[pic] | COMISIÓN DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS |

Bruselas, 28.6.2006

COM(2006) 332 final

COMUNICACIÓN DE LA COMISIÓN AL CONSEJO Y AL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO

Evaluación de las políticas de la UE en materia de libertad, seguridad y justicia

{SEC(2006) 815}

COMUNICACIÓN DE LA COMISIÓN AL CONSEJO Y AL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO

Evaluación de las políticas de la UE en materia de libertad, seguridad y justicia

1. INTRODUCCIÓN

1. Según el Programa de La Haya (2004)[1], la "evaluación de la aplicación, así como de los efectos de todas las medidas es, a juicio del Consejo Europeo, esencial para la eficacia de la acción de la Unión". El Plan de acción por el que se aplica el programa de La Haya (2005)[2], que establece un marco político para las actividades de la Unión Europea en materia de libertad, seguridad y justicia durante los próximos cinco años, prevé la adopción, en 2006, de una Comunicación general de la Comisión referente al desarrollo de un mecanismo de evaluación a nivel de la UE en este ámbito[3].

2. Los Jefes de Estado y Gobierno han manifestado que la evaluación de la aplicación constituye una herramienta clave para velar por que los resultados significativos logrados por la Unión y sus Estados miembros en el desarrollo de un espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia se apliquen correctamente y se revisen constantemente, si procede, para responder a las verdaderas expectativas de los ciudadanos europeos .

3. Al subrayar la importancia de la evaluación, el programa de La Haya pretendía 1) mejorar en mayor medida la forma en que se determinan las políticas, los programas y los instrumentos , identificando los problemas y obstáculos encontrados en la aplicación de aquellos, 2) establecer unas normas más sistemáticas relativas a la responsabilidad financiera y al seguimiento de las políticas , 3) favorecer el aprendizaje y el intercambio de buenas prácticas, y 4) participar en el desarrollo de una cultura de la evaluación en toda la Unión.

Teniendo en cuenta 1) el mandato dado a la Comisión por el Programa de La Haya y su Plan de acción, 2) la fragmentación de los mecanismos de supervisión y evaluación existentes y 3) la necesidad de transmitir a todos los interesados una gran cantidad de información sobre la ejecución y los resultados de las políticas, la Comisión considera que ha llegado el momento de avanzar hacia la creación de un mecanismo coherente y de gran alcance para la evaluación de las políticas de la UE en materia de libertad, seguridad y justicia, en un espíritu de asociación con los Estados miembros y las instituciones de la UE.

Tal mecanismo incluirá un seguimiento de la aplicación (según se establece en la Comunicación sobre "Consolidación de la libertad, la seguridad y la justicia en la Unión Europea: informe de aplicación del Programa de La Haya para el año 2005”, denominado en lo sucesivo el “Cuadro de indicadores Plus”[4]) y la evaluación de los resultados políticos.

2. CONCEPTO DE EVALUACIÓN

4. Cabe efectuar una distinción entre los principios de seguimiento de la aplicación y de evaluación:

- El seguimiento de la aplicación consiste en controlar los avances en cuanto a la ejecución de las políticas.

- La Comunicación sobre la evaluación presentada por la Comisión en 2000[5] define la evaluación como la "valoración de las intervenciones (medidas públicas) según sus resultados, impactos y las necesidades que aspiran a satisfacer" . El principal cometido de la evaluación es facilitar a los responsables políticos información sobre el impacto y la eficacia de las actividades previstas y realizadas.

5. La Comisión interpreta el mecanismo mencionado en el Plan de acción como un medio de seguimiento de la aplicación y de evaluación de los resultados concretos de las políticas en materia de libertad, seguridad y justicia. En este contexto, la evaluación va más allá y, partiendo del seguimiento de la aplicación de las políticas, estudia los efectos de la misma, según se esboza más adelante. De este modo, se ajusta al programa de La Haya puesto que el concepto de "evaluación de la aplicación, así como de los efectos de todas las medidas" abarca tanto el seguimiento de la aplicación propiamente dicha como la evaluación de los resultados de las medidas tomadas.

6. Esta es la justificación de que la Comisión proponga un paquete coherente y de gran alcance construido en torno a dos pilares: el “Cuadro de indicadores Plus” para realizar el seguimiento de la aplicación y el mecanismo de evaluación propuesto en la presente Comunicación.

7. El mecanismo presentado en esta Comunicación se basa en esta definición exhaustiva que, en opinión de la Comisión, debe hacer posible una comprensión total de la cantidad y calidad de los resultados logrados en materia de libertad, seguridad y justicia. Este mecanismo funcionaría conforme a los principios establecidos en el Programa de La Haya. En definitiva, serviría para mejorar la elaboración política, fomentando la incorporación sistemática de los resultados de la evaluación en el proceso de toma de decisiones.

Recuadro 1: Evaluación durante el proceso de toma de decisiones

[pic]

3. EVALUACIÓN DE LAS POLÍTICAS DE LA UE EN MATERIA DE LIBERTAD, SEGURIDAD Y JUSTICIA – RETOS PENDIENTES

3.1. Complejidad y ambición de los objetivos y soluciones políticos

8. El área de libertad, seguridad y justicia es una de las áreas políticas más polifacéticas de la UE . Los objetivos abarcan algunos de los ámbitos más tópicos: libre circulación de personas, terrorismo y delincuencia organizada, cooperación policial y judicial, política de asilo y migración, respetando siempre en todos ellos los derechos fundamentales y fomentando los derechos de los ciudadanos de la Unión. A menudo las consideraciones de soberanía nacional exigen compromisos a nivel de la UE o hacen difícil la aplicación de las políticas. Por lo tanto, cualquier nuevo mecanismo de evaluación tendrá que tener en cuenta este contexto político.

9. A la complejidad y ambición de los objetivos políticos se añade la complicación que suponen un marco jurídico a veces confuso, mezcla de procedimientos de toma de decisiones y de conformidad.

Para solventar esta complejidad, el mecanismo de evaluación propuesto debe ser progresivo e incluir posibilidades de desarrollo y consolidación futuros .

3.2. Calendario

10. Debido al cometido específico de la Comisión y al proceso de toma de decisiones en el ámbito de la libertad, seguridad y justicia, las distintas políticas necesitan a menudo diferentes calendarios antes de poder desarrollarlas y de que lleguen a ser plenamente operativas. Por lo tanto es necesario un enfoque individual para identificar el nivel correcto de análisis para cada una de las políticas . Mientras que para todas las políticas se tendrán en cuenta sus resultados inmediatos e intermedios, el análisis del impacto práctico podría presentar mayores dificultades para ciertas políticas (por ejemplo las políticas en materia de drogas o de migración).

El mecanismo de evaluación propuesto debería ofrecer una flexibilidad suficiente para la evaluación detallada y diferenciada de las políticas específicas, teniendo debida cuenta de su nivel de desarrollo y de consolidación.

Por lo tanto parece apropiado centrarse en los resultados inmediatos e intermedios, por lo menos en la primera etapa. La identificación del impacto global de las políticas debe ser el objetivo último del mecanismo de evaluación a más largo plazo.

3.3. Involucrar a las instituciones e interesados

11. Otro aspecto único del ámbito de la libertad, seguridad y justicia es el impacto de la política sobre los interesados. Cualquier mecanismo de evaluación en este terreno debe tener en cuenta las expectativas y prioridades de los interesados y, en especial, la confidencialidad necesaria en algunas áreas políticas, tales como el terrorismo y delincuencia organizada.

