[pic] | EUROPEISKA GEMENSKAPERNAS KOMMISSION |

Bryssel den 28.6.2006

KOM(2006) 332 slutlig

MEDDELANDE FRÅN KOMMISSIONEN TILL RÅDET OCH EUROPAPARLAMENTET

Utvärdering av EU:s politik för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa

{SEK(2006) 815}

MEDDELANDE FRÅN KOMMISSIONEN TILL RÅDET OCH EUROPAPARLAMENTET

Utvärdering av EU:s politik för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa

1. INLEDNING

1. I Haagprogrammet (2004)[1] anges följande: ”Enligt Europeiska rådets åsikt är det ytterst viktigt för effektiviteten i unionens åtgärder att genomförandet och effekterna av samtliga åtgärder utvärderas”. Handlingsplanen för genomförande av Haagprogrammet (2005)[2] innehåller de politiska ramarna för Europeiska unionens åtgärder för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa under de närmaste fem åren. I handlingsplanen fastställs också att kommissionen under 2006 skall lägga fram ett allmänt meddelande med förslag till ett system för utvärdering av EU:s politik på detta område[3].

2. Stats- och regeringscheferna har fastställt att en utvärdering av genomförandet är ett av de viktigaste redskapen för att se till att de viktiga resultaten av EU:s och medlemsstaternas arbete när det gäller att utveckla ett område med frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa utnyttjas på bästa sätt och ses över kontinuerligt så att EU-medborgarnas förväntningar uppfylls.

3. I Haagprogrammet understryks vikten av utvärdering i syfte att 1) förbättra rutinerna för utarbetande av politiska riktlinjer, program och instrument genom att identifiera de problem och hinder man stött på vid genomförandet, 2) fastställa mer systematiska regler för ekonomiskt ansvar och kontroll av politiken , 3) främja information och utbyte av god praxis och 4) bidra till utvecklingen mot en utvärderingskultur i hela EU.

Med beaktande av 1) det mandat kommissionen fått genom Haagprogrammet och dess handlingsplan, 2) den splittrade situationen när det gäller befintliga system för övervakning och utvärdering och 3) behovet att lämna omfattande information till alla berörda parter angående genomförandet och resultatet av politiken, anser kommissionen att det nu är dags att arbeta för ett enhetligt och övergripande system för utvärdering av EU:s politik för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa, i samarbete med medlemsstaterna och EU:s institutioner.

Detta system kommer att även att omfatta övervakning av genomförandet (som beskrivs i meddelandet om stärkt frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa i Europeiska unionen: rapport om genomförandet av Haagprogrammet 2005, nedan kallat ”resultattavlan för framsteg”)[4] och utvärdering av resultaten .

2. UTVÄRDERINGSBEGREPPET

4. Det är viktigt att skilja mellan övervakning av genomförandet och utvärdering.

- Övervakning av genomförandet innebär att man ser hur långt man kommit med genomförandet av politiken.

- I kommissionens meddelande om utvärdering från 2000[5] definieras utvärdering som en bedömning av (offentliga) åtgärder utifrån resultat, effekter och de behov som måste tillfredsställas . Huvudsyftet med en utvärdering är att ge beslutsfattare information om vilken genomslagskraft och effekt den verksamhet har haft som planerats och genomförts.

5. Kommissionen ser det system som nämns i handlingsplanen som ett sätt att övervaka genomförandet och utvärdera de konkreta resultaten av politiken för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa. I detta sammanhang har begreppet utvärdering en vidare betydelse och kompletterar övervakningen av genomförandet med en undersökning av effekterna av genomförandet, enligt beskrivningen nedan. Detta ligger i linje med Haagprogrammet eftersom den utvärdering av genomförandet och effekterna av samtliga åtgärder som nämns där omfattar både övervakningen av själva genomförandet och utvärderingen av resultaten av de åtgärder som vidtagits.

6. Det är mot denna bakgrund som kommissionen föreslår ett sammanhängande och omfattande åtgärdspaket som vilar på två pelare: ”Resultattavlan för framsteg” för att övervaka genomförandet och det utvärderingssystem som föreslås i detta meddelande.

