SK

Brusel, 28.6.2006

KOM(2006) 332 v konečnom znení

OZNÁMENIE KOMISIE RADE A EURÓPSKEMU PARLAMENTU

Hodnotenie politík EÚ v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti

{SEK(2006) 815}

OZNÁMENIE KOMISIE RADE A EURÓPSKEMU PARLAMENTU

Hodnotenie politík EÚ v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti

1. Úvod

1. V Haagskom programe (2004) [1] sa uvádza, že „hodnotenie realizácie, ako aj účinkov všetkých opatrení je podľa názoru Rady dôležité pre účinnosť činnosti Únie“. V akčnom pláne implementácie Haagskeho programu (2005) [2], ktorým sa vymedzuje politický rámec pre aktivity Európskej únie v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti na obdobie nasledujúcich piatich rokov, sa ustanovuje, že Komisia prijme v roku 2006 všeobecné oznámenie o vytvorení mechanizmu hodnotenia v tejto oblasti na úrovni EÚ [3].

2. Vedúci predstavitelia štátov a vlád definovali hodnotenie implementácie ako kľúčový nástroj, pomocou ktorého sa zabezpečí, že dôležité výsledky Európskej únie a jej členských štátov v oblasti budovania priestoru slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti budú implementované primeraným spôsobom, prípadne budú predmetom neustálej kontroly, aby splnili skutočné očakávania európskych občanov.

3. V Haagskom programe sa zdôraznila dôležitosť hodnotenia a v tejto súvislosti sa prijali nasledujúce ciele: 1) naďalej zlepšovať koncepcie politík, programov a nástrojov identifikáciou problémov a prekážok pri ich implementácii, 2) vymedziť systematickejšie pravidlá finančnej zodpovednosti a kontroly politík, 3) podporovať vzdelávanie a výmenu osvedčených postupov a 4) participovať na rozvoji kultúry hodnotenia v Únii.

Vzhľadom na 1) mandát, ktorý bol udelený Komisii v Haagskom programe a jeho akčnom pláne, 2) fragmentáciu existujúcich mechanizmov monitorovania a hodnotenia a 3) potrebu sprostredkovať podrobné informácie o implementácii a výsledkoch politík všetkým zúčastneným stranám sa Komisia domnieva, že nastal čas pre vytvorenie koherentného a komplexného mechanizmu hodnotenia politík EÚ v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti v duchu partnerstva s členskými štátmi a inštitúciami EÚ.

Takýto mechanizmus bude zahŕňať monitorovanie implementácie (ako sa uvádza v oznámení o „posilňovaní slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti v Európskej únii: správa o implementácii Haagskeho programu za rok 2005“, ďalej len „Scoreboard plus“) [4] a hodnotenie výsledkov politík.

2. Koncept hodnotenia

4. Je potrebné rozlišovať medzi zásadami monitorovania implementácie a zásadami hodnotenia:

· Monitorovanie implementácie spočíva v preskúmaní pokroku realizácie politík.

· V oznámení o hodnotení, ktoré predložila Komisia v roku 2000 [5], sa hodnotenie definuje ako „posúdenie intervencií (verejných činností) z hľadiska ich výsledkov, vplyvu a z hľadiska potrieb, ktoré majú uspokojiť“. Hlavnou úlohou hodnotenia je poskytnúť tvorcom politiky vstupné informácie o vplyve a účinnosti planovaných a realizovaných aktivít.

5. Komisia chápe mechanizmus uvedený v akčnom pláne ako prostriedok monitorovania implementácie a hodnotenia konkrétnych výsledkov politík v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti. V tomto kontexte prekračuje hodnotenie tento rámec. Vychádza z monitorovania implementácie politík, pričom skúma účinky implementácie, ako sú načrtnuté ďalej. Je to v súlade s Haagskym programom, pretože koncept „hodnotenia implementácie, ako aj účinkov všetkých opatrení“ zahŕňa monitorovanie implementácie aj hodnotenie výsledkov prijatých opatrení.

6. Toto je pre Komisiu hlavný dôvod, prečo navrhuje vytvoriť súbor koherentných a komplexných opatrení s dvoma nosnými piliermi: „Scoreboard plus“ pre monitorovanie implementácie a mechanizmus hodnotenia navrhovaný v tomto oznámení.

7. Mechanizmus predložený v tomto oznámení sa zakladá na tejto komplexnej definícii, ktorá podľa názoru Komisie umožňuje plne pochopiť kvantitu a kvalitu výsledkov dosiahnutých v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti. Takýto mechanizmus by fungoval v súlade so zásadami stanovenými v Haagskom programe. V konečnom dôsledku by sa zabezpečením systematickej spätnej väzby o výsledkoch hodnotenia v kontexte rozhodovacieho procesu mala zlepšiť tvorba politiky.

Schéma 1: Hodnotenie v priebehu rozhodovacieho procesu

(...PICT...)

3. Hodnotenie politík EÚ v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti – Výzvy, ktoré je potrebné riešiť

3.1. Komplexné a ambiciózne politické ciele a opatrenia

8. Oblasť slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti je jednou z najrôznorodejších politických oblastí EÚ. Ciele, ktoré sa majú dosiahnúť, zahŕňajú niektoré z najaktuálnejších otázok, akými sú voľný pohyb osôb, terorizmus a organizovaná trestná činnosť, policajná a justičná spolupráca, azylová a migračná politika, pri dodržiavaní základných práv a podporovaní práv občanov Únie. Častokrát si rešpektovanie vnútroštátnej suverenity vyžaduje kompromisy na úrovni EÚ alebo komplikuje implementáciu. Akýkoľvek nový mechanizmus hodnotenia preto bude musieť zohľadniť tento politický kontext.

9. Dosiahnutie komplexných a ambicióznych politických cieľov ďalej komplikuje skutočnosť, že právny rámec je niekedy zavádzajúci: je kombináciou rozhodovacích a zosúlaďovacích postupov.

Navrhovaný mechanizmus hodnotenia musí byť progresívny a musí zahŕňať možnosti ďalšieho rozvoja a konsolidácie, aby bolo možné obsiahnuť túto problematiku v jej komplexnosti.

3.2. Časový harmonogram

10. Vzhľadom na špecifickú úlohu Komisie a rozhodovací proces v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti si rôzne politiky vyžadujú často rôzny časový rámec, skôr ako ich možno rozvinúť a ako sa stanú plne funkčnými. Je preto dôležité pristupovať k prípadom jednotlivo, aby bolo možné určiť správnu mieru analýzy pre každú jednotlivú politiku. V prípade všetkých politík sa zohľadňujú okamžité a priebežné výsledky, ale analýza praktického vplyvu by pre niektoré z nich mohla byť ťažšia (napr. drogová alebo migračná politika).

Navrhovaný mechanizmus hodnotenia by mal umožňovať dostatočnú flexibilitu pri diferencovanom hĺbkovom hodnotení špecifických politík a zohľadňovať stupeň ich rozvoja a konsolidácie.

Z tohto dôvodu je zrejme primerané zamerať sa prinajmenšom v prvom štádiu na okamžité a priebežné výsledky. V dlhodobom horizonte musí byť konečným cieľom mechanizmu hodnotenia identifikácia celkového vplyvu politík.

3.3. Zapojenie inštitúcií a zainteresovaných strán

11. Ďaľším osobitným aspektom v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti je vplyv politiky na zainteresované strany. Akýkoľvek mechanizmus hodnotenia v tejto oblasti musí zvážiť očakávania a priority zainteresovaných strán, a najmä potrebu zachovávania dôvernosti informácií v niektorých politických oblastiach, ako sú terorizmus a organizovaná trestná činnosť.

12. V duchu partnerstva bude Komisia počas prípravy hodnotiacej správy a po nej konzultovať a diskutovať s členskými štátmi a inštitúciami EÚ. Požiada preto členské štáty a inštitúcie EÚ, aby za účelom uľahčenia dialógu s Komisiou určili kontaktné miesta. Hodnotiaca správa [6] bude verejne prístupná a určená členským štátom a inštitúciám EÚ.

13. Rada a členské štáty spolu s Komisiou budú hlavnými aktérmi v navrhovanom mechanizme hodnotenia. Do mechanizmu hodnotenia bude v súlade s inštitucionálnymi právomocami a záväzkami úzko zapojený aj Európsky parlament. Národné parlamenty budú takisto zapojené do hodnotenia pravidelných správ.