12. En un espíritu de asociación , la Comisión consultará y debatirá con los Estados miembros e instituciones de la UE durante y después de la preparación del informe de evaluación. A tal efecto, se invitará a los Estados miembros y a las instituciones de la UE a designar puntos de contacto para facilitar el diálogo con la Comisión. El informe de evaluación[6] será público y se dirigirá a los Estados miembros e instituciones de la UE.

13. El Consejo y los Estados miembros así como la Comisión serán los protagonistas principales del mecanismo de evaluación propuesto. El Parlamento Europeo estará estrechamente asociado, de acuerdo con las prerrogativas y obligaciones institucionales. Los Parlamentos nacionales también participarán en la evaluación de los informes periódicos.

14. En los ámbitos abarcados por el Tratado CE, el Comité de las Regiones y el Comité Económico y Social Europeo participarán en la preparación y aplicación del mecanismo de evaluación. Una vez adoptados, los informes de evaluación se transmitirán sistemáticamente a los Comités.

15. Organismos tales como la Agencia de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea, el Observatorio Europeo de la Droga y las Toxicomanías (EMCDDA), Europol, Eurojust o la Agencia Europea para la gestión de la cooperación operativa en las fronteras exteriores desempeñarán un cometido importante en el mecanismo. Primero, aportarán las informaciones y análisis disponibles al ejercicio de evaluación. En segundo lugar, la Comisión los consultará sobre los informes de evaluación.

16. La contribución de la sociedad civil será muy valiosa en este contexto. La Comisión velaraá por que se tengan en cuenta las opiniones de la sociedad civil y establecerá unos mecanismos apropiados para garantizar su participación en la evaluación de todas las políticas en el ámbito de la libertad, seguridad y justicia.

El mecanismo de evaluación propuesto debería contemplar unos mecanismos de consulta transparentes, que también podrían utilizarse para recopilar y realizar controles cruzados de la información pertinente .

3.4. Disponibilidad de estadísticas

17. La disponibilidad de estadísticas[7] y de la capacidad analítica necesaria es un componente clave del desarrollo de un sistema de evaluación. Si bien existen estadísticas bien desarrolladas para algunas actividades (por ejemplo política de drogas), es necesario seguir trabajando en otras áreas, tales como delincuencia y justicia penal[8]. Se necesitarán estadísticas sobre la evolución de las necesidades contempladas por las políticas de libertad, seguridad y justicia como datos básicos para evaluar si con el tiempo una determinada política disminuye o incrementa las necesidades existentes y, en definitiva, para poder sacar conclusiones sobre el impacto de las políticas. Tres son las áreas en las que se debería mejorar: calidad, disponibilidad y análisis. El trabajo de ciertos organismos, incluidos el Observatorio Europeo de la Droga y las Toxicomanías (EMCDDA), Eurojust, Europol y la futura Agencia de derechos fundamentales, desempeñará un cometido especial en este contexto. Las redes y proyectos de investigación también contribuirán a este objetivo.

Por lo tanto, paralelamente a la creación del sistema de evaluación propuesto, habrá que llevar a cabo mejoras de la calidad, la disponibilidad y el análisis de estadísticas sobre libertad, seguridad y justicia.

4. EVALUACIÓN DE LAS POLÍTICAS DE LA UE EN MATERIA DE LIBERTAD, SEGURIDAD Y JUSTICIA - PROPUESTA DE MECANISMO DE EVALUACIÓN ESTRATÉGICA

4.1. Descripción del mecanismo de evaluación

18. El mecanismo propuesto de evaluación estratégica de la libertad, la seguridad y la justicia se basa en los resultados consolidados logrados en otras áreas de la política de la UE. Tal mecanismo partiría de las prácticas actuales, según se describen en el anexo 2, y, en el caso específico de los programas de financiación, utilizaría la información derivada de los requisitos vigentes en materia de evaluación. Asimismo, en otras áreas en las que ya se dispone de información, se prestará una atención particular a la utilización de los datos existentes y a evitar la duplicación del trabajo.

19. Se propone un mecanismo progresivo en tres fases :

(1) Primero, se prevé crear un sistema para la recopilación y el intercambio de informaciones.

(2) En segundo lugar, se incluye un mecanismo de información que consolide, utilice y analice esta información.

(3) Tercero, se completa mediante evaluaciones estratégicas detalladas específicas.

Recuadro 2: Las tres fases del mecanismo

[pic]

20. El mecanismo tendrá gran alcance y abarcará todas las políticas en el campo de la libertad, seguridad y justicia[9].

21. Los informes de evaluación[10] se transmitirán al Consejo y al Parlamento Europeo y también al Comité Económico y Social Europeo y al Comité de las Regiones y se difundirán según proceda a sectores más amplios, a veces mediante presentaciones públicas específicas.

22. Al mejorar la información y la divulgación de los resultados de la evaluación, el mecanismo pretende en último término fomentar la utilización de los resultados en el nivel de toma de decisiones.

23. El mecanismo es coherente con la orientación actual de la Comisión en materia de evaluación y funcionará de conformidad con sus principios generales.

4.1.1. Sistema de recopilación e intercambio de información

24. El sistema de recopilación e intercambio de información se basará en las "fichas de datos" (una para cada ámbito político) que serán cumplimentadas por las autoridades competentes de los Estados miembros. En aquellos ámbitos en los que ya se dispone de información en un formato similar, la Comisión rellenará las fichas de datos por adelantado en la medida de lo posible. Paralelamente, se procederá a la consulta de las fichas de datos con los interesados pertinentes y con la sociedad civil[11]. Las consultas serán específicas para cada política y se basarán en las redes y mecanismos de consulta existentes, teniendo debidamente en cuenta la confidencialidad necesaria en ciertas áreas.

25. Las fichas de datos indicarán un objetivo político global para cada área y enumerarán los principales instrumentos (legislativos, no legislativos y financieros) que contribuyen a lograr el objetivo correspondiente. El mecanismo debería proporcionar una descripción clara de los resultados .

26. Las fichas de datos también contendrán un grupo de indicadores para cada política. Estos indicadores estarán claramente vinculados al objetivo global del área política. Las fichas de datos formarán parte integrante del proceso de consulta que seguirá a la publicación de este documento y que concluirá en asociación con los Estados miembros. En el anexo 1 de la presente Comunicación figuran ejemplos de fichas de datos.

27. La Comisión se propone invitar a cada Estado miembro a designar puntos de contacto a nivel nacional. Los puntos de contacto desempeñarán un papel importante en la coordinación de la respuesta a nivel nacional y en el trabajo de consulta con los departamentos de la Comisión.

28. Por lo que se refiere a la legislación de la UE , los indicadores y el sistema de calificación de las fichas de datos se centrarán en la práctica en los resultados tangibles de la aplicación de la legislación y no en el nivel de transposición al derecho nacional ni en el impacto de la legislación de la UE en los ordenamientos jurídicos nacionales. Estos últimos son los principales objetivos del “Cuadro de indicadores Plus”, que evalúa la transposición y aplicación en lugar de evaluar el grado de consecución de los objetivos.

29. En lo que respecta a los programas de financiación de la UE, las fichas de datos se basarán en los informes de aplicación y evaluación existentes presentados para cumplir los requisitos establecidos en el Reglamento financiero y en el fundamento jurídico correspondiente. Se espera que la información sobre la financiación de programas exigida en las fichas de datos esté fácilmente disponible y por lo tanto cualquier contribución adicional de los Estados miembros debería ser mínima.

4.1.2. Mecanismo de información

30. Una vez recibidas las fichas de datos y tras la consulta con los interesados, la Comisión validará la información recibida y elaborará un "informe de evaluación" que consolidará y analizará la información proporcionada. Este informe de evaluación también incluirá recomendaciones políticas relativas a las diversas áreas políticas analizadas.