7. Det system som presenteras här bygger på denna breda definition som enligt kommissionen gör det möjligt att fullständigt förstå omfattningen och kvaliteten på de resultat som uppnås på området frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa. Systemet kommer att fungera inom ramen för principerna i Haagprogrammet och bör så småningom leda till en bättre utformning av politiken genom det sker en systematisk återkoppling av utvärderingsresultaten till beslutsprocessen.

Fig. 1: Utvärdering genom hela beslutsprocessen

[pic]

3. UTVÄRDERING AV EU:S POLITIK FÖR FRIHET, SÄKERHET OCH RÄTTVISA – CENTRALA FRÅGOR

3.1. Komplexa och ambitiösa politiska mål

8. Frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa är ett av EU:s bredaste politikområden . Målen omfattar några av de mest aktuella frågorna: fri rörlighet för personer, terrorism och organiserad brottslighet, polisiärt och rättsligt samarbete, asyl och migrationspolitik, respekt för grundläggande rättigheter och främjande av EU-medborgarnas rättigheter. Hänsyn till ländernas nationella suveränitet försvårar ofta genomförandet och gör det nödvändigt att kompromissa på EU-nivå. Ett nytt utvärderingssystem måste därför ta hänsyn till denna politiska bakgrund.

9. Uppfyllandet av de komplexa och ambitiösa politiska målen kompliceras ytterligare av en ibland förvirrande lagstiftning, en blandning av olika förfaranden för beslutsfattande och tillämpning.

För att kunna anpassa det föreslagna utvärderingssystemet till dessa komplexa mål måste systemet vara flexibelt och tillåta vidareutveckling och konsolidering .

3.2. Tidsplan

10. På grund av kommissionens särskilda roll och beslutsprocessen på området för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa kräver politiska åtgärder på olika områden ofta olika lång tid innan de är färdigutvecklade och kan träda i kraft. Det är därför nödvändigt att i varje enskilt fall och för varje enskilt område ta ställning till hur ingående analysen behöver vara. Inom alla områden kommer hänsyn att tas till resultaten på kort och medellång sikt, men på vissa områden kan det bli svårare att analysera de konkreta effekterna (t.ex. när det gäller narkotika- eller migration).

Det föreslagna utvärderingssystemet bör vara så flexibelt att utvärderingarna kan vara olika ingående för olika områden, och att hänsyn tas till politikens utvecklings- och konsolideringsgrad.

Det tycks därför lämpligt att man åtminstone i den första fasen koncentrerar sig på resultat på kort och medellång sikt. Det slutliga målet skall vara att få en bild av vilka generella effekter politiken på olika områden har på lång sikt.

3.3. Medverkan av institutioner och berörda parter

11. En annan specifik aspekt på politiken för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa är dess inverkan på alla berörda parter. Oavsett vilket utvärderingssystem man väljer att tillämpa måste hänsyn tas till de berörda parternas förväntningar och prioriteringar och även till behovet av konfidentialitet inom vissa politikområden, t.ex. terrorism och organiserad brottslighet.

12. I en anda av partnerskap kommer kommissionen att samråda och diskutera med medlemsstaterna och EU:s institutioner under och efter utarbetandet av utvärderingsrapporten. Medlemsstaterna och EU:s institutioner kommer i detta syfte att anmodas att utse kontaktpunkter för dialogen med kommissionen. Utvärderingsrapporten[6] blir offentlig och vänder sig till medlemsstaterna och EU:s institutioner.

13. Rådet och medlemsstaterna kommer tillsammans med kommissionen att utgöra huvudaktörerna i det föreslagna utvärderingssystemet. Europaparlamentet kommer att vara nära knutet till arbetet i enlighet med institutionernas befogenheter och förpliktelser. Medlemsstaternas parlament kommer också att delta i utvärderingen av de periodiska rapporterna.

14. På de områden som omfattas av EG-fördraget kommer Regionkommittén och Europeiska ekonomiska och sociala kommittén att delta i förberedelserna och genomförandet av utvärderingssystemet. Utvärderingsrapporterna kommer rutinmässigt att skickas till utskotten när de godkänts.