14. Výbor regiónov a Európsky hospodársky a sociálny výbor budú zapojené do prípravy a implementácie mechanizmu hodnotenia v oblastiach, na ktoré sa vzťahuje Zmluva o ES. Hodnotiace správy sa výborom predložia vždy po prijatí.

15. Agentúry, ako napríklad Agentúra Eúropskej únie pre základné práva, Monitorovacie centrum pre drogy a drogovú závislosť (MCDDZ), Europol, Eurojust alebo Európska agentúra pre riadenie operačnej spolupráce na vonkajších hraniciach, budú zohrávať v tomto mechanizme dôležitú úlohu. Po prvé, pri hodnotení budú poskytovať informácie a prípadne analýzy. Po druhé, Komisia bude s nimi konzultovať ohľadom hodnotiacich správ.

16. V tejto súvislosti bude veľmi hodnotný prínos občianskej spoločnosti. Komisia zabezpečí, aby názory občianskej spoločnosti boli zohľadnené a vytvorí primeraný mechanizmus, prostredníctvom ktorého sa občianska spoločnosti bude podieľať na hodnoteniach všetkých politík v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti.

Navrhovaný mechanizmus hodnotenia by mal zahŕňať mechanizmy transparentnej konzultácie, ktoré by sa mohli používať takisto pri zhromažďovaní a vzájomnej kontrole dôležitých informácií.

3.4. Dostupnosť štatistických údajov

17. Dostupnosť štatistických údajov [7] a potreba analytickej kapacity je kľúčovým komponentom pri vytváraní systému hodnotenia. Hoci sú štatistiky pre niektoré činnosti (napr. drogová politika) dobre vyvinuté, v iných oblastiach, akú sú trestná činnosť a trestné súdnictvo [8], je potrebné pracovať ďalej. Štatistické údaje o vývoji potrieb, ktorými sa zaoberajú politiky v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti, budú potrebné ako základné údaje pre posúdenie skutočnosti, či sa existujúce potreby vďaka politike postupom času znižujú alebo zvyšujú, a nakoniec preto, aby bolo možné prijať závery o vplyve politík. Zlepšenie by malo nastať v troch oblastiach: kvalita, dostupnosť a analýza. V tejto súvislosti bude zohrávať osobitnú úlohu práca agentúr, ako sú Európske monitorovacie centrum pre drogy a drogovú závislosť, Eurojust, Europol a v budúcnosti Agentúra základných práv. K tomuto cieľu prispejú takisto výskumné projekty a siete.

Paralelne s vytváraním navrhovaného systému hodnotenia sa preto bude musieť zlepšovať kvalita, dostupnosť a analýza štatistík v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti.

4. Hodnotenie politík EÚ v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti – Návrh mechanizmu strategického hodnotenia

4.1. Opis mechanizmu hodnotenia

18. Navrhovaný mechanizmus strategického hodnotenia v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti sa zakladá na konsolidovaných výsledkoch dosiahnutých v iných oblastiach politiky EÚ. Takýto mechanizmus by sa zakladal na súčasných postupoch, ako sa opisujú v prílohe 2, a v špecifickom prípade programov financovania by využíval informácie vyplývajúce z existujúcich požiadaviek na hodnotenie. Takisto v ďalších oblastiach, v ktorých sú už informácie dostupné, sa bude venovať osobitná pozornosť využívaniu existujúcich údajov a tomu, aby sa zabránilo duplicite.

19. Navrhuje sa progresívny trojfázový mechanizmus:

(1) Po prvé, v tomto návrhu sa ustanovuje, že bude vytvorený systém zhromažďovania a zdieľania informácií.

(2) Po druhé, tento mechanizmus zahŕňa mechanizmus podávania správ, ktorý konsoliduje, využíva a analyzuje tieto informácie.

(3) Po tretie, tento mechanizmus dopĺňajú cielené hĺbkové strategické hodnotenia.

Schéma 2: Tri fázy mechanizmu

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

20. Mechanizmus bude komplexný a bude zahŕňať všetky politiky v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti [9].

21. Hodnotiace správy [10] sa budú predkladať Rade a Európskemu parlamentu a takisto Európskemu hospodárskemu a sociálnemu výboru a Výboru regiónov a primeraným spôsobom sa sprístupnia širšej verejnosti aj prostredníctvom verejných podujatí usporiadaných ad hoc.

22. Podporovaním podávania správ a šírenia výsledkov hodnotenia sa mechanizmus usiluje o využívanie aktuálnych výsledkov na úrovni prijímania rozhodnutí.

23. Mechanizmus zodpovedá súčasným usmerneniam Komisie o hodnotení a bude fungovať v súlade so všeobecnými zásadami.

4.1.1. Systém zhromaždovania a zdieľania informácií

24. Systém zhromažďovania a zdieľania informácií sa bude zakladať na „informačných listoch“ (jeden pre každú politickú oblasť), ktoré vyplnia príslušné orgány v členských štátoch. V oblastiach, v ktorých sú informácie už dostupné v podobnom formáte, vyplní Komisia informačné listy, pokiaľ to bude možné, vopred. Informačné listy budú zároveň predložené na konzultáciu s príslušnými zainteresovanými stranami [11] a občianskou spoločnosťou. Konzultácie budú špecifické pre každú politickú oblasť a budú sa zakladať na existujúcich sieťach a mechanizmoch konzultácie, pričom sa v niektorých oblastiach zohľadnia požiadavky na zachovanie dôvernosti.

25. V informačných listoch bude uvedený celkový politický cieľ pre každú oblasť a zoznam hlavných nástrojov (legislatívnych, nelegislatívnych a finančných), ktoré prispievajú k dosiahnutiu tohto cieľa. Mechanizmus by mal poskytovať jasný prehľad o dosiahnutých výsledkoch.

26. V informačných listoch bude takisto uvedený pre každú politickú oblasť súbor ukazovateľov. Tieto ukazovatele budú jasne spojené s celkovým cieľom danej politickej oblasti. Informačné listy budú neoddeliteľnou súčasťou konzultačného procesu, ktorý bude nasledovať po uverejnení tohto dokumentu a bude dokončený partnerstvom s členskými štátmi. Príklady navrhovaných informačných listov sú uvedené v prílohe 1 k tomuto oznámeniu.

27. Komisia má v úmysle požiadať každý členský štát, aby určil kontaktné miesta na vnútroštátnej úrovni. Kontaktné miesta budú zohrávať dôležitú úlohu v súvislosti s koordináciou odpovedí na vnútroštátnej úrovni a spoluprácou pri konzultáciách s útvarmi Komisie.

28. Pokiaľ ide o právne predpisy EÚ, zamerajú sa ukazovatele a ratingový systém v informačných listoch na konkrétne výsledky uplatňovania právnych predpisov v praxi, a nie na úroveň transpozície vnútroštátnych právnych predpisov alebo vplyv právnych predpisov EÚ na vnútroštátne právne systémy. Transpozícia vnútroštátnych právnych predpisov či vplyv právnych predpisov EÚ na vnútroštátne právne systémy sú hlavnými cieľmi „Scoreboard plus“, ktorým sa hodnotí skôr transpozícia a implementácia, ako miera dosiahnutia cieľov.

29. Pokiaľ ide o programy financovania EÚ, budú sa informačné listy zakladať na správach o implementácii a hodnotiacich správach, ktoré boli vypracované za účelom splnenia záväzkov stanovených v nariadení o rozpočtových pravidlách a príslušnom právnom základe. Očakáva sa, že informácie o programoch financovania požadované v informačných listoch, budú ľahko dostupné a akékoľvek dodatočné príspevky členských štátov by mali byť preto minimálne.

4.1.2. Mechanizmus podávania správ

30. Po prijatí informačných listov a konzultácii so zainteresovanými stranami vyhodnotí Komisia získané informácie a vypracuje „hodnotiacu správu“, v ktorej skonsoliduje a zanalyzuje poskytnuté informácie. Táto hodnotiaca správa bude takisto zahŕňať politické odporúčania týkajúce sa rôznych príslušných politických oblastí.

31. Hlavným cieľom tohto kroku je zhodnotiť politiky v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti realizované na úrovni EÚ a určiť oblasti, v ktorých by sa mali uskutočniť hĺbkové strategické hodnotenia.

4.1.3. Strategické hodnotenia politík

32. Po hodnotiacej správe a ďalšej konzultácii možno vo vybraných oblastiach uskutočniť hĺbkové strategické hodnotenia politík. Tieto hodnotenia sa zamerajú na včasné podávanie užitočných informácií ako vstupných informácií pre prípadné politické rozhodnutia v každej politickej oblasti.