31. El objetivo de este ejercicio es evaluar las políticas desarrolladas a nivel de la UE en el ámbito de la libertad, seguridad y justicia e identificar las áreas en las que se deseable realizar una evaluación estratégica detallada.

4.1.3. Evaluaciones políticas estratégicas

32. Tras el informe de evaluación y las nuevas consultas, puede procederse a efectuar evaluaciones políticas estratégicas detalladas en áreas seleccionadas. Estas evaluaciones tendrán por objeto producir información útil y oportuna que sirva de contribución a las decisiones políticas en cada área política, según proceda.

33. Las evaluaciones estratégicas deberían añadir valor a las prácticas actuales descritas en el anexo 2, especialmente:

(a) centrándose en las políticas (o subconjuntos coherentes), en vez de hacerlo en los instrumentos individuales (por ejemplo, evaluación de la política de inmigración común);

(b) analizando la coherencia de los diversos instrumentos de una determinada política (por ejemplo la forma en que los programas financieros apoyan y facilitan la aplicación de la legislación de la UE en un determinado ámbito);

(c) investigando la forma en que una política concreta contribuye al objetivo global de establecer un espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia ;

(d) determinando el índice global de consecución de ese objetivo general; y

(e) evaluando la consecución de un objetivo de mayor alcance en el campo de la libertad, la seguridad y la justicia (por ejemplo, salvaguardia de los derechos fundamentales).

4.2. Frecuencia y seguimiento

34. Una frecuencia determinada permite supervisar el progreso a intervalos regulares y realizar comparaciones. Por lo que se refiere al calendario, se propone realizar este ejercicio de evaluación ("fichas de datos" más "informe de evaluación" ) dos veces cada cinco años. La Comisión recurrirá a la información disponible en la medida de lo posible.

35. La propuesta tiene en cuenta el hecho de que este mecanismo:

(a) debe utilizarse periódicamente ,

(b) no debe ser demasiado gravoso,

(c) no necesita ponerse en práctica cada año ya que se centra en consecuencias y resultados paulatinos y en datos a medio plazo,

(d) debe coordinarse con los planes estratégicos y plurianuales existentes .

36. En especial, el calendario propuesto también permitiría que el Consejo y la Comisión utilizaran los resultados de los informes de evaluación como contribución para evaluar la necesidad de elaborar otro programa estratégico en 2009, cuando expire el programa de La Haya.

37. El hecho de publicar el informe de evaluación cada dos o tres años permitirá sincronizar el mecanismo con el ciclo quinquenal. Esto estimulará un uso más completo y estratégico de los resultados de la evaluación en la toma de decisiones. 2006-2007 será un período de transición (véase el siguiente cuadro).

38. Para lograr una coordinación con el “Cuadro de indicadores Plus”, se prevé enviar las fichas de datos a los Estados miembros a finales de 2006 y publicar el informe de evaluación, junto con el segundo “Cuadro de indicadores Plus”, a mediados de 2007.

Calendario | Cuadro de indicadores Plus | Mecanismo de evaluación | Plan de Acción |

2005 | Adopción de Plan de acción de La Haya |

2006 | CI + 1 | Evaluación intermedia de la aplicación (finales de 2006) |

2007 | CI + 2 | Informe de evaluación 1 | Primer análisis político |

2008 | CI + 3 |

2009 | CI + 4 | Informe de evaluación 2 |

2010 | CI + 5 | Fin del programa de La Haya |

2011 | CI + 6 |

2012 | CI + 7 | Informe de evaluación 3 |

2013 | CI + 8 |

2014 | CI + 9 | Informe de evaluación 4 |

(En gris el período de transición)

39. La evaluación de impacto adjunta contiene una evaluación de los costes administrativos adicionales para los Estados miembros . Se exhorta a los Estados miembros a trabajar, con el apoyo de la Comisión, para lograr la comparabilidad de los datos y la exactitud . La experiencia reciente en la evaluación de varios instrumentos legislativos ha mostrado que a veces los datos básicos referentes a las políticas ni están armonizados ni son exactos. Las evaluaciones específicas de las políticas en materia de libertad, seguridad y justicia por el Consejo o la Comisión serán una fuente adicional de información.

40. La presente Comunicación pretende constituir el comienzo de un proceso a medio plazo . El mecanismo propuesto y las fichas de datos se presentan para poder hacer comentarios al respecto y mejorarlos a raíz de la presente Comunicación. Con este fin, se pondrá en marcha un amplio proceso de consulta, que incluirá la organización de un simposio en otoño.

41. El mecanismo se evaluará a los cinco años para decidir sobre los posibles ajustes y mejoras del sistema. Los resultados evaluados serán los contemplados en el recuadro 2. La evaluación se realizará con relación a los objetivos establecidos en el apartado 3.

5. CONCLUSIONES

42. La Comisión considera necesario crear un mecanismo coherente y de gran alcance de evaluación de las políticas de la UE en materia de libertad, seguridad y justicia, teniendo en cuenta la situación actual y el mandato del Programa de La Haya. Dicho mecanismo tendrá que ser progresivo y tener en cuenta el contexto evolutivo institucional y jurídico , con objeto de velar por el perfeccionamiento y la eficacia de las políticas de libertad, seguridad y justicia.

43. Este mecanismo proporcionará un medio para agrupar los resultados de las evaluaciones individuales en un marco coherente, aportando así información a la toma de decisiones política al nivel apropiado. A este respecto, el mecanismo propuesto también ofrecerá a los responsables políticos la información pertinente a tiempo para plantearse la continuación que conviene dar al Programa de La Haya cuando este expire en 2009.

44. El mecanismo propuesto será aplicado por la Comisión y el Consejo con plena observancia de sus prerrogativas institucionales y en estrecha asociación con el Parlamento Europeo. La acción concertada y el compromiso total de las instituciones de la UE y los Estados miembros son necesarios para implantar y aplicar con eficacia el mecanismo de evaluación, mientras que las autoridades y administraciones nacionales desempeñarán un cometido fundamental a este respecto.

45. Por último, este mecanismo de evaluación tendrá por objeto que las medidas adoptadas por la Unión sean más efectivas y contribuirá a los objetivos estratégicos de legislar mejor y de transparencia de las actividades de la UE .

ANNEX 1 Factsheet of JLS policies

POLICY AREA: EXTERNAL BORDERS, VISA POLICY AND FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: well established policy area, 1st pillar activities, there is a strong consensus amongst stakeholders for EU level action; there is a mix of instruments (legislative activities, co-operation activities, programme funding, functioning Community Agency, IT systems); possible to construct evaluation indicators, but might be hard to measure outcomes and results and causal links in practice. Methods to evaluate controls at borders are improving, including available administrative information and statistics. Some constraints on fully independent evaluation. There are strong interlinkages between the instruments within the ABB activity and strong potential for ‘thematic’ evaluation examining instruments in parallel. |

Policy sub-area 1: External borders |

Objectives: Develop an integrated external border management system Ensure uniform high standards of border checks and border surveillance at EU external borders Reduce number of illegal cross border movements of people Further ‘burden sharing’ in management of external borders |

Policy sub-area level indicators: The numbers of illegal migrants apprehended that are known to have crossed the EU external border illegally as a proportion of all third country national border crossings into EU (Source: Commission - Eurostat statistics on asylum and migration) The difference between the numbers of illegal migrants apprehended that are known to have crossed the EU external border illegally as a proportion of all third country national border crossings into EU through the most permeable and least permeable border. Note that this indicator would require to define the most and least permeable EU border. The numbers of illegal migrants apprehended that are known to have crossed the EU external border illegally (Source: Commission - Eurostat statistics on asylum and migration) The proportion of all resource commitments to external border management originating in countries without EU external borders (Source: MS) |

