the consultation 
 
The consultation consisted of a total of 52 questions grouped under 7 headings: 
 
1. The respondent  
2. Evaluation and feedback  on the current programmes 
3. Objectives  and focus  of funding 2013 
4. Simplification and improvement 
5. Activities 
6. Delivery mechanisms   
7. General feedback . 
 
A majority of the questions were  "closed",  allowing only a predefined  range of answers from 
very positive to very negative, to  be given in order to allow fo r the extraction of comprehensive 
and comparable statistics.   In addition to these, a number of "open" questions  were included, allo wing respondents to 
comment more extensively and to elaborate furt her on answers given to the "closed questions"  
 The open questions were: 
 1. The most important deficiencies  of the current funding activities of DG Justice 
2. Funding levels  to be increased, maintained, decrease d or discontinued for specific policy 
areas. 
 
EN 48   EN 3. The EU added value  in allocating EU funding to achieve  specific objectives for the area 
of Justice. 
4. Additional measures to be  undertaken to achieve simplification and improvement . 
5. Measures to be undertaken to improve the dissemination of results  and to strengthen the 
link between policy and funding activities. 
6. Additional activities  which should be supported by DG Justice. 
7. Additional comments (on delivery mechanisms ) 
8. General feedback  on any aspect of the consultation 
 
The consultation was available for two months (until 20 June 2011) and interested parties were 
requested to only use the on-line questionnaire in order to subm it their contribution, which was 
largely respected.   Overall, the level of replies was high, with ju st over 12 % of questions across the different 
headings being left with the "no opinion" reply.  Equally, over half of the respondents chose to 
further elaborate on their replies or to add co mments regarding specific areas of interest. 
 
1. Overview of replies to closed questions  
 
1.1. Respondents 
 
The consultation counted a total of 187 res pondents, consisting of 37 individuals and 150 
organisations, covering the EU MS (with the exception  of Denmark, Greece and 
Luxembourg).  As to be expected, with many networks and secretariats of international NGOs based in 
Brussels, Belgium had the highest response le vel with 17% and a to tal 6% of respondents 
came from third countries.  
 The majority of respondents (55%) were representing NGOs, while a significant 15 % 
represented national authoritie s at central level. The majo rity of the respondents (60%) 
did not receive DG JUST funding before.  
1.2. Evaluation and feedback  on the current programmes 
 
Considering the effectiveness of the curren t funding a high percenta ge of respondents 
(45%) thought there was room for improvement. 
 30% of respondents believed that the effectiv eness and appropriateness of the current 
funding activities could be improved and 15% thought that it should be improved whereas 
only 11% thought that the current  funding was very effective.  17% thought it effective 
with minor deficiencies and 20% did not offer an opinion on this matter. 
 
1.3. Objectives and focus of funding after 2013 
 
1.3.1. Level of funding 
 
 
EN 49   EN 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%Fundamental RightsViolence against
women and childrenNon DiscriminationGender EqualityEU CitizenshipDesireable Funding increase per policy area
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%Fundamental RightsViolence against w omen and childrenGender equalityNon-discriminationEU citizenshipCivil justice Anti-drugs policyCriminal justiceData protectionConsumer and marketing law  Policy areas to continue recieving fundingPolicies which scored highest on the question if the current level of funding should be 
increased  after 2013 were:  
       
 
          All the other policies scored below 30%. A similar order of preference was observed 
when combining the answers where current funding should be increased or maintained
:  
                      The 3 policy areas scoring lowest on this issue,  are also the three pol icies with the largest 
number of "no opinion
" replies (contract law (39%), c onsumer and marketing law (34%) 
or relatively high - eg data prot ection (25%)) which reflects a degree of specialisation in 
these areas and the different target groups concerened.  
 
EN 50   EN Considering if policies should be decreased or discontinued , there was in general a low 
agreement percentage  with 12% as the highest agreemen t percentage. The policies scoring 
highest under this question are criminal  justice policies (12%) followed by non 
discrimination, including Roma policies (10%),  data protection (9%) , contract law (9%) 
and gender equality (8%). 
 