33. Strategické hodnotenia by mali byť prínosom pre súčasné postupy, ako sa opisujú v prílohe 2, konkrétne:

(a) zameraním sa skôr na politiky (alebo koherentné podmnožiny politík), ako na individuálne nástroje (napr. hodnotenie spoločnej imigračnej politiky),

(b) analýzou súdržnosti rôznych nástrojov v rámci danej politiky (napr. ako podporujú a uľahčujú finančné programy implementáciu právnych predpisov EÚ v danej oblasti),

(c) prieskumom otázky, ako prispieva určitá politika k celkovému cieľu vybudovania priestoru slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti.

(d) určením celkovej miery dosiahnutia tohto všeobecného cieľa a

(e) posúdením dosiahnutých výsledkov pri plnení hlavného cieľa v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti (napr. ochrana základných práv).

4.2. Frekvencia a následné opatrenia

34. Stanovenie frekvencie umožňuje monitorovať pokrok v pravidelných intervaloch a porovnávať zistené výsledky. Pokiaľ ide o časový harmonogram, navrhuje sa, aby sa toto hodnotenie („informačné listy“ a „hodnotiaca správa“) vykonávalo dvakrát za každých päť rokov. Komisia bude podľa možnosti využívať dostupné informácie.

35. V návrhu sa zohľadní fakt, že tento mechanizmus:

(a) by sa mal vykonávať pravidelne,

(b) by nemal byť príliš zaťažujúci,

(c) sa nemusí vykonávať každý rok, keďže sa zameriava na postupné výstupy a výsledky a na strednodobé údaje,

(d) by mal byť koordinovaný s existujúcimi strategickými a viacročnými plánmi.

36. Navrhovaný časový harmonogram by Rade a Komisii takisto umožnil využívať výsledky hodnotiacich správ ako vstupné informácie pre posúdenie potreby prípravy ďalšieho strategického programu v roku 2009, keď uplynie platnosť Haagskeho programu.

37. Zverejňovaním hodnotiacej správy každé dva alebo tri roky sa umožní synchronizácia mechanizmu s päťročným cyklom. Podporí sa tak dôkladnejšie a strategickejšie využívanie výsledkov hodnotenia v rozhodovacom procese. Obdobie rokov 2006-2007 bude prechodným obdobím (pozri tabuľku ďalej).

38. Aby sa zabezpečila koordinácia s výsledkami plnenia Haagskeho programu, budú informačné listy na konci roku 2006 zaslané členským štátom a hodnotiaca správa spolu s ďalšími výsledkami plnenia Haagskeho programu zverejnená v polovici roku 2007.

Harmonogram | „Scoreboard plus“ (SB) | Mechanizmus preskúmania | Akčný plán |

2005 | | | Prijatie Haagskeho akčného plánu |

2006 | SB+ 1 | | Priebežné posúdenie implementácie (koniec roka 2006) |

2007 | SB+ 2 | Hodnotiaca správa 1 | Prvé preskúmanie politík |

2008 | SB+ 3 | | |

2009 | SB+ 4 | Hodnotiaca správa 2 | |

2010 | SB+ 5 | | Koniec Haagskeho programu |

2011 | SB+ 6 | | |

2012 | SB+ 7 | Hodnotiaca správa 3 | |

2013 | SB+ 8 | | |

2014 | SB+ 9 | Hodnotiaca správa 4 | |

(Prechodné obdobie je označené šedou farbou)

39. Posúdenie ďalších administratívnych nákladov členských štátov je zahrnuté v priloženom posúdení vplyvu. Členské štáty by mali pracovať, s podporou Komisie, na porovnateľnosti a presnosti údajov. Súčasné skúsenosti s hodnotením niekoľkých právnych nástrojov ukazujú, že základné údaje týkajúce sa politík nie sú ani zosúladené, ani presné. Hodnotenia politík v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti, ktoré realizovala Rada alebo Komisia ad hoc, budú ďalším zdrojom informácií.

40. Toto oznámenie má označiť začiatok strednodobého procesu. Navrhovaný mechanizmus a informačné listy sa predkladajú tak, aby sa v nadväznosti na toto oznámenie mohli pripomienkovať a vylepšiť. Za týmto účelom sa začne konzultačný proces a na jeseň sa zorgnanizuje vypočutie.

41. Mechanizmus bude posúdený po piatich rokoch s cieľom rozhodnúť o jeho možných úpravách a vylepšení. Výstupmi, ktoré bude potrebné zvážiť, budú podklady uvedené v schéme č. 2. Posúdenie sa uskutoční z hľadiska cieľov uvedených v odseku 3.

5. Záver

42. Komisia sa domnieva, že je potrebné vytvoriť koherentný a komplexný mechanizmus hodnotenia politík EÚ v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti vzhľadom na súčasnú situáciu a mandát udelený v Haagskom programe. Takýto mechanizmus musí byť progresívny a musí zohľadňovať existujúci inštitucionálny a právny rámec, aby sa prostredníctvom neho zabezpečilo ďalšie zvýšenie a účinnosť politík v oblasti slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti.

43. Prostredníctvom tohto mechanizmu sa výsledky jednotlivých hodnotení zlúčia do koherentného rámca a takýmto spôsobom bude v priebehu politického rozhodovania informovaná príslušná úroveň. Z tohto hľadiska poskytne navrhovaný mechanizmus tvorcom politiky včas informácie dôležité pre zváženie primeraného pokračovania Haagskeho programu, ktorého platnosť uplynie v roku 2009.

44. Rada a Komisia bude navrhovaný mechanizmus implementovať v súlade so svojími inštitucionálnymi právomocami a v úzkom spojení s Európskym parlamentom. Spoločný postup a plné nasadenie inštitúcií EÚ a členských štátov sú potrebné na účinné vytvorenie a implementáciu mechanizmu hodnotenia. Dôležitú úlohu pri tom budú zohrávať vnútroštátne orgány a správy.

45. Takýto mechanizmus hodnotenia sa nakoniec zameria na zvyšovanie účinnosti akcie Únie a prispeje k dosiahnutiu strategických cieľom lepšej regulácie a transparentnosti činností EÚ.

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 peopleFurther ‘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 | |

Schengen Information System (SIS) II | Sharing of information among MS in order to refuse entry on the basis of uniform practices | Consistent input and further use of information among MS | Quality and a Availability of SIS II information for competent national authoritiesMeasured by:Number of records per category(Source: MS and Commission) | Success in using SIS information.Measured by: Number of correctly identified persons who should be refused entry and wanted goods discovered (Source: MS) | Reduced permeability of the external border. Increased confidence to promote ‘free movement’ policies. | Clear intervention logic. Evaluation methods – analysis of trends and process changes.Commission responsible for evaluation co-ordination and analysis, MS for information analysis. Most of the analysis will depend upon information from MS. |

European Agency for the Management of Operational Co-operation at the External Borders (FRONTEX) | Improvement of operational cooperation between Member State authoritiesIncreased competences of border guards | Co-operation with Agency and responses to good practice, training and other advice. | Operational cooperationMeasured by:Number of joint operations and pilot projects carried out(Source: Agency)Development of risk analysisMeasured by:Number of risk analyses carried out(Source: Agency)Increased trainingMeasured by:Number of border guards trained Number of training courses and seminars offered(Source: Agency) | Improvement of border controlMeasured by:Effective joint operations(Source: Agency)Increased intelligence Measured by:Use of risk analyses by national services(Source: MS)Better trained border guards Measured by:Use of newly acquired skills(Source: MS) | Improved resource deployment at external borders (due to better intelligence)Reduced permeability of external borders (due to better trained staff) | Difficult to assess causality of intervention. Evaluation methods – case studies, follow up surveys. EU leading the evaluation.(Other EU Agency evaluations have tended to be process rather than impact oriented) |

Action Programme for administrative cooperation in the fields of external borders, visas, asylum and immigration (ARGO) | To promote cooperation between national administrations responsible for implementing Community rules and to ensure that proper account is taken of the Community dimension in their actions To promote the uniform application of Community law To encourage transparency of actions taken by the national authoritiesTo improve the overall efficiency of national administrations in their tasks | Disbursement rate/amount spent per year | Successful implementation of programme measured by:Number of projects implemented per activity areaNumber of training actions implementedNumber of staff exchanges implementedNumber of actions promoting data exchange implementedNumber of studies, conferences and seminars conducted (Source: Commission) | Increased cooperation between national administrations and with third countries Measured by:Number of common operative centres and joint teams set upNumber of cooperation activities in third countries set up(Source: Commission) | Uniform application of Community lawImproved transparency of actions taken by national authorities Improved efficiency of national administrations | Mid-term evaluation to be completed by July 2006. |