Main instruments | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Objectives: Prevent illegal immigration and threats to public order Reduce time taken and costs of acquiring visas for legitimate travellers. Reciprocation with third countries on visa waivers. Reduce number of visas given to travellers who become overstayers and illegal migrants Abolish controls at internal EU borders |

Policy sub-area level indicators: The average time taken from application to receipt of (a particular class of) visa (Source: MS, VIS) The average costs (fees) for (a particular class of) visa (Source: MS, VIS) The number of third countries where the visa requirements of nationals to enter the EU match those EU citizens visiting the country in question (Source: Commission) The total population of third countries where the visa requirements of nationals to enter the EU match those EU citizens visiting the country in question (Source: Commission) The number of EU internal border crossings that are subject to controls (Source: MS) |

Main instruments | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: Relatively new policy area in JLS (although the citizenship policy as such is an established area in the EC/Commission activities), 1st pillar activities, a combination of instruments (legislation, funding programmes, new Community Agency). The nature of the instruments and their objectives leads to reliance on qualitative evaluation methods. However, there is scope for further improvements to the information base through surveys and the development of statistics. The objectives within the policy area are wide ranging and the sub policy areas as defined below are not distinct. There is some scope for evaluating sub sets of instruments in parallel. |

Policy sub-area 1: Citizenship of the Union |

Global objectives: Increase awareness of Union citizens of their rights and of the ways these can be enforced Decrease any obstacles for the enjoyment of their rights by Union citizens, in particular of the right to free movement and residence Increase participation of EU citizens in democratic life in the Union Facilitate the diplomatic and consular protection offered to the Union citizens in third countries |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Levels of citizens’ awareness of their rights and mechanisms of redress (Source: Surveys and Eurobarometer reports) Instances of right to free movement and residence hindered (Source: complaints made to Commission) Rates of voting registration and participation – percentage of increase/decrease (Source: Member States) Number of citizens standing for election to public office – percentage of increase/decrease (Source: Member States) Instances of use and complaints from EU citizens over levels of consular protection (Source: Member States) |

Main instruments | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Global objectives: Increase the awareness of fundamental rights amongst citizens. (This concerns the rights as protected on European Union and national level including the relevant regional and international instruments.) Decrease instances of breaches of fundamental rights (including breaches of privacy, personal data protection and protection from violence against children, women and youth) Reduce the instances of racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia Establish a Fundamental Rights Agency (from EUMC) Increase number of participants in and their commitments to civil society |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Levels of citizens’ awareness of fundamental rights (Source: Surveys and Eurobarometer reports) Instances of breaches of fundamental rights, especially as a result of EU interventions (including breaches of privacy, personal data protection and protection from violence against children, women and youth) (Source: Commission and FR Agency) Instances of racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia (Source: FR Agency) Time commitments of population to participation in civil society (Source: MS) Number of civil society organisations in NMS since accession (Source: MS) |

Main instruments | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: Activities in this policy area are cross pillar and cover a variety of areas, including health, police cooperation, information, evaluation and coordination. The EU Drug Action Plan and EU Drug Strategy are very important documents endorsed by the Council as the basic policy framework for all drugs issues within the EU and within the context of the EU's external relations. They cover all activities in this policy area and provide the guidelines for all Member States to implement the objectives and actions they contain into national policy. The Action Plan takes its lead from the objectives of the EU Drug Strategy and translates these objectives into 80 concrete actions. It concentrates on the two major aspects of drug policy, demand reduction and supply reduction, and also covers a number of cross-cutting themes: international cooperation, research, information and evaluation. It includes actions within EU competence (public health, precursor control, money laundering and development aid) as well as close cooperation between Member States and partnerships with international organisations. The Action Plan furthermore covers monitoring and evaluation and includes assessment tools and indicators for each action. The actions covered by the Action Plan are subject to an annual progress review by the Commission's services. Evaluation in this area is already well-established through the methods and indicators developed during the evaluation of the previous EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan. Reliable data is available from the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction, Europol and the Commission. As with other policies relating to complex, global socio-political issues, the evaluation of the impacts of EU drug policy is a problematical and sensitive matter due to the multiple factors that have to be taken into account and for which there may not be reliable data by their very nature (e.g. figures for trafficking in illicit drugs are always rough estimates; corruption caused by trade in drugs is hidden, etc.). |

Objectives: To significantly reduce the prevalence of drug use among the population and to reduce the social harm and health damage caused by the use of and trade in illicit drugs, and to strengthen international cooperation (EU Action Plan on Drugs 2005-2008) |

Policy-level indicators: The EU Action Plan contains the major legal instruments such as the Council Decision on the information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances, or the Framework Decision on penalties for drug trafficking. It also contains the assessment tools and indicators required for the evaluation process of these instruments and all other actions. These have been drawn up in cooperation with the EMCDDA and Europol, who will help the Commission to keep track of implementation. On this basis the Commission will publish an Annual Progress Review and if necessary propose adjustments. Responsibility for implementation of actions and deadlines are clearly indicated in the Plan. To keep implementation on track, targets whose deadlines have passed or are unlikely to be met will be subject to recommendations for their implementation or identification of failure to implement. The Commission will carry out an impact assessment in 2008 in view of proposing a second Action Plan for 2009-2012. A final evaluation of the Strategy and the Action Plans will be carried out by the Commission in 2012. These evaluations will go beyond the strict confines of the Action Plan and will include, on the basis of the work of the EMCDDA and Europol, a general view of the evolution of the drugs situation in Europe. |

POLICY AREA: COMMON IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICIES |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: New policy area. 1st pillar activities. Interventions include legislation, programmes and cooperation activities. Good, comparable data is required and is planned. MS consensus about broad aims but not at individual instrument level. Impacts of these instruments on third-countries, and in particular development countries, to be considered. |