1.3.2. EU added value 
 
82% of respondents believed th at there is EU added valu e through funding when it comes 
to awareness raising and knowledge improve ment of the population on their rights. 
 The added value through funding for the i ndividual policies wa s ranked by the 
respondents as follows: 
65% 70% 75% 80% 85%Gender equalityFighting
discrimination Protection of
vulnerable persons Improving access to
justiceDrug prevention and
reductionGreatest EU added value by policy area
 
1.4. Simplification and improvement 
 
1.4.1. The need for simplification and improvement 
 
79% of respondents believe ther e is a need to simplify and improve the funding activities. 
 
1.4.2. Measures for simplification/impr ovement of funding activities 
 
Only 50% of respondents ag ree that providing funding under one single programme 
would simplify or improve funding activities.  Even fewer respondents (26%) believe that a focus on bigger projects with greater EU 
added value would lead to a simplification or improvement.  However, respondents are str ongly in favour of simplifying the selection procedures 
(78%) and even more in favour of simp lifying the reporting ob ligations (80%). 
 
 
EN 51   EN 67% of respondents were in favour of the use of  IT tools at the selection, implementation 
and reporting phases.  
 
1.5. Activities 
 
Respondents ranked as the most important activities to receive funding as follows: 
65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90%Exchange of good
practicesTraining of
professionalsDevelopment of
specialised networksInformation and
awareness-raisingResearch and studiesType of activities to be funded
 
 
1.6. Delivery mechanisms 
 
1.6.1. Appropriate actors/organisations to receive funding by DG Justice 
 
As most appropriate r ecipients were seen: 
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%NGOsUniversities and
research institutesNational authorities at
regional/local level International
organisationsNational authorities at
central levelType of organisations to be funded
 
 
 
EN 52   EN Only 18% of respondents consider  private companies as appropr iate receivers of DG Justice 
funding.  
1.6.2. Appropriate types of funding 
 
The most appropriate type of  funding was identified as: 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Specific projectsSetting-up networksOperating Grants Procurement contracts Type of funding to be privileged
 
 
 
EN 53   EN 2.  Overview of replies to open questions   
 
The "open questions" provided a wide array of replies, ranging from a few vaguely Justice- 
related mission statements of NGOs, over concerted efforts by va rious members of a European 
network promoting funding in very  specific areas, and Member St ates emphasizing the need to 
rationalise and simplify procedures to allow a more  cost-effective delivery, to general statements 
of agreement and appreciation of the current funding priorities.  
 Below is a collection of the most frequent re plies under the open questions, which show a strong 
belief in the value of EU funding in the area of Justice, Rights and Equality and a very clear 
reflection of the added value this funding constitutes.   They also show the general agreement that a simplification and improvement of programming, 
selection procedures and project management are a welcomed, with in some cases very specific 
recommendations as to what form these should take.  These are summaries of the rep lies given by the respondents and do not represent th e view of the 
Commission on the differe nt issues at hand. 
 
1. The most important deficiencies  of the current funding activities of DG Justice 
(Analysed together with 4. M easures to be undert aken to achieve simplification and 
improvement) 
 
2. Funding levels to be increased, maintain ed, decreased or discontinued for specific 
policy areas. 
 Need for increased funding on Fundamental Rights inside EU 
 Better identification and targeting of EU f unding towards areas, wh ere there is a real 
EU added value 
 Need to focus on most vulnerable groups (children, immigrants, victims, disabled) 
 
3. The EU added value in allocating EU fundi ng to achieve specifi c objectives for the 
area of Justice. 
 Rising inner EU mobility and continuing immi gration emphasise the need to reinforce 
non-discrimination, combating racism and pr otecting vulnerable (including children) 
 Awareness of rights (empowerme nt of vulnerable people, children) will help children 
reach their full potential  
 With economic crisis and high unemployment putting further strain on racial tensions 
as well as creating poverty and breeding grounds for violence a nd directing national 
funding towards "saving banks and the ec onomy" funding for Fundamental Rights and 
against Discrimination and Social Exclusi on is more crucial than ever before. 
 Although a lot of work has been done on disability, discrimination and social 
exclusion remain strong as well as th e huge disparities between Member States. 
Continuing Advocating best practices is essential. 
 