15. Olika organ som Europeiska unionens byrå för grundläggande rättigheter, Europeiskt centrum för kontroll av narkotika och narkotikamissbruk (ECNN), Europol, Eurojust och Europeiska byrån för förvaltningen av det operativa samarbetet vid Europeiska unionens medlemsstaters yttre gränser kommer att ha en viktig funktion i systemet. Först och främst därför att dessa organ kommer att förse systemet med uppgifter och analyser. Dessutom kommer de att rådfrågas av kommissionen i samband med utvärderingsrapporterna.

16. Det civila samhället kan också lämna värdefulla bidrag i detta sammanhang. Kommissionen kommer att se till att synpunkterna från det civila samhällets organisationer beaktas och den kommer att fastställa lämpliga metoder för att se till att de deltar i utvärderingen av all politik på området för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa.

Det föreslagna utvärderingssystemet bör omfatta en samrådsmekanism som är öppen för insyn och som även kan användas för insamling och kontroll av relevanta uppgifter.

3.4. Statistik

17. En viktig komponent i utvecklingen av ett utvärderingssystem är tillgången till statistik[7] och nödvändig analyskapacitet. På vissa områden finns det bra statistik att tillgå (t.ex. avseende narkotikapolitiken), medan det på andra områden, t.ex. brottslighet och straffrättskipning, fortfarande finns en del att göra. Statistik över utvecklingen av de behov som politiken för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa inriktar sig på kommer att behövas som underlag för bedömningar av hur de befintliga behoven ökat eller minskat med en viss politik, och för att man så småningom skall kunna dra slutsatser om hur effektiv politiken har varit. Förbättringar krävs inom följande tre områden: kvalitet, tillgänglighet och analys. I det arbetet kommer organ som Europeiskt centrum för kontroll av narkotika och narkotikamissbruk (ECNN), Eurojust, Europol och den framtida Europeiska unionens byrå för grundläggande rättigheter att spela en viktig roll. Olika forskningsprojekt och nätverk kommer också att bidra aktivt till dessa mål.

Parallellt med utarbetandet av det föreslagna utvärderingssystemet behöver därför statistiken om frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa förbättras med hänsyn till kvalitet, tillgänglighet och analys .

4. UTVÄRDERING AV EU:S POLITIK FÖR FRIHET, SÄKERHET OCH RÄTTVISA – FÖRSLAG TILL ETT STRATEGISKT UTVÄRDERINGSSYSTEM

4.1. Beskrivning av utvärderingssystemet

18. Det strategiska system för utvärdering av politiken för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa som föreslås här bygger på en konsolidering av de resultat som uppnåtts på andra områden av EU:s politik . Systemet bygger på nuvarande praxis (se bilaga 2) och använder, särskilt när det gäller programfinansiering, uppgifter som kommer från befintliga utvärderingskrav. Även på andra områden där det redan finns uppgifter kommer man att vinnlägga sig om att utnyttja dessa för att undvika dubbelarbete .

19. Systemet är flexibelt och genomförs i tre steg :

(1) I steg 1 upprättas ett system för insamling och utbyte av uppgifter.

(2) Steg 2 innehåller ett rapporteringssystem där uppgifterna konsolideras, används och analyseras.

(3) I steg 3 utförs riktade ingående strategiska utvärderingar .

Fig. 2: Utvärderingssystemets tre steg

[pic]

20. Systemet kommer att omfatta alla politiska åtgärder på områdena för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa[8].

21. Utvärderingsrapporterna[9] kommer att skickas till rådet, Europaparlamentet, Europeiska ekonomiska och sociala kommittén samt Regionkommittén, och i förekommande fall även till en bredare krets, bl.a. i samband med tillfälliga offentliga arrangemang.

22. Genom att rapporteringen blir bättre och spridningen av utvärderingsresultaten förbättras, väntas systemet på sikt leda till att resultaten utnyttjas bättre på beslutsnivå.

23. Systemet följer kommissionens riktlinjer om utvärdering och kommer att fungera i enlighet med dess allmänna principer.