Teams of national experts | Further objectives of FRONTEX agency: Better deployment of resources in circumstances requiring special assistanceIncreased competences of border guards | Secondment of experts to teams. | Provision of technical and operational assistance. Measured by: number of assignments carried out by teams (Source: Agency) | Improved practice in border surveillance. Measured by: use of results of teams’ work in border surveillance and efficiency of teams work (Source: Agency and MS) | Reduced permeability of external borders (due to assistance to staff)Facilitated legitimate travel | Evaluation methods – case studies, qualitative analysis. |

Policy sub-area 2: Visa policy and free movement of persons |

Objectives: Prevent illegal immigration and threats to public orderReduce 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 migrantsAbolish 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 | |

Common application centres(for Schengen countries) | Render the reception of visa applications more efficient through a better allocation of resources.Reduce costs in relation to capturing of biometrics.Harmonisation of reciprocal procedures by MS | Commitment to the centres. Participation in setting up the centres. | Number of centres established and MS involved (Source: MS).Number of visas issued through the centres (Source: MS). | Increased efficiency of providing visa services.Measured by: time taken to issue visas (Source: MS) (Source: MS).Improved use of visa related information (Source: MS). | Reduced costs to visa applicants.Reduced costs to administrations.Increased bone fide travel. | Evaluation method – efficiency analysis. Potential evaluation leadership from the MS and use of peer review process. |

Visa Information System | Improve the implementation of the common visa policy by the exchange of visa data between Member States, in order to prevent visa shopping, to facilitate the fight against fraud, checks on visas, to assist in the identification of illegal immigrants, to facilitate the application of the Dublin II Regulation and to contribute to the prevention of threats to internal security. | Implementation at the national level, including the development/adaptation of national systems. | Number of number of visas refused, annulled, revoked, processing times (Source: Commission).Availability rate(Source: Commission) | Retention and sharing of data from visa applications and related decisions.Measured by: number of entries in VIS (Source: Commission).Measured: number of analyses conducted using VIS data (Source: Commission). | Improvement of application procedures, of checks at the external borders and within the Schengen territory, of the application of the Dublin II Regulation, of the identification of illegal immigrants and of the detection of fraud. Facilitated legitimate travel. | Monitoring and evaluation, by the Commission at EU level. |

The reciprocity mechanism (Council Regulation 851/2005) | To ensure EU citizens can travel without a visa to all third countries whose nationals don’t need a visa to travel to the EU. | Co-operation with the Commission, information sharing on bilateral dialogue with third countries | Number of third countries who have waived visa requirements for EU nationals (Source: Commission) | Improved reciprocity measured by percentage of decrease of non-reciprocity casesImproved dialogue and diplomatic contacts with third countries | Facilitated legitimate travel for EU travelers | Diplomatic efforts on EU level vis-à-vis third countries concerned. The first Report of the Commission on reciprocity in visa waivers was adopted on 10 January 2006 |

Council Regulation on a Border code | To implement common rules governing the movement of persons across borders, to include both rules on checks at external borders and rules on the removal of checks on persons at internal borders and the reintroduction of such checks in certain circumstances.To improve integrated border management | Application in MS that apply the Schengen acquis | Harmonisation of rules governing the movement of persons at internal and external borders(Source: Commission) | Improved border management and control | Improved control of external bordersFacilitated travel within the Schengen acquis | This regulation was adopted recently – February 2006. |

POLICY AREA: CITIZENSHIP AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS |

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 enforcedDecrease any obstacles for the enjoyment of their rights by Union citizens, in particular of the right to free movement and residenceIncrease 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 | |

Directive 2004/38/EC on free movement and residence | Clarify and simplify existing Community law in field | Transposition into national legal systems | Relevant national laws adopted in line with Directive provisions and notified the Commission by 30.4.2006 together with a table of conformity. (Source: Commission) | Correct application of rules and provisions contained in the law Measured by: number of court cases/complaints resulting from the Directive (Source: Commission) | Facilitated free movement and residence | Evaluation leadership by the EU. Would benefit from strong involvement of MS in evaluation |

Community legislation on the EP elections and on the right of non-national Union citizens’ electoral rights in their country of residence | Ensure that the EP elections are conducted according to the basic principles of democratic electionsEnsure the participation of non-national Union citizens to the EP elections and to the municipal elections | Transposition into national legal systems | Relevant national laws adopted in line with provisions of Community law and notified to the Commission (Source: Commission) | Correct application of rules and provisions contained in the lawMeasured by: number of court cases/complaints resulting from the legislation (Source: Commission) | EP elections carried out democratically. Non-national Union citizens participate in the elections on the same conditions as nationals in EP elections and in municipal elections. | |

Fundamental Rights and Citizenship programme (part Citizenship) | Improve awareness of citizenship of the Union and related rightsEncourage citizens to participate to actively to democratic life | Implementation of measures and projects. | Number of projects supported (studies conducted, activities undertaken) (Source: programme monitoring system)Number of ‘beneficiaries’ reached (Source: programme monitoring system) | Improved intelligence baseMeasured by: use of analytical results by policy makers (Source: Commission and MS) Dissemination of good practice in voter education and activation. Measured by:level of awareness of Programme’s outputs (Source: MS) | Improved awareness of Union citizenship and related rights amongst EU citizens.Increased participation in democratic life. | Clear intervention logic. Evaluation would benefit from systematic surveys of public awareness. |

Policy sub-area 2: Fundamental Rights |

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 xenophobiaEstablish 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 | |

Relevant provisions of the Treaties on European Union and on European Community | Ensure that the EU institutions and the Member States fully respect fundamental rights | Compliance of the national legislation and practices with the fundamental rights | Community legislation as well as implementing national laws adopted in compliance with the Treaty | Correct application of rights and principles contained in the Treaty Measured by: number of court cases/complaints resulting from the legislation (Source: Commission | Decreased level of breaches of FRIncreased protection of rights of citizens | |

Fundamental Rights and Citizenship programme (part Fundamental Rights) | Improve awareness of FRas protected on European and national levelImprove research baseImprove intensity and quality of interfaith and intercultural dialogue in MSImprove tolerance in the EUImprove quality of civil society organisations Improve rule of lawDecrease breaches of FR in MS | Implementation of measures and projects. | Number of projects supported (studies conducted, activities undertaken) (Source: programme monitoring system)Number of ‘beneficiaries’ reached (Source: programme monitoring system) | Improved intelligence baseMeasured by: use of analytical results by policy makers (Source: Commission and MS) Increased awareness of issues in focus under the action (Source: public opinion surveys, Commission) | Improved awareness of FR amongst EU citizens Stronger civil society in the MS | Clear intervention logic. Evaluation would benefit from systematic surveys of public awareness. |

Preparatory action to support civil society in the NMS in areas of rule of law, democracy, FR, media pluralism, fight against corruption. | Improve quality of civil society organisations in NMSImproved rule of law in NMSImprove democracy in NMSDecrease breaches of FR in NMS | Implementation of measures and projects. | Number of projects supported (studies conducted, activities undertaken) (Source: programme monitoring system)Number of beneficiaries reached (Source: programme monitoring system) | Increased awareness of issues in focus under the action (Source: public opinion surveys, Commission) | Stronger civil society in the NMS | Clear intervention logic but difficult to measure outcomes and impacts, in part because of the scale and scope of the underlying objectives. Strong involvement of MS in evaluation |

Daphne II programme | Reduce violence against children, adolescents and women | Implementation of measures and projects. | Number of projects supported (studies conducted, activities undertaken) (Source: programme monitoring system)Number of good practices identified (Source: programme monitoring system)Number of ‘beneficiaries’ and victims reached(Source: programme monitoring system) | Increased awareness of the issues in wider society (Source: public opinion surveys, Commission)Adoption of good practice in tackling violence (Source: MS). Better intelligence base. Measured by: use of analytical results by policy makers (Source: Commission and MS) Number of knowledge and practitioner communities created (Source: Commission). Number of improved facilities for victims (Source: programme monitoring system) | Reduced violence against children, adolescents and women | Evaluation leadership by the EU. Major problems of data reliability at the level of impacts. |