EN 54   EN  Need for strong victims suppor t. Statistics show only 16% of victims who request it 
actually get suppor t in the EU. 
 The complexity and incompatibility of national jurisdictions and administrative 
processes hinder businesses and individuals and ultimately growth. Further stimulus 
for mutual understanding and streamlining for cross-border cases is vital for the EU. 
 Gender equality may have become a more common topic, but discourse and reality are 
worlds apart. The gender gap must be closed. 
 Less and less national funding is available fo r the social sector (both government and 
NGOs), especially for international cooperati on, which is the firs t area where cuts are 
made. EU funding programmes are often the on ly possibility to maintain exchange of 
best practices across borders  
 Increased mobility of the workforce in the EU is a requirement for its economic 
growth and survival. With this any issu es regarding citizens rights, cross-border 
cooperation, mutual recognition and anti discrimination are essential to ensure 
Europe's future. 
 
4. Measures to be undertaken to achiev e simplification and improvement. 
 Better integration and visibility, less fragmentation of funding opportunities. 
 Reduce complication and administrative burden. 
 Award grants for longer time-frames 3-5 y ears to limit administration costs (only one 
time application) and ensure enough tim e to build sustainable projects.  
 Reporting on projects should continue beyond their funding period to measure true 
impact and sustainability. 
 Improving IT tools (application) to be used  as information tools and databases for 
project partner search. 
 Better coordination with other funding instruments needed (EAC, EMPL, etc.) 
 Need for common core aims and a harmoni sed strategic approach across all DG 
Justice programming. 
 Reducing the number of priorities per year to have concerted efforts of all projects 
with political EU priorities. 
 There should be a common approach to incl usion of EEA third countries (Currently 
they are eligible to apply for Daphne funding, but not for Fundamental Rights and 
Citizenship funding).  
 Set clear funding rules which would not be changed until the end of the programmes 
 Reducing high administrative costs by si mplifying application procedure and 
introducing lump sums and flat  rates to ease accounting burden. 
 Reducing the documentary requirements at the stage of application. It takes months to 
obtain official documents directing atten tion, energy and time away from preparing a 
solid project. 
 
 
EN 55   EN 5. Measures to be undertaken to improve the di ssemination of results  and to strengthen 
the link between policy and funding activities. 
 Need for increased visibility of successful  and unsuccessful applicants in order to 
build a network of poten tial project partners 
 Invest more money and work in dissemina tion tools, establishing websites for best 
practice examples, on-line training fo r efficient project management. 
 Better dissemination of results of projects. 
 
6. Additional comments on delivery mechanisms 
 Better focussed objectives should be favoure d, not bigger projects , which will put 
small NGOs in need of funding out of contention 
 No funding for private companies. 
 Increase funding for training activities. 
 Active support to capacity building of sm all NGOs, preparatory workshops towards 
EU cooperation and running EU projects. 
 Improving efficiency of project support fr om the Commission, reducing delays in 
replying, improving precision (and consistency) of replies. 
 Two strands of funding: small NGOs (low gr ants), Large NGOs + authorities etc (big 
grants) 
 More capacity building funding for specific organisations outside  project context 
 Co-funding in the form of "in-kind contribu tion" to ease the access of "poor" NGOs  
 Reduce co-funding requirements (5-10% maximum) 
 
  
 
EN 56   EN 3.  Full Statistics 
 
Response statistics for Public consultat ion on future funding activities in 
the area of Justice, Fundamental Ri ghts and Equality for the period 
after 2013 
     
Status : Active 
Date open :  
End date : 2011-06-20 
There are   187 responses matching your criteria of a total of   187 records in the current set of data.  
     
I. THE RESPONDENT  
     
I.1. Do you reply as:  
  Number of 
requested records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number records(187)     
an individual 37 19,79% 19,79%   
an organisation 150 80,21% 80,21%   
          
I.3. Which is your country of residence/ the co untry where your organisation is established? 
  Number of 
requested records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number records(187)     
Austria 4 2,14% 2,14%   
Belgium 33 17,65% 17,65%   
Bulgaria 5 2,67% 2,67%   
Cyprus 2 1,07% 1,07%   
Czech Republic 3 1,60% 1,60%   
Denmark 0 0,00% 0,00%   
Estonia 3 1,60% 1,60%   
Finland 5 2,67% 2,67%   
France 8 4,28% 4,28%   
Germany 14 7,49% 7,49%   
Greece 0 0,00% 0,00%   
Hungary 4 2,14% 2,14%   
Ireland 7 3,74% 3,74%   
Italy 7 3,74% 3,74%   
Latvia 3 1,60% 1,60%   
Lithuania 5 2,67% 2,67%   
Luxembourg 0 0,00% 0,00%   
Malta 4 2,14% 2,14%   
Netherlands 6 3,21% 3,21%   
Poland 5 2,67% 2,67%   
Portugal 9 4,81% 4,81%   
Romania 14 7,49% 7,49%   
Slovakia 1 0,53% 0,53%   
Slovenia 6 3,21% 3,21%   
 