4.1.1. System för insamling och utbyte av uppgifter

24. Systemet för insamling och utbyte av uppgifter kommer att bygga på så kallade faktablad (ett för varje politikområde) som fylls i av de behöriga myndigheterna i medlemsstaterna. När det gäller områden där det redan finns uppgifter i ett liknande format fyller kommissionen i de uppgifterna på förhand . Faktabladen kommer samtidigt att skickas ut för samråd med berörda parter[10] och det civila samhället. Samrådet kommer att vara specifikt för varje politikområde och bygga på befintliga nätverk och samrådsmekanismer, med nödvändigt hänsynstagande till kravet på konfidentialitet på vissa områden.

25. På faktabladen anges en övergripande politisk målsättning för varje område och de viktigaste instrumenten (rättsliga, finansiella och andra) för att nå dessa mål. Systemet förväntas ge en tydlig bild av de resultat som uppnåtts .

26. Faktabladen kommer även att innehålla en rad indikatorer för varje område. Dessa är nära knutna till politikområdets övergripande målsättning. Faktabladen ingår i den samrådsprocess som följer på offentliggörandet av detta dokument och kommer att få sin slutliga utformning i partnerskap med medlemsstaterna. I bilaga 1 till detta meddelande visas exempel på de föreslagna faktabladen.

27. Kommissionen kommer att anmoda varje medlemsstat att utse nationella kontaktpunkter . Dessa kommer att spela en viktig roll vid samordningen av svaren på nationell nivå och i samarbetet med kommissionens avdelningar.

28. När det gäller EU:s lagstiftning , kommer indikatorerna och faktabladens bedömningssystem att fokusera på konkreta resultat från den praktiska tillämpningen av lagstiftningen och inte på i vilken utsträckning bestämmelserna har införlivats i nationell lagstiftning eller hur EU:s lagstiftning påverkat medlemsstaternas rättssystem. Detta behandlas i stället i ”resultattavlan för framsteg” där bestämmelsernas tillämpning och genomförande i nationell lagstiftning bedöms snarare än graden av måluppfyllelse.

29. När det gäller EU:s finansieringsprogram kommer faktabladen att grundas på befintliga genomförande- och utvärderingsrapporter som utarbetats i enlighet med bestämmelserna i budgetförordningen och den relevanta rättsliga grunden. De uppgifter som krävs för faktabladen om finansieringsprogram förväntas vara lätta att ta fram och det krävs därför endast några få ytterligare uppgifter från medlemsstaterna.

4.1.2. Rapporteringssystem

30. När kommissionen fått in faktabladen och samrått med berörda parter kommer den att behandla de inkomna uppgifterna och utarbeta en utvärderingsrapport där uppgifterna konsolideras och analyseras. Denna rapport kommer även att innehålla rekommendationer för politiken på de olika områden som tas upp.

31. Syftet med denna process är att utvärdera den politik som genomförs på EU-nivå på området för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa och identifiera områden som lämpar sig för en ingående strategisk utvärdering .

4.1.3. Strategiska utvärderingar av politiken

32. Efter utvärderingsrapporten och ytterligare samråd kan ingående strategiska utvärderingar av politiken på vissa områden göras. Dessa utvärderingar syftar till att få fram användbara och aktuella uppgifter som kan tjäna som underlag för politiska beslut på de olika politikområdena.

33. Tanken är att man genom dessa strategiska utvärderingar skall förbättra befintlig praxis (se bilaga 2), bland annat genom

(a) att fokusera på politiken (eller delar av den) snarare än på enskilda åtgärder (t.ex. utvärdering av den gemensamma invandringspolitiken),

(b) att analysera sambandet mellan olika åtgärder inom ett visst politikområde (t.ex. hur finansieringsprogram stöder och underlättar genomförandet av EU- lagstiftningen på ett givet område),

(c) att undersöka hur en viss politik bidrar till det övergripande målet att upprätta ett område med frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa,

(d) att fastställa graden av måluppfyllelse för det allmänna målet och

(e) att bedöma måluppfyllelse av ett övergripande mål på området för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa (t.ex. skyddet av grundläggande rättigheter).