Policy sub-area 1: Common European Asylum System |

Objectives: To establish a common asylum procedure and uniform status, To facilitate practical and collaborative cooperation, To address pressures on asylum systems and reception capacities. |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Number of asylum seekers applying for asylum in Member States other than the country of first entry (Source: Eurodac) Instances of MS breaching minimum defined standards (Source: Commission) Differences in standards of reception between Member States (Source: Commission) Differences between Member States with regard to the average time taken to determine the outcome of an application for asylum (Source: MS and Commission) Comparison of asylum acceptance rates among Member States[12] (Source: Commission - Eurostat) Differences in the level of capacity per Member State (asylum systems and reception facilities) relative to needs (Source: Member States) |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Objectives: To establish admission procedures capable of responding to fluctuating demands for migrant labour |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Skill shortages in vocations and professions (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS Labour Force Surveys, EEO) Employment rates amongst migrant groups (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS Labour Force Surveys) Estimation of the numbers of migrants overstaying the duration of their work permits (Source: MS) |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Objectives: To prevent the isolation of certain groups and achieve successful integration of Third Country Nationals and their descendents To fight discrimination against legally residing Third Country Nationals To promote the exchange of experience and information |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Instances of discrimination (Source: FR Agency, MS) Employment rates of third country nationals (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS) Employment rates of second generation migrants (Source: SOPEMI Report, MS) Relative income levels of third country nationals (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS) Proportion of third country nationals living in poverty (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS) |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Objectives: Assist third countries in migration management, intensify MS cooperation to manage migration flows and prevent humanitarian crises, integrate migration into third country relations, develop policies that link migration, development cooperation and humanitarian assistance, intensify cooperation with third countries on southern and eastern border of EU |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Increase/decrease over a 5-year period of: Numbers of legal migrants by third country (Source: Commission - Eurostat) Numbers of illegal migrants by third country intercepted crossing an external border (Source: Commission – Eurostat) Numbers of visa overstayers by third country intercepted (Source: MS) Numbers of asylum applications by third country (Source: Commission - Eurostat) Numbers of failed asylum applications by third country (Source: Commission - Eurostat) Numbers of failed asylum seekers returning to country of origin /other third country (Source: MS) Number of victims of trafficking from third countries (Source: MS) |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Objectives: To establish an effective removal and repatriation policy based on common standards for persons to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their human rights and dignity. |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Increase/decrease over a 5-year period of: Proportion of failed asylum seekers (and illegal migrants) who are repatriated (Source: MS) Numbers returned to countries subsequently deemed unsafe within a period of two years (Source: MS) Numbers (of labour market age) in employment in country of origin 12 months after being subject to return |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: The policy area includes both first pillar (civil justice) and third pillar (criminal justice) matters. The main instruments are legislation including the introduction of new legal instruments and activities to stimulate judicial cooperation. Evaluation should cover the implementation of mutual recognition instruments and the various flanking (confidence building) measures that make mutual recognition possible. The potential to identify the causal links between the interventions and the achievement of objectives is greater within civil matters than criminal matters. Information on the scale and nature of the relevant (cross border) civil and criminal matters is however poor. The instruments in both sub policy areas are potentially reinforcing. The classification of the instruments within the civil matters sub policy area relate to both process (cooperation and procedures) and to substantive problems addressed by the instruments (cross border disputes and breakdown of international marriages). There is also a miscellaneous sub category. The achievement of a European area of justice in criminal matters may be constrained by continued variations in definitions of crimes and penalties. Several of the instruments mentioned under civil matters are ‘forthcoming’. They are included however because they illustrate aspects of the evaluation challenges in this policy area. The Judicial training instrument is relevant to both sub policy areas. There are close links between the instruments and objectives of the policy sub area 2 Criminal matters, and the objectives and activities in the policy area: law enforcement cooperation, prevention and fight against organised crime. Also, it should be noted that adjustments to the indicators put forward in criminal matters may take place in light of the implementation of the forthcoming Action Plan on statistics in the field of crime and criminal justice (see more expanded reference on page 49). |

Policy sub-area 1: Civil matters |

Objectives: To increase mutual recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions To establish clear rules on jurisdiction and applicable law To reduce the costs of resolving cross border disputes To increase the likelihood that cross border disputes are resolved To reduce the likelihood of cross border disputes arising To reduce the negative consequences of breakdowns in ‘international’ marriages and prevent child abduction |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Number of mutually recognised judicial decisions Average costs (of different types) of cross-border disputes Number of cross-border cases not resolved Spouses’ (perceptions of) costs of international divorces The number and amount of cross-border maintenance claims not paid Source: MS |

Main instrument | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Horizontal cooperation activities |

Objectives: To promote mutual recognition To increase confidence and other conditions leading to mutual recognition To reduce differences in the definition of crimes. In particular, to explore common definitions and procedures for human trafficking and cross border crimes To reduce differences in detention and trial procedures To improve taking of evidence To reduce differences in penalties To speed up cross border arrest and surrender procedures To facilitate cross border management, freezing and confiscation of criminal assets To protect victims of crime |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Number of mutually recognised judicial decisions Extent of mutual confidence: proportion of officials in national administrations who have high confidence in other MS systems (measured by surveys of national authorities) Level of awareness of judicial actors of other MS systems Number of definitions of crimes approximated Number of reduced differences in detention and trial procedures and definition of penalties Length of cross-border arrest and surrender procedures Size of criminal assets frozen and confiscated in cross-border cases Source: MS |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: Policy based on the TEU Title VI (third pillar). Activities include legislation, including the approximation of crimes and penalties and cooperation measure. Establishing causal links between the EU interventions and the ultimate objective of reducing crime is always likely to be problematic. The current factsheet intends to facilitate the assessment of the implementation of EU instruments in this area. Full fledged evaluation will require substantial improvements in the quality and availability of statistical information in the field of crime and criminal justice. The forthcoming Action Plan in this field (to be adopted by the Commission in July 2006) will address these issues and put forward concrete proposals, including carrying out an inventory and setting-up an expert group. In this context, this factsheet and the indicators included therein will necessarily be adjusted and improved in the light of the implementation of the Action Plan, and could be used as a starting point for discussions in this field. |

Policy sub-area 1: Crimes and Sanctions (i.e. legislation to fight organised (cross border) crime and terrorism) |

Objectives: To combat: Terrorism Smuggling and trafficking of human beings, Sexual exploitation, racism and xenophobia, Financial and economic crime, Environmental crime, Illicit trafficking in goods, Organised crime and cyber crime. To reduce the financial resources available to those involved in organised crime To criminalise active and passive corruption |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Numbers and trends of successful prosecutions for (Source: UN crime and criminal justice trends surveys, European sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, Commission crime and criminal justice statistics): Smuggling and trafficking of human beings, Sexual exploitation, Financial and economic crime, Environmental crime, Illicit trafficking in goods (including firearms), Numbers of successful prosecutions for organised crime (Source: UN crime justice and crime trends surveys, European sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, Commission crime and criminal justice statistics) Numbers of prosecutions for active and passive corruption (Source: UN crime justice and crime trends surveys, European sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, Commission crime and criminal justice statistics) Perception of levels of active and passive corruption (Source: Transparency International survey) Numbers of crimes subject to EU interventions and instruments (Source: UN crime justice and crime trends surveys, European sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, Commission crime and criminal justice statistics) |

Main instrument | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Terrorism |

(The architecture of the instruments in this sub policy area is such that the instruments should be reinforcing. Capturing these synergies in evaluation work would be of value) |

Objectives: To increase cooperation between police and customs authorities of MS To increase cooperation of MS police and customs authorities with Europol To develop and improve use of ‘intelligence led law enforcement’ and Joint Investigation Teams To encourage exchange of experiences on best practice on investigative techniques To improve the quality of Member States law enforcement data with the assistance of Europol |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Number of formal joint investigations Number of informal joint investigations Number of successful prosecutions resulting from joint investigations (formal and informal) Number of successful prosecutions resulting from the adoption of best practice investigative techniques Extent of mutual confidence: proportion of officials in national administrations/law enforcement authorities who have confidence in other MS systems (measured by surveys of national authorities) Periods of time (person days) on (trans-national) exchanges of staff Source: MS |

Main instrument | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Objectives: To reduce instances of (cross border organised) crime To establish European instruments for collecting, analysing and comparing information on crime and victimisation. To provide better information on trends in crime in Member States |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Numbers of successful prosecutions of cross border organised crime The frequency with which EU level statistics are collected (benchmark: annually) The level of reliability of data (for example, number of definition changes), also indicated by the levels of confidence in data by key actors (source: regular surveys) Consistency of data between Members States (for example, numbers of definition variations), indicated the levels of confidence in data by key actors (source: regular surveys) Source: Commission, MS |

Main instrument | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Objectives: Reduce detrimental cross border impacts of crises |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Number of cross border crises reported in press/media Number of cross border crises involving EU crisis management |

Main instrument | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Setting up of integrated and co-ordinated EU crisis-management arrangements in the Commission and the Council |Increase the level of preparedness to tackle cross-border crises within the EU |Active participation from MS in the structures to be established |Establishment of integrated and co-ordinated structures at the EU level

Measured by:

Assessments of MS capacities

Training and joint exercises conducted

Operational plans established

(Source: MS administrative records) | Increased level of preparedness for cross border crises

Measured by:

Actual responses to crises

Results of ‘Exercises’ undertaken.