EN 57   EN Spain 6 3,21% 3,21%   
Sweden 4 2,14% 2,14%   
United Kingdom 18 9,63% 9,63%   
Non EU country 11 5,88% 5,88%   
          
I.4. Please indicate the type of organisation that you represent: 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)     
NGO (non-governmental 
organisation) 103 55,08% 55,08%   
National authority at regional or 
local level 6 3,21% 3,21%   
National authority at central level 28 14,97% 14,97%   
University/Research inst itute 12 6,42% 6,42%   
Private company 4 2,14% 2,14%   
International organisation 4 2,14% 2,14%   
Other 30 16,04% 16,04%   
          
I.5. Is your organisation registered in th e EU Register of Interest Representatives? 
  Number of 
requested records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number records(187)     
Yes 37 19,79% 19,79%   
No 150 80,21% 80,21%   
          
I.6. All responses to this public consultation may be pu blished online by DG Justice. Do you wish that your 
contribution is displayed under your name/the name of your organisation or anonymously? 
  Number of 
requested records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number records(187)     
The contribution may be displayed 
under the name of the respondent 128 68,45% 68,45%   
The contribution must be displayed 
anonymously 59 31,55% 31,55%   
          
I.7. Have you already received funding from DG Justice funding programmes? 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)     
Yes 75 40,11% 40,11%   
No 112 59,89% 59,89%   
          
As you have indicated "Yes" above, please specify th e programme below (if you ha ve received funding from 
more than one programme, please indicate all of them): 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(75)   % of 
total number 
records(187)     
Civil Justice 16 21,33% 8,56%   
Criminal Justice 19 25,33% 10,16%   
Daphne 30 40,00% 16,04%   
Drugs Prevention and Information 2 2,67% 1,07%   
 
EN 58   EN Fundamental Rights and 
citizenship 21 28,00% 11,23%   
Progress 12 16,00% 6,42%   
          
     
II. EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK  ON THE CURRENT PROGRAMMES 
     
II.1. How effective and appropriate do you consider the current funding activities of DG Justice? 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(176)    
Very effective 21 11,23% 11,23% 11,93% 
Effective with minor deficie ncies 32 17,11% 17,11% 18,18% 
Could be improved 56 29,95% 29,95% 31,82% 
Should be improved 29 15,51% 15,51% 16,48% 
No opinion 38 20,32% 20,32% 21,59% 
N/A - - 5,88% - 
          
     
III. OBJECTIVES AND FOCUS OF FUNDING AFTER 2013 
     
III.1. In your opinion and taking into cons ideration the approximate funding levels for 
the year 2011 (see figures below), for which of  the following policies should funding 
be increased, maintained, decrea sed or discontinued after 2013? 
     
Civil Justice policy (€ 15.5 million) 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(150)    
Should be increased 36 19,25% 19,25% 24,00% 
Should be maintained 56 29,95% 29,95% 37,33% 
Should be decreased 10 5,35% 5,35% 6,67% 
Should be discontinued 3 1,60% 1,60% 2,00% 
No opinion 45 24,06% 24,06% 30,00% 
N/A - - 19,79% - 
          
Contract law (€ 0.5 million)  
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(143)    
Should be increased 11 5,88% 5,88% 7,69% 
Should be maintained 43 22,99% 22,99% 30,07% 
Should be decreased 9 4,81% 4,81% 6,29% 
Should be discontinued 7 3,74% 3,74% 4,90% 
No opinion 73 39,04% 39,04% 51,05% 
N/A - - 23,53% - 
          
 
EN 59   EN Consumer and marketing law (€ 0.5 million) 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(145)    
Should be increased 25 13,37% 13,37% 17,24% 
Should be maintained 43 22,99% 22,99% 29,66% 
Should be decreased 7 3,74% 3,74% 4,83% 
Should be discontinued 6 3,21% 3,21% 4,14% 
No opinion 64 34,22% 34,22% 44,14% 
N/A - - 22,46% - 
          