4.2. Frekvens och uppföljning

34. Med en fastställd utvärderingsfrekvens är det möjligt att kontrollera utvecklingen med regelbundna intervall och göra jämförelser. Det föreslås att denna utvärdering (faktablad + utvärderingsrapport) genomförs två gånger vart femte år . Kommissionen kommer i största möjliga utsträckning att använda sig av redan disponibla uppgifter.

35. I detta förslag har hänsyn tagits till att utvärderingen

(a) bör vara regelbundet återkommande ,

(b) inte bör vara för betungande,

(c) inte behöver utföras årligen eftersom den inriktar sig på resultat som visar sig på längre sikt och uppgifter som samlas in över en längre period,

(d) bör samordnas med befintliga strategiska och fleråriga planer.

36. Med den tidsplan som föreslås kan rådet och kommissionen även använda resultaten från utvärderingsrapporterna när de bedömer om det finns behov av att ett nytt strategiskt program 2009 när Haagprogrammet löper ut.

37. Om utvärderingsrapporter utarbetas vartannat eller vart tredje år kan systemet samordnas med femårscykeln. Detta kommer att främja ett bättre och mer strategiskt utnyttjande av utvärderingsresultaten i beslutsfattandet. 2006–2007 kommer att utgöra en övergångsperiod (se tabellen nedan).

38. För att faktabladen skall kunna samordnas med ”resultattavlan för framsteg” planerar man att skicka ut dem till medlemsstaterna i slutet av 2006 och sedan offentliggöra utvärderingsrapporten och den andra resultattavlan i mitten av 2007.

Tidsplan | Resultattavlan för framsteg (SB) | Utvärderingssystem | Handlingsplan |

2005 | Antagande av handlingsplanen för Haagprogrammet |

2006 | SB+ 1 | Delrapport om genomförandet (i slutet av 2006) |

2007 | SB+ 2 | Utvärderingsrapport 1 | Första översyn av politiken |

2008 | SB+ 3 |

2009 | SB+ 4 | Utvärderingsrapport 2 |

2010 | SB+ 5 | Haagprogrammet löper ut |

2011 | SB+ 6 |

2012 | SB+ 7 | Utvärderingsrapport 3 |

2013 | SB+ 8 |

2014 | SB+ 9 | Utvärderingsrapport 4 |

(övergångsperioden är gråmarkerad)

39. Resultatutvärderingen i bilagan innehåller en uppskattning av medlemsstaternas administrativa merkostnader . Medlemsstaterna uppmanas att med kommissionens stöd arbeta för att de uppgifter som lämnas är jämförbara och korrekta . Aktuella utvärderingar av ett antal rättsliga åtgärder har visat att grundläggande uppgifter som lämnas om politiken ibland varken är harmoniserade eller korrekta. Rådets och kommissionens särskilda utvärderingar av politiken för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa kommer att utgöra en ytterligare informationskälla.

40. Detta meddelande utgör starten på en process av medellång varaktighet . Kommentarer och förslag till förbättringar av det föreslagna utvärderingssystemet och faktabladen kan göras i uppföljningen till detta meddelande. I detta syfte kommer en omfattande samrådsprocess att inledas och en öppen utfrågning planeras under hösten.

41. Efter fem år kommer systemet att ses över för att man skall undersöka vilka ändringar som behöver göras. Man kommer då att ta hänsyn till resultaten i fig. 2. Utvärderingen kommer att grundas på de målsättningar som anges i punkt 3.

5. SLUTSATSER

42. Kommissionen anser det nödvändigt att upprätta ett enhetligt och övergripande system för utvärdering av EU:s politik för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa, med beaktande av den nuvarande situationen och Haagprogrammets mandat. Ett sådant system måste vara flexibelt och ta hänsyn till utvecklingen av institutionella och rättsliga ramar för att se till att EU:s politik för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa ytterligare förbättras och effektiviseras.