(Source: MS Potential stakeholder surveys) | Reduced impacts of such crises |There are likely to be particular difficulties in establishing the counter factual with respect to this instrument. Impacts may only be assessed sometime following emergencies. Some scope for peer review | |

ANNEX 2Current practice for monitoring and evaluating EU policieson freedom, security and justice

1. MONITORING

1.1. The Tampere scoreboard

The Tampere European Council in 1999 invited the Commission to compile a scoreboard to keep implementation of policies on freedom, security and justice under continuous review. The scoreboard would specifically keep track of progress made with implementation of the measures and compliance with the deadlines set in the Amsterdam Treaty, the Vienna Action Plan and the Tampere programme. In response, the Commission produced its first scoreboard in March 2000, followed by regular updates every six months taking into account the objectives set by the European Councils in Laeken (2001), Seville (2002) and Thessaloniki (June 2003). The last Tampere scoreboard was presented in June 2004, marking the end of the first five-year period (1999-2004).

The scoreboards indicated the objectives and deadlines set at Tampere and in each case the responsibilities assigned to launch, advance and complete the process. To provide a clear view of the progress made in each area, the scoreboard showed the outstanding proposals and initiatives presented, progress in Council and European Parliament proceedings and the work planned. A specific section of the scoreboard focused on transposition of the instruments adopted.

1.2. Reviewing implementation of EU legislation

1.2.1. Instruments adopted under the EC Treaty

Implementation by the Member States of Community legislation concerning free movement of persons, visas, asylum, immigration, judicial cooperation in civil matters and citizens’ rights adopted under the European Community Treaty is monitored by the Commission. If a Member State fails to comply with its legislative obligations, the Commission can then initiate infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty and may bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

Apart from normal application of the monitoring mechanism under Articles 226 of the EC Treaty, monitoring implementation of the instruments adopted under Title IV of the EC Treaty is not systematic, although it is usual practice. For example, none of the four directives adopted on illegal migration provides for a monitoring report by the Commission.

Some reports, such as the evaluation of the derogation for issuing visas to members of the Olympic family[14], go beyond mere analysis of implementation and contain information on results. There are other examples concerning instruments adopted under Title II of the Treaty, such as reports[15] relating to free movement of Union citizens or reports[16] on their electoral rights in municipal and European Parliament elections.

1.2.2. Instruments adopted under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union

In the case of instruments adopted under Title VI of the EU Treaty concerning police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, there is no equivalent compliance mechanism allowing the Commission to exercise its institutional powers as guardian of the Treaties.

For all Framework Decisions adopted by the Council, it is compulsory for Member States to transmit a detailed set of national implementing measures to the Commission and to the Council. Based on this information, the Commission then issues a report (e.g. 2002 Framework Decision on combating terrorism[17]). allowing the Council to debate the need for further measures in the field concerned. The Council generally expresses its position in a final report.

For some Framework Decisions, the Commission repeats or updates its monitoring exercise (e.g. “Victims” Framework Decision[18]).

Similarly, the Commission systematically monitors common positions and issues a monitoring report on national implementing measures. The Commission has also taken the initiative to issue specific reports on certain Council Decisions imposing no monitoring obligation such as those relating to Eurojust[19]

This monitoring exercise deals only with the legal transposition aspect and rarely includes details on the practical implementation of instruments . Such assessments of legal transposition answer the following questions: are the implementing measures effective, correct and in line with the Framework Decision? Are they clear and do they provide legal certainty? Do they fully apply the instrument and comply with the time limit for transposition?

In some cases this exercise has been backed up by an initial assessment of practical implementation in the Member States and of the tangible results of the national legislation. For example, in the case of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant[20], some of the practical results of the implementing measures were included in the monitoring report, such as the question of effectiveness and rapidity of surrender. The Commission’s report also included some preliminary figures, such as the number of warrants issued or the average time taken to execute a warrant, which mainly illustrated the difficulty of obtaining adequate statistics in this field.

1.3. Information-gathering mechanisms on policy implementation

1.3.1. Existing mechanisms

Following the call by the 2001 Laeken European Council to set up an enhanced exchange of information in the field of immigration and asylum, the Commission launched an information and consultation procedure with a “Committee on Immigration and Asylum” (CIA) at its heart. The CIA is made up of experts from the Member States but also frequently provides a forum for representatives of civil society, such as European social partners and the UNHCR, to present their views on pertinent immigration and asylum issues.

In the field of integration, the " National Contact Points on Integration " (NCP) play an important role in monitoring progress across policy fields and in ensuring that integration efforts at national and EU level support each other. They convey key results to the CIA.

A European Migration Network (EMN) was set up in 2002 as a preparatory measure in response to the need to improve exchanges of information on all aspects of migration and asylum. Its primary objective is to provide the Community and the Member States with objective, reliable and comparable information in these fields by systematically collecting and storing existing data and information from Member States and carrying out national and European level analysis. At present, the EMN consists of national contact points designated by the Member States.

1.3.2. Mechanisms in preparation

In the field of asylum, a Communication[21] on strengthened practical cooperation proposed bringing into operation a system for sharing expertise , resources and knowledge between key stakeholders, as a tool for strengthening common approaches to implementation of the first-stage legislative instruments of the European asylum system, building - amongst others - on existing mechanisms, such as the EURASIL group.

In September 2005 the Commission tabled a proposal for a Regulation on Community statistics on migration and international protection . The Regulation will improve statistical knowledge of migration-related phenomena by specifying the data to be collected, the timetables to be applied, the definitions and the quality standards.

In October 2005 the Commission tabled a proposal for a Council Decision on the establishment of a mutual information procedure on national measures taken in the areas of asylum and immigration which could affect other Member States. The proposal is based on the recognition that the absence of border checks in the Schengen area and the gradual development of common EU immigration and asylum policies require timely exchanges of information and discussion of national measures taken on asylum and immigration.

1.4. Monitoring implementation of The Hague Programme

The Hague Multi-Annual Programme (2005-2009) and the Action Plan implementing it invited the Commission to present an annual report on implementation of these two instruments to the Council (the "Scoreboard plus").

The "Scoreboard plus" will aim predominantly at assessing proper and adequate transposition of the legislative acts adopted and effective implementation of the measures agreed. In concrete terms, "Scoreboard plus" will assess the outcome of both (a) the significant political progress achieved at the point of adoption at EU level and (b) implementation at national level of measures related to freedom, security and justice.

This structure will bring visibility to monitoring and provide a comprehensive overview of implementation of the Action Plan, meeting the requirements of the European Council in The Hague Programme. It will increase transparency and visibility and improve and facilitate implementation. The first "Scoreboard plus" is presented in parallel to this Communication, one year after adoption of the Action Plan implementing The Hague Programme .

2. EVALUATION

This section briefly describes the state of play with evaluation in the field of freedom, security and justice, depending on the subject-matter: (1) programmes, (2) legislation or (3) policies[22]. Evaluations on freedom, security and justice mainly focus on individual policy instruments , be they legislative or financial. As in other areas, evaluation of policies (defined as a coherent set of instruments serving the same coherent objective) is still developing . As a consequence, evaluation activities are currently very diverse (internal or external evaluations, annual progress reports, peer reviews, etc.) and very different in scope. This results in a lack of comparable evaluation results across policies and of a true overview of the results achieved in establishing an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

The evaluation mechanism put forward in this Communication aims at tackling this issue. It provides a platform for exhaustive presentation and comparability of existing evaluation results, and identification of any information gaps. Whilst taking into account the fact that evaluation is more advanced for some activities than others, it will allow the establishment of a common set of minimum evaluation requirements across the different policies.