Criminal Justice policy (€ 27 million) 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(150)    
Should be increased 36 19,25% 19,25% 24,00% 
Should be maintained 48 25,67% 25,67% 32,00% 
Should be decreased 20 10,70% 10,70% 13,33% 
Should be discontinued 2 1,07% 1,07% 1,33% 
No opinion 44 23,53% 23,53% 29,33% 
N/A - - 19,79% - 
          
Anti-drugs policy (€ 4 million) 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(145)    
Should be increased 40 21,39% 21,39% 27,59% 
Should be maintained 47 25,13% 25,13% 32,41% 
Should be decreased 5 2,67% 2,67% 3,45% 
Should be discontinued 3 1,60% 1,60% 2,07% 
No opinion 50 26,74% 26,74% 34,48% 
N/A - - 22,46% - 
          
Fundamental Rights (Charter, Righ ts of the child) (€ 11 million) 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(171)    
Should be increased 94 50,27% 50,27% 54,97% 
Should be maintained 49 26,20% 26,20% 28,65% 
Should be decreased 3 1,60% 1,60% 1,75% 
Should be discontinued 2 1,07% 1,07% 1,17% 
No opinion 23 12,30% 12,30% 13,45% 
N/A - - 8,56% - 
          
EU Citizenship (€ 1.5 million) 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(157)    
Should be increased 64 34,22% 34,22% 40,76% 
 
EN 60   EN Should be maintained 40 21,39% 21,39% 25,48% 
Should be decreased 10 5,35% 5,35% 6,37% 
Should be discontinued 4 2,14% 2,14% 2,55% 
No opinion 39 20,86% 20,86% 24,84% 
N/A - - 16,04% - 
          
Data protection (€ 1.5 million) 
  Number of 
requested records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number records(187)      % of 
total number records(140)    
Should be increased 32 17,11% 17,11% 22,86% 
Should be maintained 44 23,53% 23,53% 31,43% 
Should be decreased 11 5,88% 5,88% 7,86% 
Should be discontinued 5 2,67% 2,67% 3,57% 
No opinion 48 25,67% 25,67% 34,29% 
N/A - - 25,13% - 
          
Gender equality (€ 13 million) 
  Number of 
requested records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number records(187)      % of 
total number records(171)    
Should be increased 81 43,32% 43,32% 47,37% 
Should be maintained 50 26,74% 26,74% 29,24% 
Should be decreased 11 5,88% 5,88% 6,43% 
Should be discontinued 4 2,14% 2,14% 2,34% 
No opinion 25 13,37% 13,37% 14,62% 
N/A - - 8,56% - 
          
Violence against women, children and young people (€ 20.5 million) 
  Number of 
requested records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number records(187)      % of 
total number records(167)    
Should be increased 85 45,45% 45,45% 50,90% 
Should be maintained 55 29,41% 29,41% 32,93% 
Should be decreased 3 1,60% 1,60% 1,80% 
Should be discontinued 4 2,14% 2,14% 2,40% 
No opinion 20 10,70% 10,70% 11,98% 
N/A - - 10,70% - 
          
Non discrimination, including Roma policies (€ 20.5 million) 
  Number of 
requested records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number records(187)      % of 
total number records(165)    
Should be increased 83 44,39% 44,39% 50,30% 
Should be maintained 42 22,46% 22,46% 25,45% 
Should be decreased 12 6,42% 6,42% 7,27% 
Should be discontinued 7 3,74% 3,74% 4,24% 
No opinion 21 11,23% 11,23% 12,73% 
N/A - - 11,76% - 
 
EN 61   EN           
     
III.2. Do you believe that there is EU added value in allocating EU funding 
to achieve the following objectives? 
     
Raise awareness and improve know ledge of the population on their rights and obligations 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(171)    
Strongly agree 98 52,41% 52,41% 57,31% 
Agree 57 30,48% 30,48% 33,33% 
Disagree 6 3,21% 3,21% 3,51% 
Strongly disagree 1 0,53% 0,53% 0,58% 
No opinion 9 4,81% 4,81% 5,26% 
N/A - - 8,56% - 
          
Promote EU citizenship 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(161)    
Strongly agree 64 34,22% 34,22% 39,75% 
Agree 64 34,22% 34,22% 39,75% 
Disagree 10 5,35%  5,35% 6,21% 
Strongly disagree 2 1,07% 1,07% 1,24% 
No opinion 21 11,23% 11,23% 13,04% 
N/A - - 13,90% - 
          