43. Systemet kommer att vara uppbyggt så att resultaten från olika utvärderingar samlas inom samma ram och därigenom kan tjäna som underlag för det politiska beslutsfattandet på olika nivåer. På så sätt kommer det föreslagna systemet också att förse beslutsfattare med relevant information så att de har tid att överväga hur Haagprogrammet skall följas upp när det löper ut 2009.

44. Kommissionen och rådet kommer att genomföra systemet i enlighet med sina institutionella befogenheter och i nära samarbete med Europaparlamentet. För att utvärderingssystemet skall kunna lanseras och tillämpas effektivt är det nödvändigt att EU:s institutioner och medlemsstaterna, med hjälp av sina myndigheter och förvaltningar, samordnar och fullt ut stöder verksamheten .

45. Syftet med utvärderingssystemet är också att det skall effektivisera EU:s åtgärder och det kommer därför att bidra till att uppfylla de strategiska målsättningarna om bättre lagstiftning och större öppenhet om EU:s verksamhet .

ANNEX 1 Factsheet of JLS policies

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

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

Policy sub-area 1: External borders |

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

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

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

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

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

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

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

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

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

Policy sub-area 1: Citizenship of the Union |

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

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

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

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

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

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

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

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

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

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

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

POLICY AREA: COMMON IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICIES |

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

Policy sub-area 1: Common European Asylum System |

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

Policy sub-area level indicators: Number of asylum seekers applying for asylum in Member States other than the country of first entry (Source: Eurodac) Instances of MS breaching minimum defined standards (Source: Commission) Differences in standards of reception between Member States (Source: Commission) Differences between Member States with regard to the average time taken to determine the outcome of an application for asylum (Source: MS and Commission) Comparison of asylum acceptance rates among Member States[11] (Source: Commission - Eurostat) Differences in the level of capacity per Member State (asylum systems and reception facilities) relative to needs (Source: Member States) |

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

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

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

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

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

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

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

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

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

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

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

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

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

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

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

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

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

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

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

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

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

Policy sub-area 1: Civil matters |

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

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

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

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Horizontal cooperation activities |

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

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

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

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

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

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

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

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

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

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Terrorism |

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

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

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

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

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

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

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

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

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Objectives: Reduce detrimental cross border impacts of crises |

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

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

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

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

Measured by:

Assessments of MS capacities

Training and joint exercises conducted

Operational plans established

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

Measured by:

Actual responses to crises

Results of ‘Exercises’ undertaken.

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

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

1. MONITORING

1.1. The Tampere scoreboard

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

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

1.2. Reviewing implementation of EU legislation

1.2.1. Instruments adopted under the EC Treaty

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

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

Some reports, such as the evaluation of the derogation for issuing visas to members of the Olympic family[13], go beyond mere analysis of implementation and contain information on results. There are other examples concerning instruments adopted under Title II of the Treaty, such as reports[14] relating to free movement of Union citizens or reports[15] on their electoral rights in municipal and European Parliament elections.

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

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

For all Framework Decisions adopted by the Council, it is compulsory for Member States to transmit a detailed set of national implementing measures to the Commission and to the Council. Based on this information, the Commission then issues a report (e.g. 2002 Framework Decision on combating terrorism[16]). allowing the Council to debate the need for further measures in the field concerned. The Council generally expresses its position in a final report.

For some Framework Decisions, the Commission repeats or updates its monitoring exercise (e.g. “Victims” Framework Decision[17]).

Similarly, the Commission systematically monitors common positions and issues a monitoring report on national implementing measures. The Commission has also taken the initiative to issue specific reports on certain Council Decisions imposing no monitoring obligation such as those relating to Eurojust[18]

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

In some cases this exercise has been backed up by an initial assessment of practical implementation in the Member States and of the tangible results of the national legislation. For example, in the case of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant[19], some of the practical results of the implementing measures were included in the monitoring report, such as the question of effectiveness and rapidity of surrender. The Commission’s report also included some preliminary figures, such as the number of warrants issued or the average time taken to execute a warrant, which mainly illustrated the difficulty of obtaining adequate statistics in this field.