Fundamental Rights Agency | Improve the availability, quality, and comparability of information on respect and promotion of FR.Improve co-ordination between stakeholders Improve public awareness of their FR | Participation in Agency’s activities | Provision of data and analyses of FR. Measured by: number of analytical outputs (Source: Agency) Number of reporting activities (Source: Agency). Number of networks of stakeholders supported (Source: Agency). | Better intelligence base. Measured by: use of analytical results by policy makers (Source: Agency and Commission) Better co-ordination of activities. Increased public awareness (Source: public opinion surveys, Agency and Commission). | Decreased level of breaches of FR | Evaluations of EU agencies have tended to focus on process issues.Whilst objectives are clear it will be difficult to assess causality and measure the impacts of the agency. |

Data Protection Directive | Facilitate the free movement of personal information within the EUProtect rights of individualsConclude agreements with third countries | Transposition of Directive into national legal systems Establishment of National Data Protection Supervisory authorities | Relevant national laws adopted pursuant to the Directive provisions (Source: MS and Commission) | Application of rules and provisions contained in the law. Measured by: - Appropriate enforcement mechanisms and remedies available to ensure respect for the law and assistance to individuals through:a) Judicial remediesb) Intervention of data protection supervisory authority (ex officio or following complaints)(Source: MS) | Facilitated movement of personal information within the EUHarmonised protection of individuals at a high level (both inside the EU and in third countries for personal data transferred from the EU) | Evaluation leadership by the EU but in partnership with MS |

POLICY AREA: COORDINATION IN THE FIELD OF DRUGS |

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 | |

Dublin Regulation(Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national) | To reduce 'asylum shopping'To increase responsibility sharing among MS. To increase efficiency by granting MS a realistic period in which to implement decisions on transfers. | Adoption of measures implementing the Regulation at national level | Number of take back requests (Source: Commission – Eurostat)Number of applicants sent to another Member State (Source: Commission – Eurostat)Number of multiple claims (Source: Commission – Eurostat)Number of registered irregular entrants (Source: Commission – Eurostat )Proportion of cases dealt within country of entry (Source: Commission – Eurostat) | Decreased delay in the examination of claims and attribution of responsibility Measured by: average delay of examination before and after implementation of the Regulation (Source: MS)Decreased delay to implement decisions on transfers Measured by:average delay of transfer before and after(Source: MS) | Increased sharing of responsibilityGreater efficiency and effectiveness in implementing decisions on transfersReduction of persons making multiple claims | Numbers are available through Eurodac which allows for an assessment of trends. Evaluation of the ‘Dublin System’ will be ready in June 2006. |

Eurodac | To facilitate application of the Dublin Regulation by identifying asylum seekers and persons who have entered the EU irregularly. To determine whether a foreign national has previously claimed asylum in another MS. | Member States to send required data to central unit. | Efficiency of the system Measured by:Number of records per Member State (Source: Eurodac)Number of successful and rejected transactions recorded in the system (Source: Eurodac) | Increased number of asylum applications being examined in the first country of asylum/entryMeasured by:Percentage rate of change before and after introduction of the system (Source: MS)Reduction of persons making multiple claims Measured by:Percentage rate of change before and after (Source: MS) | Improved efficiency in applying the Dublin Regulation | Difficult to judge whether MS use system correctly and systematically. Some scope for peer review but there could be constraints on independent evaluation. Evaluation is underway of the ‘Dublin system’ which considers both the Regulation and Eurodac. |

Qualification Directive(Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted) | To ensure a minimum level of protection in all Member States for those in need of protection. To guarantee the rights of persons qualifying for refugee status or subsidiary protection statusTo reduce disparities between MS' legislation and practice. To limit secondary movements.To prevent false claims. | Transposition into national legal systems. | Reduction of disparities among Member StatesMeasured by:Changes made to national legislation (Source: MS and Commission)Numbers of Member States achieving minimum standards or above (Source: Commission) | Reduction of false claimsMeasured by:Number of unfounded cases (Source: MS)Improved protectionMeasured by:Numbers granted refugee and subsidiary protection status (Source: MS)Improved access to rightsMeasured by:Increased numbers of refugees accessing education, services, employment, appropriate accommodation, integration programmes (Source: MS) | Guarantee of a minimum level of protection across the EUApproximation of rights granted to refugeesReduction in disparities between legislation and practiceReduction of secondary movementsFewer false claimsImproved integration | Common standards difficult to achieve as Directive allows scope for interpretation |

Reception Directive(Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers) | Ensure a dignified standard of living to asylum seekers across the EU. Address applicants special needs.Ensure equal standards across the EU. Limit secondary movements. | Transposition into national legal systems | Improved facilitiesMeasured by:Expenditure on the improvement of reception facilities (Source: MS)Improvement of equal standards across the EUMeasured by:Numbers of MS achieving minimum standards or above (Source: Commission) | Improved standard of living for asylum seekersMeasured by:Number of asylum seekers living in appropriate accommodation (Source: MS)Number of asylum seekers accessing services (Source: MS)Number of asylum seekers accessing employment and vocational activities (Source: MS)Number of specific provisions for applicants with special needs (Source: MS) | Approximation of standards of living for asylum seekers across the EUImproved facilities and services for asylum seekersImproved socio-vocational integration of asylum seekersReduction of secondary movements | Common standards difficult to achieve as Directive allows scope for interpretation. Evaluation due at the end of 2006. |

ERF II | Support and encourage efforts in receiving refugees and displaced personsFoster solidarity among MSPromote balance in the efforts to receive asylum seekersPromote the social, economic and cultural integration of target groupsPromote voluntary return | Disbursement rate/amount spent per year | Increased reception capacity Measured by:Numbers of projects implemented per type of action (Source: MS)Number of beneficiaries (per country of origin and target group) per type of action (Source: MS)Number of reception places (Source: MS)Increased capacity of services to asylum seekers Measured by: Number and type of services available(Source: MS)Number of beneficiaries receiving education and training (Source: MS)Increased voluntary returnsMeasured by:Number of voluntary returns (Source: MS) | Increased balance of effort among MS Measured by:The proportion of all resource commitments (Source: MS)Increased social, economic and cultural integration of target groups Measured by:Percentage of persons per target group and activity able to apply new skills (i.e. percentage of persons who benefited from vocational training in employment) | Improved reception standards and conditions Increased access of asylum seekers to health, housing, education, services and labour marketFairer and more effective asylum procedures (including return)An improved balance in effort to receive asylum seekers | Indicators have been developed in the context of the final evaluation. |

Policy sub-area 2: Legal and illegal migration |

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 | |

Family reunification Directive(Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification) | Determine conditions for the exercise of the right to family reunification by TCNs. | Transposition into national legal systems. | Reduction of disparities among Member StatesMeasured by:Changes made to national legislation (Source: MS and Commission)Numbers of MS achieving minimum standards or above (Source: Commission) | Improved efficiency of proceduresMeasured by:Number of family members reunited (Source: MS)Reduced length of process: average delay before and after (Source: MS) | Facilitated procedures for family reunification Protection of right to family life | Common standards difficult to achieve as Directive allows scope for interpretation. |

Directive on status of TCNs as long-term residents | Approximate national laws by creating a single status. Ensure equal treatment of TCNs throughout the EU. | Transposition into national legal systems. | Reduction of disparities among Member StatesMeasured by:Changes made to national legislation (Source: MS and Commission)Numbers of MS achieving minimum standards or above (Source: Commission) | Equal treatment of TCNsMeasured by:Numbers granted/refused status (Source: MS)Increased number of TCNs accessing employment, education and training (rate of increase) (Source: MS)Increased mobility of TCNsMeasured by:Number of TCNs moving from one MS to another (Source: Commission) | Approximation of national lawsEqual treatment and application of uniform rights for TCNs across the EU Improved mobility of TCNsImproved integration of TCNs | Common standards difficult to achieve as Directive allows for scope for interpretation |

Directive on the admission of TCNs for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service | To promote Europe as a world centre of excellence for studies and vocational training by promoting the mobility of TCNs to the Community for the purpose of studiesThe approximation of the Member States' national legislation on conditions of entry and residence | Transposition into national legal systems. | Approximation of national legislationMeasured by:Changes made to national legislation (Source: MS and Commission)Numbers of MS achieving minimum standards or above (Source: Commission) | Increased mobility of TCNs to the Community for the purposes of study/vocational trainingMeasured by:Numbers granted entry for study/vocational training/voluntary service (Source: MS) | Approximation of national lawsImproved mobility of TCNs for study, vocational and volunteer purposes | Common standards difficult to achieve as Directive allows for scope for interpretation |