Improve access to justice 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(165)    
Strongly agree 93 49,73% 49,73% 56,36% 
Agree 50 26,74% 26,74% 30,30% 
Disagree 5 2,67% 2,67% 3,03% 
Strongly disagree 0 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 
No opinion 17 9,09% 9,09% 10,30% 
N/A - - 11,76% - 
          
Eliminate obstacles to and reduce costs of cross-border judicial proceedings 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(155)    
Strongly agree 63 33,69% 33,69% 40,65% 
Agree 48 25,67% 25,67% 30,97% 
Disagree 10 5,35%  5,35% 6,45% 
Strongly disagree 1 0,53% 0,53% 0,65% 
No opinion 33 17,65% 17,65% 21,29% 
N/A - - 17,11% - 
 
EN 62   EN           
Facilitate cross-border busine ss and consumer transactions 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(152)    
Strongly agree 36 19,25% 19,25% 23,68% 
Agree 58 31,02% 31,02% 38,16% 
Disagree 9 4,81% 4,81% 5,92% 
Strongly disagree 2 1,07% 1,07% 1,32% 
No opinion 47 25,13% 25,13% 30,92% 
N/A - - 18,72% - 
          
Promote and support gender equality 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(172)    
Strongly agree 98 52,41% 52,41% 56,98% 
Agree 58 31,02% 31,02% 33,72% 
Disagree 2 1,07% 1,07% 1,16% 
Strongly disagree 1 0,53% 0,53% 0,58% 
No opinion 13 6,95% 6,95% 7,56% 
N/A - - 8,02% - 
          
Fight discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual 
orientation  
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(171)    
Strongly agree 114 60,96% 60,96% 66,67% 
Agree 40 21,39% 21,39% 23,39% 
Disagree 4 2,14% 2,14% 2,34% 
Strongly disagree 1 0,53% 0,53% 0,58% 
No opinion 12 6,42% 6,42% 7,02% 
N/A - - 8,56% - 
          
Protect vulnerable persons (Roma, chil dren, victims of violence etc.) 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(168)    
Strongly agree 106 56,68% 56,68% 63,10% 
Agree 47 25,13% 25,13% 27,98% 
Disagree 4 2,14% 2,14% 2,38% 
Strongly disagree 2 1,07% 1,07% 1,19% 
No opinion 9 4,81% 4,81% 5,36% 
N/A - - 10,16% - 
          
Reduce drug use and prevent drug related crime 
 
EN 63   EN   Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(155)    
Strongly agree 51 27,27% 27,27% 32,90% 
Agree 63 33,69% 33,69% 40,65% 
Disagree 14 7,49%  7,49% 9,03% 
Strongly disagree 2 1,07% 1,07% 1,29% 
No opinion 25 13,37% 13,37% 16,13% 
N/A - - 17,11% - 
          
     
IV. SIMPLIFICATION AND IMPROVEMENT 
     
IV.1. Do you agree that the fundin g activities of DG Justice need to be simplified and improved? 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(171)    
Yes 148 79,14% 79,14% 86,55% 
No 6 3,21% 3,21% 3,51% 
No opinion 17 9,09% 9,09% 9,94% 
N/A - - 8,56% - 
          
     
IV.2. Do you agree with the following me asures for simplification/improvement 
 of the funding activities? 
     
Provide funding under one single pr ogramme (i.e. launch annually fewer/ one calls for prop osals covering a 
wider range of objectives and priorities) 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(170)    
Strongly agree 47 25,13% 25,13% 27,65% 
Agree 47 25,13% 25,13% 27,65% 
Disagree 34 18,18%  18,18% 20,00% 
Strongly disagree 25 13,37% 13,37% 14,71% 
No opinion 17 9,09% 9,09% 10,00% 
N/A - - 9,09% - 
          
Focus funding on bigger projects with greater EU added value 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(170)    
Strongly agree 24 12,83% 12,83% 14,12% 
Agree 24 12,83% 12,83% 14,12% 
Disagree 66 35,29%  35,29% 38,82% 
Strongly disagree 44 23,53% 23,53% 25,88% 
No opinion 12 6,42% 6,42% 7,06% 
N/A - - 9,09% - 
          