1.3. Information-gathering mechanisms on policy implementation

1.3.1. Existing mechanisms

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

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

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

1.3.2. Mechanisms in preparation

In the field of asylum, a Communication[20] on strengthened practical cooperation proposed bringing into operation a system for sharing expertise , resources and knowledge between key stakeholders, as a tool for strengthening common approaches to implementation of the first-stage legislative instruments of the European asylum system, building - amongst others - on existing mechanisms, such as the EURASIL group.

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

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

1.4. Monitoring implementation of The Hague Programme

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

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

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

2. EVALUATION

This section briefly describes the state of play with evaluation in the field of freedom, security and justice, depending on the subject-matter: (1) programmes, (2) legislation or (3) policies[21]. Evaluations on freedom, security and justice mainly focus on individual policy instruments , be they legislative or financial. As in other areas, evaluation of policies (defined as a coherent set of instruments serving the same coherent objective) is still developing . As a consequence, evaluation activities are currently very diverse (internal or external evaluations, annual progress reports, peer reviews, etc.) and very different in scope. This results in a lack of comparable evaluation results across policies and of a true overview of the results achieved in establishing an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

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

2.1. Evaluation of Community programmes

Evaluation of programmes is well developed within the Commission, including in the area of freedom, security and justice, where major programmes such as the European Refugee Fund, AGIS and DAPHNE are regularly evaluated[22]. Available evaluation results demonstrate that whilst the immediate results of funding programmes are easily identified and measured, their longer-term effects are sometimes more difficult to grasp. In this context, the Commission proposals for the 2007-2013 programmes on freedom, security and justice establish a better link between the programmes' specific objectives and the overall political objectives. This will have an impact on the evaluation framework for these programmes, in particular through assessment of their consistency with other instruments (legislative or other) in the same field.

2.2. Evaluation of legislation

Contrary to the evaluation of programmes, evaluation of legislation is a more recent development in the case of freedom, security and justice. Recent examples include the evaluation of the European Arrest Warrant[23] (2005), the economic evaluation of the Data Protection Directive[24] (2005) and the on-going evaluations of the Directive on minimum standards for the reception of asylum-seekers[25] and of the Brussels I Regulation[26]. Also, the introduction of impact assessments of EU legislation has led to systematic ex-ante appraisal, which should greatly facilitate further interim and/or ex-post evaluation. In this context, systematic scrutiny of legislative proposals and other draft instruments to ensure that they are compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights should serve the same purpose[27].

2.3. Evaluation of policies

2.3.1. Mechanism for Schengen evaluation

The Schengen evaluation system, first established in the intergovernmental Schengen framework and then integrated into the European Union framework[28], assesses correct implementation of the Schengen acquis by participating Member States through a peer review mechanism, including visits to Member States . It has issued restricted reports, given details of cases of non-compliance with existing rules and practices and made further recommendations. This mechanism applies to both Community and third pillar measures.

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

2.3.2. Mechanism for the fight against organised crime

Joint Action 97/827/JHA, adopted by the Council on 5 December 1997, established a mechanism for evaluating the application and implementation at national level of international undertakings in the fight against organised crime [29]. Two rounds of evaluation have already been completed and two others are ongoing. The first round focused on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, on which a report was subsequently released on 1 August 2001[30]. The second assessed instruments dealing with law enforcement and drug trafficking. Finally, the third and fourth rounds, not yet completed, are evaluating exchanges of information and intelligence between the Member States and Europol and the European Arrest Warrant respectively. The 1997 mechanism is operated by teams of experts designated by Member States, assisted by the General-Secretariat of the Council, with the involvement of the Commission. It is based on study visits and allows an in-depth examination of how instruments or policies are working in practice.

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

2.3.3. Mechanism for the fight against terrorism[31]

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

2.3.4. Evaluation of the EU Action Plan on Drugs

In 2004 the Commission carried out the final evaluation of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan on Drugs for 2000-2004[32], in cooperation with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and Europol. The evaluation exercise provided an overview of the drugs situation in the European Union over the reference period. The Strategy and the Action Plan included a wide range of drug-related measures, mainly within the competence of the Member States. Their impact on the drug situation in the European Union could not be considered, mainly because the EU Strategy and Action Plan failed to establish impact indicators.