Policy sub-area 3: Integration of third-country nationals |

Objectives: To prevent the isolation of certain groups and achieve successful integration of Third Country Nationals and their descendentsTo fight discrimination against legally residing Third Country NationalsTo 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 | |

INTI preparatory actions (integration of TCNs) | Promote new and innovative ways of integrating immigrants. To encourage co-operation between MS and the creation of transnational partnerships and networks. Enhance empowerment of migrants.Promote dialogue with civil society. | Disbursement rate/amount spent per year | Successful implementation REFINEMeasured by:Numbers of projects and activities implemented and average sums of money involved (Source: MS + Commission)Number of TCNs benefiting from projectsIncreased cooperationMeasured by:Number of transnational networks set up (Source: MS + Commission)Number of new integration models identified and exchanged among MS | Identification of new and innovative practicesExchange of information and best practices promoted among EU MSTransnational networks and dialogue between stakeholders supported among MS | Increased cooperation among MS through networks and cooperation activitiesIncreased dialogue with civil societyEnhanced integration of TCNsDevelopment and promotion of a European framework approach on integration of TCNs | Integration policies are implemented mainly at regional and local levels in MS.Differences exist among MS in terms of numbers of migrants and integration experience. Potential impacts may not be significant considering that this is a small fund with very diverse projects.Final evaluation is planned for 2007. |

Policy sub-area 4: External dimension of asylum and migration |

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 | |

Programme for financial and technical assistance to third countries (AENEAS) | Give specific and complementary financial and technical aid to third countries in order to support their efforts to improve the management of migratory flows Develop legislation in third countries on legal immigration and international protectionRaise public awareness in third countries on advantages of legal migration and consequences of illegal migrationEstablishment in third countries of preventive policy in the fight against illegal migrationReadmission and durable reintegration of returnees | Not applicable (action is at Community level) | Successful implementationMeasured by;Number of information campaigns organised on advantages of legal migration/consequences of illegal migration in third countries (Source: Commission)Number of returnees benefiting from reintegration programmes (Source: Commission) | Development of legislation in third countriesMeasured by:New legislation passed in third countries on legal and illegal migration (Source: Commission)Decreased number of illegal migrants entering the EU Measured by:rate of decrease (Source: Commission) | Improved management of migration flowsDecrease in illegal migration and traffickingIncreased awareness in third countries on advantages of legal migration/consequences of illegal migrationSuccessful reintegration of returnees | High number of external factors to the programme influence impact indicators. Causality links difficult to establish.As action is at Community level, MS will not contribute to evaluation.May be difficult to evaluate as this is a new area which is also highly political. A Communication on the future of the AENEAS fund was adopted in January 2006. |

Policy sub-area 5: Return and re-admission |

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 | |

Preparatory actions for Return Management | To support efforts made by MS to improve the organisation and implementation of integrated return management and specific measures in the area of return managementTo increase knowledge and capabilities in the area of return managementTo develop co-operation between MS with respect to return management as well as co-operation with countries of return To promote sustainable return, thereby avoiding secondary movements | Disbursement rate/amount spent per year | Number of actions implemented relating to the introduction and improvement of the organisation and implementation of integrated return management (Source: Commission)Number of actions implemented relating to the introduction and improvement of specific measures in the area of return management (Source: Commission)Number of actions implemented relating to the increase of knowledge and capabilities in the area of return management (Source: Commission) | Increased number of returnees Measured by: rate of increase (Source: MS and Commission)Reduction in cost of detaining illegal migrants Measured by: rate of reduction (Source: MS and Commission) | The strengthening of efforts made by Member States at improving the organisation and implementation of integrated return managementImproved organisation and implementation of integrated return managementIncreased knowledge and capabilities in return managementIncreased cooperation between MS and countries of return with respect to return managementReduction in illegal migrants living in the Member States (overstayers)Increased removal of illegal third country nationalsDecrease secondary movementsImproved return conditions | |

Re-admission agreements | To facilitate the readmission to their own country of persons residing without authorisation in a Member State.To combat illegal immigrationTo improve the effectiveness of return procedures | (These are reciprocal agreements between the EU and third countries.) | Successful implementation of the agreementsMeasured by:Number of persons readmitted to third countries covered by the agreements | Increased number of returnees Measured by: rate of increase (Source: Commission and MS)Reduction in cost for detaining illegal migrants Measured by: rate of reduction (Source: MS) | Decrease in illegal immigrationImproved effectiveness of return procedures | Agreements have been signed with Hong Kong, Macao, Albania, Sri Lanka and Russia. Others are currently being negotiated. |

Policy sub-area 6: Horizontal issues |

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

| | | Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts | |

Proposed mutual information procedure on planned national asylum and immigration measures | Enhance mutual information of national immigration and asylum policies between MS policy-makers | Cooperation by MS | Successful implementation of procedureMeasured by:Number of national measures submitted through the systemNumber of responses generated to requests for information (Source: MS + Commission)Meetings organised (Source: MS + Commission) | Increased knowledge of other Member State policies and measures | Anticipation of effects of changes to other national policiesBetter understanding of other national contexts could lead to an enhancement of the possibilities for harmonisation | Procedure yet to be implemented. Implementation could start in 2007. |

European Migration Network | Provide the Community and MS with objective, reliable and comparable information on migration and asylum. | Organisation of activities at national level by national contact points | Successful implementation of networkMeasured by:Number of products produced (Source: MS + Commission)Number of meetings and conferences held (Source: MS + Commission)Number of networks set up at national level (Source: MS) | Better and faster access to information on migration and asylumIncreased knowledge of issues at national levelIncreased information sharing between actors | Increased knowledge and understanding of the migration phenomenon at Member State and EU levelIncreased capacity to “anticipate” migratory developments | Proposal and impact assessment due by September 2006 for a Council Decision on the future EMN. |

Proposed Regulation on Community statistics on migration and international protection | Improve the statistical knowledge of migration-related phenomena by specifying the data to be collected, the timetables to be applied, the definitions and the quality standards. | Adoption of measures at national level | Successful implementation of RegulationMeasured by:Increased proportion of statistical data items supplied according to the harmonised definitions as opposed to national definitions (Source: MS)Increased proportion of statistical data items directly based on appropriate data sources as opposed to statistical estimations (Source: Commission - Eurostat)) | Increased availability of dataImprovement to quality and comparability of data between Member StatesMeasured by: Improvements in the completeness, timeliness and degree of harmonization of migration and asylum data supplied to the Commission - Eurostat (Source: Commission – Eurostat) | Improved analyses of dataImproved statistical knowledge | Regulation will probably be adopted in 2006. First reference year for the statistics will be 2008. |

Action Programme for administrative cooperation in the fields of external borders, visas, asylum and immigration (ARGO) | To promote cooperation between national administrations responsible for implementing Community rules and to ensure that proper account is taken of the Community dimension in their actions To promote the uniform application of Community law To encourage transparency of actions taken by the national authoritiesTo improve the overall efficiency of national administrations in their tasks | Disbursement rate/amount spent per year | Successful implementation of programme measured by:Number of projects implemented per activity areaNumber of training actions implementedNumber of staff exchanges implementedNumber of actions promoting data exchange implementedNumber of studies, conferences and seminars conducted(Source: Commission) | Increased cooperation between national administrations and with third countries Measured by:Number of common operative centres and joint teams set upNumber of cooperation activities in third countries set up(Source: Commission) | Uniform application of Community lawImproved transparency of actions taken by national authorities Improved efficiency of national administrations | Mid-term evaluation to be completed in July 2006. |

POLICY AREA: ESTABLISHING A GENUINE EUROPEAN AREA OF JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL MATTERS |

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 decisionsTo establish clear rules on jurisdiction and applicable law To reduce the costs of resolving cross border disputesTo increase the likelihood that cross border disputes are resolvedTo reduce the likelihood of cross border disputes arisingTo reduce the negative consequences of breakdowns in ‘international’ marriages and prevent child abduction |

Policy sub-area level indicators:Number of mutually recognised judicial decisionsAverage costs (of different types) of cross-border disputesNumber of cross-border cases not resolvedSpouses’ (perceptions of) costs of international divorces The number and amount of cross-border maintenance claims not paidSource: MS |