 
EN 64   EN Simplify selection procedures 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(168)    
Strongly agree 92 49,20% 49,20% 54,76% 
Agree 54 28,88% 28,88% 32,14% 
Disagree 4 2,14% 2,14% 2,38% 
Strongly disagree 1 0,53% 0,53% 0,60% 
No opinion 17 9,09% 9,09% 10,12% 
N/A - - 10,16% - 
          
Simplify reporting obligations 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(176)    
Strongly agree 102 54,55% 54,55% 57,95% 
Agree 48 25,67% 25,67% 27,27% 
Disagree 12 6,42%  6,42% 6,82% 
Strongly disagree 0 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 
No opinion 14 7,49% 7,49% 7,95% 
N/A - - 5,88% - 
          
Extend the use of IT tools at the selection, implementation and reporting phases 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(161)    
Strongly agree 61 32,62% 32,62% 37,89% 
Agree 65 34,76% 34,76% 40,37% 
Disagree 8 4,28% 4,28% 4,97% 
Strongly disagree 4 2,14% 2,14% 2,48% 
No opinion 23 12,30% 12,30% 14,29% 
N/A - - 13,90% - 
          
     
V. ACTIVITIES 
     
     
V.1. How important do you consider the following activities for achieving  
the funding objectives of DG Justice? 
     
Identification, development and exchange of good practices  
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(173)    
Strongly agree 109 58,29% 58,29% 63,01% 
Agree 56 29,95% 29,95% 32,37% 
Disagree 3 1,60% 1,60% 1,73% 
Strongly disagree 0 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 
 
EN 65   EN No opinion 5 2,67% 2,67% 2,89% 
N/A - - 7,49% - 
          
Training, in particular of professionals 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(168)    
Strongly agree 91 48,66% 48,66% 54,17% 
Agree 64 34,22% 34,22% 38,10% 
Disagree 3 1,60% 1,60% 1,79% 
Strongly disagree 0 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 
No opinion 10 5,35% 5,35% 5,95% 
N/A - - 10,16% - 
          
Exchanges of legal/judicial professionals 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(161)    
Strongly agree 54 28,88% 28,88% 33,54% 
Agree 65 34,76% 34,76% 40,37% 
Disagree 11 5,88%  5,88% 6,83% 
Strongly disagree 1 0,53% 0,53% 0,62% 
No opinion 30 16,04% 16,04% 18,63% 
N/A - - 13,90% - 
          
Cooperation between professionals and organisati ons and development of specialised networks 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(169)    
Strongly agree 96 51,34% 51,34% 56,80% 
Agree 60 32,09% 32,09% 35,50% 
Disagree 2 1,07% 1,07% 1,18% 
Strongly disagree 2 1,07% 1,07% 1,18% 
No opinion 9 4,81% 4,81% 5,33% 
N/A - - 9,63% - 
          
Studies 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(170)    
Strongly agree 72 38,50% 38,50% 42,35% 
Agree 69 36,90% 36,90% 40,59% 
Disagree 15 8,02%  8,02% 8,82% 
Strongly disagree 2 1,07% 1,07% 1,18% 
No opinion 12 6,42% 6,42% 7,06% 
N/A - - 9,09% - 
          
Statistics and development of indicators 
 
EN 66   EN   Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(168)    
Strongly agree 56 29,95% 29,95% 33,33% 
Agree 78 41,71% 41,71% 46,43% 
Disagree 10 5,35%  5,35% 5,95% 
Strongly disagree 1 0,53% 0,53% 0,60% 
No opinion 23 12,30% 12,30% 13,69% 
N/A - - 10,16% - 
          
Information and awareness-raising 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(169)    
Strongly agree 89 47,59% 47,59% 52,66% 
Agree 59 31,55% 31,55% 34,91% 
Disagree 10 5,35%  5,35% 5,92% 
Strongly disagree 2 1,07% 1,07% 1,18% 
No opinion 9 4,81% 4,81% 5,33% 
N/A - - 9,63% - 
          
Development of IT-tools, such as the e-Justice portal or the European registers for convicted third-country 
nationals 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(165)    
Strongly agree 49 26,20% 26,20% 29,70% 
Agree 69 36,90% 36,90% 41,82% 
Disagree 7 3,74% 3,74% 4,24% 
Strongly disagree 1 0,53% 0,53% 0,61% 
No opinion 39 20,86% 20,86% 23,64% 
N/A - - 11,76% - 
          
     
VI. DELIVERY MECHANISMS 
     
     
VI.1. Which actors/organisations are most  appropriate to receive funding by DG 
Justice? 
     