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

2.3.5. Mechanism for evaluating respect of fundamental rights

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

The network of fundamental rights experts was created by the European Commission in 2002 in response to a recommendation in the European Parliament's report[33] on the state of fundamental rights in the European Union. The network assesses the fundamental rights situation through an annual report, on the basis of an analysis of the legislation, the case-law and the administrative practice of the national authorities of the Member States and in the institutions of the Union. The reference points for the evaluation are the rights set out in the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights. The results are published annually (so far, in 2003, 2004 and 2005).

ANNEX 3 Glossary

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

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

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

- Activity 1803 “Common immigration and asylum policies”,

- Activity 1804 “Citizenship and fundamental rights”,

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

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

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

Evaluation : “Judgement of interventions according to their results, impacts and the needs they aim to satisfy”[34]. It is a process undertaken by the Commission in order to identify what can be learned for policy and planning.

Ex ante/ex post evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcomes/results: The intermediate effects of a measure.

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

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

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

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

[1] Bilaga 1 till ordförandeskapets slutsatser från Europeiska rådets möte i Bryssel i november 2004.

[2] Rådets och kommissionens handlingsplan för genomförande av Haagprogrammet för ett stärkt område med frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa (OJC 198, 18.2.2005, p.1).

[3] Enligt handlingsplanen krävs det även en systematisk, objektiv och opartisk utvärdering av genomförandet av EU:s politik på det rättsliga området i syfte att förstärka det ömsesidiga förtroendet samtidigt som rättsväsendets oberoende respekteras. Senare i år lägger kommissionen fram ett annat meddelande där denna fråga behandlas ingående enligt de allmänna principer som fastställs i detta meddelande.

[4] KOM(2006) 333.

[5] SEK(2000) 1051.

[6] Se punkt 30.

[7] EU:s statistik utarbetas på grundval av bestämmelserna i rådets förordning om gemenskapsstatistik. Åtgärder för detta genomförs i överensstämmelse med gemenskapens statistiska program och de årliga programmen och med tillämpning av principerna i europeiska uppförandekoden avseende statistik.

[8] I steg 3 kan man fortsätta att använda det kollegiala utvärderingssystem som beskrivs i bilaga 2 punkt 2.3.2. Beroende på hur de nuvarande institutionella ramarna utvecklas kan kommissionen komma att administrera systemet i ett senare skede. Den kommer under alla omständigheter att komplettera systemet med egna ingående strategiska utvärderingar på de områden som omfattas av avdelning VI i EU-fördraget.

[9] Se punkt 30.

[10] Se punkt 3.3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[20] COM(2006) 67 final.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[32] COM(2004) 707.

[33] 2000/2231(INI).

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

1

Antagande av åtgärd i beslutsprocessen

Exempel:

Rådets direktiv om rösträtt och valbarhet vid val till Europaparlamentet för unionsmedborgare som är bosatta i en medlemsstat där de inte är medborgare

2

Medlemsstaternas genomförande av åtgärden

Införlivande av direktivet i nationell lagstiftning enligt direktivets bestämmelser

Kontroll av hur långt man har kommit med antagande och genomförande av åtgärderna (resultattavla)

3

Omedelbart resultat av åtgärden

Nationellt genomförande av åtgärden, t.ex. genom utarbetande av röstlängder

Utvärdering av resultaten av åtgärden

Utvärdering av genomförandet och effekterna av alla åtgärder

(allmän utvärderingsrapport)

Politiskt mandat: Flerårig planering

4

Åtgärdens resultat och effekter

Resultat: Antalet EU-medborgare som är bosatta i en medlemsstat där de inte är medborgare och som utövar sin rösträtt och/eller kandiderar i val till Europaparlamentet.

Effekt: Ökat valdeltagande, ökad legitimitet och representativitet för Europaparlamentet.

Strategiska utvärderingar av politiken

System för insamling och utbyte av information

Created on: 28/06/2006, 16:23 Created by: WELWEMO

Rapporterings-system

Faktablad

Utvärderings-rapport

Ingående utvär-deringsrapport

3 steg

Resultat