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

| | | Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts | |

Horizontal cooperation activities |

Specific programme ‘Civil justice’ (Framework Programme 2007-2013 Fundamental Rights and Justice) | To increase mutual confidence of judicial actors. To increase instances of mutual recognition. To reduce application of intermediate procedures. | Participation in and support for cooperation programme. | Number of meetings, workshops.Numbers of legal, judicial and administrative authorities involved in cooperation. Source: programme monitoring system | Increased knowledge of Member States legal and judicial systems in civil matters.Measured by: Levels of knowledge amongst relevant authorities (Source: MS surveys) | Mutually recognised decisions acted upon/ enforced.Increased legal certainty.Improved access to justice.Decreased costs and time spent in accessing justice due to disparities in civil law and civil procedures. | Establishing causal links between the interventions and outcomes and impacts will be problematic |

European judicial network in civil and commercial matters | To improve and facilitate co-operation in civil justice matters To facilitate access to justice and informationTo reduce costs of access to information on international and European law and national judicial systems by EU nationals (and therefore increase access). | Participation in and support for cooperation programme. | Meetings, publications website.Numbers of legal actors involved in cooperation.Source: Network management reports (Source: Commission) | Hits and usage of website (Source: Commission) | Improved access to justice and quality of advice on cross (internal) border issues.Improvement of judicial cooperation between MS and courts | Establishing causal links between the interventions and outcomes and impacts will be problematic |

Rules on procedures |

Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I 44/2001) | To harmonise national rules of conflict of jurisdiction To simplify procedures for recognition and enforcement of judgements from MS | Implementation | Harmonised Community rules (Source: MS reporting to Commission) | Simpler and quicker procedures to recognise and enforce the judgements Measured by: Length of time taken to recognise and enforce the judgements (Source: MS) | Better and quicker access to justice Prevent conflict of jurisdiction | Clear intervention logic |

Regulation on taking evidence in civil and commercial matters (1206/2001) | To improve, simplify and speed up procedures for taking evidence between the courts of different MS | Implementation | Establishment of facilitated cross-border procedures between courts in different MS for taking evidence (Source: MS reporting to Commission) | Quicker and more efficient judicial procedures Measured by: Length of time taken to take evidence between courts (Source: MS) | Better and quicker access to justice | Clear intervention logic. |

Regulation on the service of documents in civil and commercial matters (Regulation 1348/2000) | To increase efficiency and speed in judicial procedures To improve and expedite the transmission of documents between MS | Implementation | Establishment of common rules on transmission of judicial and extrajudicial documents between MS(Source: MS reporting to Commission) | Quicker and more efficient judicial procedures Measured by: Length of time taken to transmit the documents and enforce judgements(Source: MS) | Better and quicker access to justiceQuicker judicial procedures | Clear intervention logic. |

Directive on legal aid in cross-border disputes (Council Directive 2003/8/EC) | To guarantee adequate level of legal aid in cross-border disputes through establishing minimum common standards between MS | Implementation | Minimum common standards relating to legal aid in cross-border disputes (Source: MS reporting to Commission) | Adequate levels of legal aid in cross-border disputes (Source: MS) | Improved access to justice, especially of vulnerable groups | Clear intervention logic. |

Resolution of cross border disputes |

European payment order (forthcoming) | To reduce the costs and time taken to make payments.To increase the number of cross-border orders for payment | Implementation | Numbers of cross-border orders for payment made | Reduction of intermediate procedures | Reduced costs and time of litigation in cross-border cases concerning uncontested pecuniary claims.Improved access to justice.Facilitated recovery of cross-border debts | Establishing causal links between the interventions and outcomes and impacts will be problematic. Proposal yet to be adopted. |

European enforcement order for uncontested claims (Regulation 805/2004) | To enable quick and efficient enforcement of an uncontested claim between MS | Implementation | Number of applications of European enforcement order in EU MS (Source: MS) | Quicker and more efficient enforcement of uncontested claims in another MS Measured by: Length of time needed to enforce such a claim (Source: MS) | Reduced costs and time in such cross-border cases Improved access to justice | Establishing causal links between the interventions and outcomes and impacts will be problematic |

Instrument on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) | To reduce the costs of dispute resolutionTo facilitate recourse to mediation by improving legal certainty | Implementation | More possibilities and better awareness of possibilities for ADR | More attempts to use ADR | Reduced costs of dispute resolution More disputes resolved without going to court | Establishing causal links between the interventions and outcomes and impacts will be problematic |

Instrument on small claims | To facilitate cross-border access to justice for small claimsTo reduce the costs and time taken to resolve small claims.To increase the number of legitimate small claims made. | Implementation | Application of Small Claims Procedure in the 25 EU MS(Source: MS) | Increased number of small claims pursued.(Source: MS) | More small claims resolved.Increased legal certainty.Increased access to justice. | Proposal yet to be adopted. |

Marriage and divorce law |

Instrument on maintenance obligations | To improve and simplify enforcement procedures of maintenance obligations. To enhance cooperation. To clarify what is applicable (non-conflicting) law | Implementation | Application of Regulation in maintenance obligations proceedings in 25 EU MS(Source: MS) | Reduction of intermediate procedures.Reduced cases of forum shoppingIncreased cooperation between legal professionals / competent authorities in the Member States(Source: MS) | Increased legal certaintyBetter informed decisionsMutually recognised decisions acted upon/ enforced.Facilitated recovery of debts (maintenance for creditors) | Instrument is at the Council discussion stage.Establishing causal links between the interventions and outcomes and impacts will be problematic. Evaluation requires good data from the Member States. |

Regulation on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and parental responsibility (Brussels II, 2201/2003) | To harmonise rules of jurisdiction To enable automatic recognition and enforcement of judgements between MS | Implementation | Establishment of harmonised rules on jurisdiction (Source: MS) | Quicker and more efficient recognition and enforcement of judgements Measured by: Length of time taken to recognise and enforce a judgement (Source: MS) | Better access to justice Better protection of citizens in case of divorceFacilitated visiting rights for parentsBetter protection of children’s’ rights | Evaluation requires good data from the Member States. |

Various |

Instrument on the conflict of laws in the area of contractual obligations (Rome I). | To reduce costs associated with differences regarding non-contractual obligationsTo increase party autonomy and flexibility To increase legal certainty for consumers and internal market | Implementation | Numbers of cross-border disputes settledApplication of conflict of law rules in the MS(Source: MS) | Improved mutual trust between judicial authoritiesFaster procedures.(Source: MS) | Reduced uncertainty.Reduced costs.Facilitated mutual recognition of international contracts | Proposal in discussion stage. |

Proposal for a regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II, COM(2003) final) | To harmonise rules on non-contractual obligations To increase legal certainty | Implementation | Provision of a set of community rulesApplication of rules in the MS (Source: MS) | Improved mutual trust between judicial authoritiesFaster procedures.(Source: MS)Increased legal certainty for victims of damages and perpetrators of torts | Reduced legal uncertainty. Better access to justice Reduced costs of accessing justice | Establishing causal links between the interventions and outcomes and impacts will be problematic |

Regulation on insolvency proceedings (1346/2000) | To improve efficiency and effectiveness of cross-border insolvency proceedings To prevent shopping for a more favourable legal position | Implementation | Provision of a set of community rulesApplication of rules in the MS (Source: MS) | More efficient and effective cross-border insolvency proceedings Prevention of shopping for a more favourable legal positionMeasured by: Time taken for proceedings Perceptions of shopping amongst legal professionals (Source: MS, surveys) | Better access to justice Reduced costs of accessing justiceBetter resolution of cross border insolvenciesBetter cooperation between courts and administrators of insolvency | Clear intervention logic |

Directive on compensation to crime victims (2004/80/EC) | To facilitate better access for victims to compensations where crime was committed in another MS To establish a compensation mechanism in such cases | Implementation | Co-operation mechanism between MS set up(Source: MS) | Better access to compensation to victims of crimes in cross-border situations (Source: MS) | Better access to justice Better compensation for victims of cross-border crime in Europe | Clear intervention logic |

Policy sub-area 2: Criminal matters (Justice) |

Objectives: To promote mutual recognitionTo increase confidence and other conditions leading to mutual recognitionTo 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 proceduresTo improve taking of evidenceTo reduce differences in penaltiesTo speed up cross border arrest and surrender proceduresTo facilitate cross border management, freezing and confiscation of criminal assetsTo protect victims of crime |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Number of mutually recognised judicial decisionsExtent 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 penaltiesLength 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 | |