2.1. Evaluation of Community programmes

Evaluation of programmes is well developed within the Commission, including in the area of freedom, security and justice, where major programmes such as the European Refugee Fund, AGIS and DAPHNE are regularly evaluated[23]. Available evaluation results demonstrate that whilst the immediate results of funding programmes are easily identified and measured, their longer-term effects are sometimes more difficult to grasp. In this context, the Commission proposals for the 2007-2013 programmes on freedom, security and justice establish a better link between the programmes' specific objectives and the overall political objectives. This will have an impact on the evaluation framework for these programmes, in particular through assessment of their consistency with other instruments (legislative or other) in the same field.

2.2. Evaluation of legislation

Contrary to the evaluation of programmes, evaluation of legislation is a more recent development in the case of freedom, security and justice. Recent examples include the evaluation of the European Arrest Warrant[24] (2005), the economic evaluation of the Data Protection Directive[25] (2005) and the on-going evaluations of the Directive on minimum standards for the reception of asylum-seekers[26] and of the Brussels I Regulation[27]. Also, the introduction of impact assessments of EU legislation has led to systematic ex-ante appraisal, which should greatly facilitate further interim and/or ex-post evaluation. In this context, systematic scrutiny of legislative proposals and other draft instruments to ensure that they are compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights should serve the same purpose[28].

2.3. Evaluation of policies

2.3.1. Mechanism for Schengen evaluation

The Schengen evaluation system, first established in the intergovernmental Schengen framework and then integrated into the European Union framework[29], assesses correct implementation of the Schengen acquis by participating Member States through a peer review mechanism, including visits to Member States . It has issued restricted reports, given details of cases of non-compliance with existing rules and practices and made further recommendations. This mechanism applies to both Community and third pillar measures.

When internal border controls with and between new EU Member States are lifted, the Commission will submit a “ proposal to supplement the existing Schengen evaluation mechanism with a supervisory mechanism ”, as requested by The Hague Programme.

2.3.2. Mechanism for the fight against organised crime

Joint Action 97/827/JHA, adopted by the Council on 5 December 1997, established a mechanism for evaluating the application and implementation at national level of international undertakings in the fight against organised crime [30]. Two rounds of evaluation have already been completed and two others are ongoing. The first round focused on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, on which a report was subsequently released on 1 August 2001[31]. The second assessed instruments dealing with law enforcement and drug trafficking. Finally, the third and fourth rounds, not yet completed, are evaluating exchanges of information and intelligence between the Member States and Europol and the European Arrest Warrant respectively. The 1997 mechanism is operated by teams of experts designated by Member States, assisted by the General-Secretariat of the Council, with the involvement of the Commission. It is based on study visits and allows an in-depth examination of how instruments or policies are working in practice.

The Commission believes that although this mechanism has proved useful and effective , it nevertheless has some shortcomings , in particular the total duration of the process, the scope limited to only matters related to organised crime and the limited dissemination of the evaluation results.

2.3.3. Mechanism for the fight against terrorism[32]

Following the conclusions of the extraordinary meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 20 September 2001, the Council set up a procedure for peer assessment of national anti-terrorist arrangements in the framework of international cooperation between Member States. The first round of evaluations started in 2003 and focused on exchanges of information. Evaluation teams are made up of national experts and their reports are confidential.

2.3.4. Evaluation of the EU Action Plan on Drugs

In 2004 the Commission carried out the final evaluation of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan on Drugs for 2000-2004[33], in cooperation with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and Europol. The evaluation exercise provided an overview of the drugs situation in the European Union over the reference period. The Strategy and the Action Plan included a wide range of drug-related measures, mainly within the competence of the Member States. Their impact on the drug situation in the European Union could not be considered, mainly because the EU Strategy and Action Plan failed to establish impact indicators.

The EU Action Plan on Drugs for 2005-2008 takes into account the evaluation of the preceding Action Plan and has been designed from the outset to facilitate full evaluation. Accordingly, it clearly allocates responsibilities for each action and includes specific assessment tools, indicators and schedules for implementation. The Action Plan provides for the Commission to present annual reviews of implementation of the Plan plus a final evaluation in 2008, with a view to preparing the next Plan. The first annual progress review will be presented in autumn 2006.

2.3.5. Mechanism for evaluating respect of fundamental rights

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia studies the extent and development of the phenomena of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism and analyses their consequences and effects. Its findings are presented in annual reports. Once established, the Agency on Fundamental Rights, with its wider mandate, is expected to play a key role in evaluating respect of fundamental rights.

The network of fundamental rights experts was created by the European Commission in 2002 in response to a recommendation in the European Parliament's report[34] on the state of fundamental rights in the European Union. The network assesses the fundamental rights situation through an annual report, on the basis of an analysis of the legislation, the case-law and the administrative practice of the national authorities of the Member States and in the institutions of the Union. The reference points for the evaluation are the rights set out in the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights. The results are published annually (so far, in 2003, 2004 and 2005).

ANNEX 3 Glossary

Activity : A coherent area of action with objectives and resources. In other words, "Activities" consist of well-defined and delimited measures to which inputs are allocated and converted into outputs.

The policy for the development of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice has been divided into different Activity-Based Management (ABB) activities such as:

- Activity 1802 “External borders, visa policy and free movement of persons”,

- Activity 1803 “Common immigration and asylum policies”,

- Activity 1804 “Citizenship and fundamental rights”,

- Activity 1805 “Law enforcement cooperation and prevention of and fight against general organised crime”,

- Activity 1806 “Establishing a genuine European area of justice in criminal and civil matters”,

- Activity 1807 “Coordination in the field of drugs”.

Evaluation : “Judgement of interventions according to their results, impacts and the needs they aim to satisfy”[35]. It is a process undertaken by the Commission in order to identify what can be learned for policy and planning.

Ex ante/ex post evaluation

Ex ante evaluation: Evaluation performed before implementation of a measure. For the purposes of the Commission, ex ante evaluation is defined as a process that supports the preparation of proposals for new or renewed Community activities. Its purpose is to gather information and carry out analyses that help to define objectives and to ensure that these objectives can be met, that the instruments used are cost-effective and that reliable subsequent evaluation will be possible.

Intermediate (or mid-term) evaluation: Evaluation performed during implementation of a measure. If the evaluation extends throughout the period of implementation, this is also called "on-going evaluation". This type of evaluation critically appraises the first outputs and results, in order to assess the quality of monitoring and implementation of the measure. The main focus is to help to prepare adjustments and reprogramming and to provide input for the preliminary deliberations on the future of the measures.

Ex post evaluation: Evaluation conducted either on or after completion of a measure. The main interest is overall assessment of the measure, in particular by analysing the impact achieved and examining its efficiency. The objective is to understand the reasons for success or failure and the sustainability of the results and impact. It also tries to draw conclusions that can be applied generally to other measures.

Impact: A general term used to describe the effects of a measure on society. Impact can be either positive or negative and foreseen or unforeseen. Initial effects are called outcomes/results, whilst impact is usually longer-term.

Impact assessment: Impact assessment is about examining the likely economic, social and environmental impact of the Commission's proposals. It identifies and assesses the issue at stake and the objectives pursued. It identifies the main options for achieving the objectives and analyses their likely impact. It outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each option as well as synergies and trade-offs.

Indicators : A characteristic or attribute which can be measured to assess an activity in terms of its outputs or impacts. Output indicators are normally straightforward. Impact indicators may be more difficult to obtain, and it is often appropriate to rely on indirect indicators as proxies. Indicators can be either quantitative or qualitative.