Non-governmental organisations  
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(175)    
Strongly agree 127 67,91% 67,91% 72,57% 
Agree 30 16,04% 16,04% 17,14% 
Disagree 7 3,74% 3,74% 4,00% 
Strongly disagree 1 0,53% 0,53% 0,57% 
No opinion 10 5,35% 5,35% 5,71% 
 
EN 67   EN N/A - - 6,42% - 
          
Universities and Research institutes 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(164)    
Strongly agree 59 31,55% 31,55% 35,98% 
Agree 80 42,78% 42,78% 48,78% 
Disagree 11 5,88%  5,88% 6,71% 
Strongly disagree 2 1,07% 1,07% 1,22% 
No opinion 12 6,42% 6,42% 7,32% 
N/A - - 12,30% - 
          
Private companies 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(166)    
Strongly agree 4 2,14% 2,14% 2,41% 
Agree 30 16,04% 16,04% 18,07% 
Disagree 66 35,29%  35,29% 39,76% 
Strongly disagree 46 24,60% 24,60% 27,71% 
No opinion 20 10,70% 10,70% 12,05% 
N/A - - 11,23% - 
          
National authorities at regional/local level 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(162)    
Strongly agree 41 21,93% 21,93% 25,31% 
Agree 66 35,29% 35,29% 40,74% 
Disagree 20 10,70%  10,70% 12,35% 
Strongly disagree 10 5,35% 5,35% 6,17% 
No opinion 25 13,37% 13,37% 15,43% 
N/A - - 13,37% - 
          
National authorities at central level 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(161)    
Strongly agree 43 22,99% 22,99% 26,71% 
Agree 42 22,46% 22,46% 26,09% 
Disagree 32 17,11%  17,11% 19,88% 
Strongly disagree 16 8,56% 8,56% 9,94% 
No opinion 28 14,97% 14,97% 17,39% 
N/A - - 13,90% - 
          
International organisations 
 
EN 68   EN   Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(163)    
Strongly agree 42 22,46% 22,46% 25,77% 
Agree 64 34,22% 34,22% 39,26% 
Disagree 24 12,83%  12,83% 14,72% 
Strongly disagree 4 2,14% 2,14% 2,45% 
No opinion 29 15,51% 15,51% 17,79% 
N/A - - 12,83% - 
          
     
VI.2. Which types of funding do you consider most appropriate for achieving the 
funding objectives  
of DG Justice? 
     
Funding of specific projects with EU added value  
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(165)    
Strongly agree 115 61,50% 61,50% 69,70% 
Agree 45 24,06% 24,06% 27,27% 
Disagree 2 1,07% 1,07% 1,21% 
Strongly disagree 0 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 
No opinion 3 1,60% 1,60% 1,82% 
N/A - - 11,76% - 
          
Support to the regular acti vities of organisations 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(174)    
Strongly agree 88 47,06% 47,06% 50,57% 
Agree 52 27,81% 27,81% 29,89% 
Disagree 19 10,16%  10,16% 10,92% 
Strongly disagree 5 2,67% 2,67% 2,87% 
No opinion 10 5,35% 5,35% 5,75% 
N/A - - 6,95% - 
          
Setting-up of and support to the activities of networks 
  Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(167)    
Strongly agree 83 44,39% 44,39% 49,70% 
Agree 66 35,29% 35,29% 39,52% 
Disagree 6 3,21% 3,21% 3,59% 
Strongly disagree 2 1,07% 1,07% 1,20% 
No opinion 10 5,35% 5,35% 5,99% 
N/A - - 10,70% - 
          
Procurement contracts for the implementation of policy (e.g. studies, evaluations, etc). 
 
EN 69   EN   Number of 
requested 
records % Requested 
records(187)   % of 
total number 
records(187)      % of 
total number 
records(157)    
Strongly agree 46 24,60% 24,60% 29,30% 
Agree 72 38,50% 38,50% 45,86% 
Disagree 17 9,09%  9,09% 10,83% 
Strongly disagree 2 1,07% 1,07% 1,27% 
No opinion 20 10,70% 10,70% 12,74% 
N/A - - 16,04% -