European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA)) | To facilitate and expedite surrender procedures in respect of persons wanted for trial and sentenced persons between Member States | Transposition | Numbers of arrest warrants issued, executed and refusedNumbers of persons surrendered and of persons received from other Member States and numbers of persons consenting to surrender. (Source: MS) | Faster and simpler surrender procedures Measured by:Average duration of surrender procedures (Source: MS) | Increased visibility of mutual recognition, better knowledge of each other's judicial systems and increased mutual confidence between judicial authorities.Increased security and safety within the EU | Requires good data from MS. MS must actively participate in evaluation. |

Instrument on the execution of orders freezing property or evidence (Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003) | To facilitate recognition and execution of freezing orders issued by a judicial authority of another Member State | Transposition | Number of freezing requests issued and executed(Source: MS) | Increased efficiency and effectiveness of freezing orders Measured by:Faster procedures to freeze assets Increased use of procedures to freeze assets Increased speed of national procedures as a consequence of freezing order Improved access to evidence obtained/Improved recovery of assets (Source: MS) | Increased efficiency of procedures; increased mutual confidence between judicial authorities.Decreased levels of organised crime (Source: Europol reports) | Requires good data from MS. |

Instrument on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005) | To facilitate the enforcement of financial penalties imposed by judicial or administrative authorities in a Member State other than the State in which the penalties were imposed. | Transposition | Number of decisions and issued and executed(Source: MS) | Faster and more effective procedures to ensure enforcement of financial penalties Measured by: Average length of procedures (Source: MS) | Dissuasive effect to potential criminals and decreased level of financial crime Increased visibility of mutual recognition, better knowledge of each other's judicial systems and increased mutual confidence between judicial authorities. | Requires good data from MS.Difficult to measure causal links between outcomes and impacts |

Instrument on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record (Council Decision 2005/876/JHA of 21 November 2005) | To improve exchanges of information on criminal records between Member States | Voluntary compliance | Number of requests sent , number of replies sent -for the purpose of criminal proceedings, and- for other purposesRespect of deadlines(Source: MS) | Improved knowledge available to sentencing authorities about the convicted person's full European criminal record.Improved circulation of information on criminal records for other purposes (e.g. employment) Improved quality of information on criminal records from abroad in the Member State of nationality (Source: MS) | Dissuasive effect to potential criminals and hence decreased levels of crime Increased visibility of mutual recognition, better knowledge of each other's judicial systems and increased mutual confidence between judicial authorities.More appropriate and better informed sentencing decisions | Requires good data from MS.Difficult to measure causal links between outcomes and impacts |

Instrument on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001) | To assist victims before or after criminal proceedings | Transposition | Application of rules the instrument (Source: MS) | Better information for victims on legal advice and on their rights, protection for vulnerable victims and more appropriate methods of obtaining evidenceImproved situation for victims in relation to criminal proceedings(Source: MS) | Raised awareness of victims' rights amongst practitionersMeasured by MS surveys Better access to justice | Requires good data from MS. |

Framework programme on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (AGIS) | Help legal practitioners, law enforcement officials and representatives of victim assistance services from the EU Member States and Candidate Countries set up Europe-wide networks, exchange information and best practices. Encourage Member States to step-up co-operation with the applicant countries and other third countries | Commitments to AGIS projectsParticipation | Number of activities promoting training and expert mobilityNumber of dissemination activitiesNumber of conferences and seminarsNumber of studies, research and evaluations(Source: Commission) | Development of instruments, strategies and activities for cooperationDevelopment of methods, techniques and instruments for operational and training useExchange and dissemination of information, experience and best practices(Source: Commission) | Improved operational procedures and approachesBetter operational cooperationCross-border use of good practicesMutual understanding of respective police, legal and administrative systemsCommon perception of criminality | Transnational cooperation activities normally require qualitative approaches to evaluation taking account of varying contexts. |

Flanking measures in place |

The European Judicial Network (Joint Action of 29 June 1998 adopted by the Council) | To improve judicial cooperation between Member States through direct contacts between judicial authorities | Designation of national contact points | Regular meetings, creation and updating of specific tools (website, "fiches belges", atlas and SOLON legal glossary) Number of cases in which the EJN is involved.(Source: EJN and Member States) | Increased efficiency of procedures and better communication between judicial authorities.Measured by: Average duration of procedures, analysis of outcomes of proceedings, perceptions of ECJ as a communication tool (Source: EJN and Member States) | Improved functioning of mutual recognition instruments, better knowledge of each other's judicial systems and increased mutual confidence between judicial authorities. | |

Eurojust (Council Decision of 28 February 2002) | Better co -ordination of investigation and prosecution of serious cross-border crime | Appointment of national experts to Eurojust | Immediate access to information about legal systems from a practitioner of the nationality of the Member States in question.Measured by: number of cases where Eurojust is used Establishment of the coordination role.Establishment of Eurojust as a potential arbiter of conflicts of jurisdiction.Establishment of Eurojust as peporting authority for problems with European Arrest Warrants.(Source: Eurojust and MS) | Increased efficiency of procedures and better communication between prosecutors and judicial authorities.Measured by: Average duration of procedures, analysis of outcomes of proceedings(Source: Eurojust and MS) | Increased cross border prosecution rates and improved efficiency (evidence gathering, mutual information exchange on procedural matters) Improved functioning of mutual recognition instruments, better knowledge of each other's judicial systems and increased mutual confidence between judicial authorities. | |

Joint investigation teams(Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002) | To facilitate, expedite and improve investigations in cross border cases | Transposition | Setting up of joint investigation teamsNumber of cases investigated by such teams (Source: MS) | Efficient gathering of evidence in cross border casesMeasured by: Average duration of cross-border case reaching the court(Source: MS) | Increased range of judicial cooperation tools. Improved functioning of mutual recognition instruments, better knowledge of each other's judicial systems and increased mutual confidence between judicial authorities. | |

Horizontal instrument for both Sub Policy area 1 (Civil matters) and Sub Policy area 2 (Criminal matters) |

Judicial training | To improve knowledge of relevant EU instruments among legal practitionersTo enhance mutual understanding of legal systems among judges and prosecutors To co-ordinate national judicial training programmesTo promote better language skills among European legal practitioners | Participation in training activities | Organisation of training activities Measured by: Training programmes offered, number of participants benefiting from training on EU matters )(Source: Commission. Participant feedback) | In evaluating the success of this policy, regard must be had to the effective use of available EU funding.Increased number of judicial training activities, increased coordination between national judicial training programmes, development of the European Judicial Training Network.Measured by: Quality of training activities, number of participants in exchanges Improved knowledge of European and international instruments amongst judges and prosecutors (Source: MS Interviews with law enforcement and judicial actors) | Increased understanding of mutual recognitionPromotion of a European judicial culture. | |

5.1. POLICY AREA: LAW ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION AND PREVENTION OF AND FIGHT AGAINST GENERAL ORGANISED CRIME |

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 crimeTo 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 |

Council Framework Decision (FD) of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism (2002/475/JHA) | To approximate the definition of terrorist offences, and penalties and sanctions in all MSTo establish jurisdictional rules to ensure that offences are prosecutedTo apply specific measures for victims of terrorist offences | Implementation of FD | Application of FD provisions. Measured by: The number of definitions of offences, penalties and sanctions approximated Number of measures applied for victims of terrorist offences (Sources: MS) | Number of terrorists prosecuted as a result of FD | Reduced instances of terrorist activities Improved help to victims of terrorism | Difficult to assess the causal links between outputs, outcomes and impacts |

Pilot project on victims of terrorism | To help the victims of terrorist acts and/or their relatives to recover by means of social or psychological support provided by organisations and/or their networks.To raise the awareness of the European public against the terrorist threat, so that the traditional fight against terrorism through police and judiciary measures can be complemented by public opinion condemning terrorism in all its forms. | Implementation of projects | Number of beneficiaries assisted through psychological supportNumber of special training programmes organisedNumber of social integration programmes organised for victimsNumber of special medical programmes createdNumber of events and information campaigns organised | Improved cooperation and exchangeIncreased research on the situation of victims of terrorist actsCreation of reception centres for victims | Improved social and psychological support to victims of terrorist attacksIncrease awareness of the European public | |

Pilot project on prevention, preparedness and response to terrorist attacks | To combat terrorism To improve the security of citizens | Implementation of projects | Number of studies carried outNumber of expert networks set up | Development of capabilities for the management of crisesExchange of experience and best practice | Improved expertise on terrorismIncreased exchange of expertiseIncreased cooperation with international partner