Monitoring: A continuous process of examining delivery in terms of adoption and implementation of different measures, especially legislation. It is not to be confused with programme monitoring, which consists of examining the delivery of programme outputs to the intended beneficiaries. Evaluation, on the other hand, is carried out at a discrete point in time, and consists of an in-depth study. Monitoring generates data which can be used in evaluations.

Outcomes/results: The intermediate effects of a measure.

Policy: A set of activities, which may differ in type (programmes, measures, procedures, laws or rules) and beneficiaries or target groups, directed towards common general objectives or goals. Unlike projects and programmes, a policy is not usually delimited in terms of time or budget.

Policy area : Within the EU the concept policy may designate various scope and levels of complexity, ranging from an overall Commission strategy or objective over a policy area to an ABB-activity. In this context, a policy will normally embrace a range of instruments At Commission level, the ABB-activities (215 altogether) have been grouped into some 30 policy areas, closely identifiable with Directorates-General. This Communication deals with policy area 18: Freedom, security and justice.

Policy instruments : A set of techniques by which public authorities attempt to ensure support and to effect or prevent social change. In this sense, there is a strong emphasis on the dynamic evolving nature of policies, with individual policy instruments being added, withdrawn or redesigned over time. The variety of available policy instruments includes, for example, legislation such as regulations or directives and may involve resource commitments, for example in the form of operational programmes; they also include Communications, action plans, etc. However, policy instruments differ significantly in the way in which they bring about results and impacts and the timescales over which these can be expected.

Programme : A set of organised but often varied actions (a programme may encompass several different projects, measures and processes) directed towards achieving specific objectives, often with a definite time schedule and budget.

[1] Anexo 1 a las conclusiones de la Presidencia del Consejo Europeo de Bruselas, noviembre de 2004.

[2] Plan de Acción del Consejo y la Comisión por el que se aplica el Programa de la Haya sobre refuerzo de la libertad, la seguridad y la justicia en la Unión Europea (OJC 198,12.8.2005,p.1).

[3] El plan de acción contempla también una Comunicación sobre la evaluación sistemática, objetiva e imparcial de la aplicación de las políticas de la UE en el ámbito de la justicia, con vistas a reforzar la confianza mutua dentro del pleno respeto del poder judicial. A finales de este año la Comisión presentará otra Comunicación que aborde este problema detalladamente, de conformidad con los principios generales establecidos en la presente Comunicación.

[4] COM(2006) 333

[5] SEC(2000)1051.

[6] Véase apartado 0.

[7] La realización de estadísticas comunitarias se rige por las normas establecidas en el Reglamento del Consejo sobre estadísticas comunitarias, y las medidas relativas a la elaboración de estadísticas comunitarias se ejecutan según el Programa estadístico comunitario y sus programas anuales, respetando los principios establecidos en el Código de buenas prácticas de las estadísticas europeas.

[8] Con este fin, la Comisión prevé adoptar un plan de la UE para el desarrollo de una estrategia coherente y de gran alcance para valorar la delincuencia y la justicia penal. El objetivo en último término es disponer de estadísticas comunitarias basadas en unas definiciones y en unos mecanismos de recogida de datos e información armonizados.

[9] En la tercera fase del mecanismo propuesto, el mecanismo de evaluación de la revisión inter pares descrito en el anexo 2, 2.3.2 podría continuar aplicándose. En función de la evolución del marco institucional actual, la Comisión podría gestionar este mecanismo en una fase posterior. En cualquier caso, la Comisión respaldará este mecanismo con sus propias evaluaciones estratégicas detalladas en los ámbitos contemplados en el título VI del Tratado de la UE.

[10] Véase apartado 0.

[11] Véase sección 3.3.

[12] Asylum acceptance rates can at the moment only be roughly estimated with the data currently available, as asylum decisions in one year often relate to applications made in earlier years.

[13] With particular regard to preparedness and response to terrorist attacks.

[14] Report on the functioning of the derogation system introduced by Regulation 1295/2003 regarding measures envisaged to facilitate the procedures for applying for and issuing visas for members of the Olympic family taking part in the 2004 Olympic or Paralympic Games in Athens (SEC(2005) 1051). This report was written by the Commission on the basis of information provided by the Greek authorities.

[15] Reports from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 93/96 (Right of residence), COM(1999) 127 final and COM(2003) 101 final.

[16] Reports on the application of Directive 93/109/EC: Right of EU citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals to vote in European Parliament elections, COM(97) 731 final and COM(2000) 843, or Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Directive 94/80/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections, COM(2002) 260 final.

[17] Report from the Commission based on Article 11 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism, COM(2004) 409 final, 8.6.2004.

[18] Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings.

[19] Report from the Commission on the legal transposition of the Council Decision of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime, COM(2004) 457 final, 6.7.2004.

[20] Report from the Commission based on Article 34 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (COM(2005) 63 final), p.2, paragraph 2: “The evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission for this report are, firstly, the general criteria normally used nowadays to evaluate the implementation of framework decisions (practical effectiveness, clarity and legal certainty, full application and compliance with the time limit for transposal), and, secondly, criteria specific to the arrest warrant, principally the fact that it is a judicial instrument, its effectiveness and its rapidity.”

[21] COM(2006) 67 final.

[22] Evaluations of agencies and external bodies have not been included, for example the evaluation of the draft Council Decision transforming the European Police College (CEPOL) into an EU body, the evaluation of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and the evaluation of the functioning of the European Judicial Network (EJN) in civil and commercial matters.

[23] The results of these evaluations are available online at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/justice_home/evaluation/dg_coordination_evaluation_annexe_en.htm.

[24] Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States.

[25] Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.

[26] Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum-seekers.

[27] Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

[28] SEC(2001) 380/3, COM(2005) 172.

[29] Decision 26 DEF 1998 of the Schengen Executive Committee.

[30] For further information see: http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33053.htm.

[31] Final report on the first evaluation exercise - mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (2001/C 216/02).

[32] Council Decision 2002/996/JHA of 28 November 2002 establishing a mechanism for evaluating the legal systems and their implementation at national level in the fight against terrorism.

[33] COM(2004) 707.

[34] 2000/2231(INI).

[35] Communication on Evaluation (SEC(2000) 1051):http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/evaluation/keydocuments_en.htm.

Evaluaciones políticas estratégicas

Sistema de recopilación e intercambio de información

Mecanismo de información

Conjunto de fichas de datos

Informe de evaluación

Informe de evaluación detallado específico

3 fases

Resultados

Mandato político: Planificación plurianual

Evaluación de la aplicación y de los efectos de todas las medidas (Informe general de evaluación)

-

Evaluación de los resultados de las medidas

Aplicación nacional de la medida, p.ej. elaborando listas electorales, etc.

Resultado inmediato de la medida

3

Seguimiento de la situación de la adopción y aplicación de las medidas

Resultado: Número de ciudadanos de la Unión residentes en un Estado miembro del que no sean nacionales que ejercen su derecho de sufragio activo y pasivo en las elecciones al PE.

Impacto: Incremento de la participación electoral; mayor legitimidad y representatividad del PE

Consecuencias/

impacto de la medida

4

El derecho nacional traspone la medida con arreglo a lo dispuesto en la Directiva

Aplicación de la medida por los Estados miembros

2

Ejemplo:

Directiva del Consejo relativa al ejercicio del derecho de sufragio activo y pasivo en las elecciones al Parlamento Europeo por parte de los ciudadanos de la Unión residentes en un Estado miembro del que no sean nacionales

decisiones

de toma de

medida a través

Adopción de la

1