Proposal for a Council Decision amending and extending Decision 2001/923/EC establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ programme)
Date: 2006-05-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, action programme, euro, euro area, fight against crime, industrial counterfeiting, technical cooperation, vocational training

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 23.5.2006 
COM(2006) 243 final 

2006/0078 (CNS) 
2006/0079 (CNS) 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

to the European Parliament and to the Council concerning the implementation and 
results of the Pericles programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL DECISION 

amending and extending Decision 2001/923/EC establishing an exchange, assistance and 
training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ 
programme) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL DECISION 

extending to the non-participating Member States the application of Decision 
2006/…/EC amending and extending Decision 2001/923/EC establishing an exchange, 
assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting 
(the ‘Pericles’ programme) 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

to the European Parliament and to the Council concerning the implementation and 
results of the Pericles programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting 

1. 

General 

Pericles, the Community programme for exchange, assistance and training in the protection of 
the  euro  against  counterfeiting,  was  established  by  Council  Decision  of  17  December  2001 
(2001/923/EC),  ‘the  Pericles  Decision’,  as  amended  and  extended  by  the  Council  Decision 
2006/75/EC  and  is  designed  to  support  and  supplement  the  measures  undertaken  by  the 
Member  States  and  in  existing  programmes  to  protect  the  euro  against  counterfeiting.  Such 
measures  include  information  exchange  (seminars,  workshops,  meetings  and  conferences), 
placements and exchanges of staff, as well as technical, scientific and operational back-up.  

Article  13(3)(a)  of  the  Pericles  Decision  requires  a  report  evaluating  the  Programme 
accompanied by an appropriate proposal on the continuation or adaptation of the programme. 
The  evaluation  report  of  the  Pericles  Programme  was  issued  on  30  November  2004  and 
presented  to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council.  The  Commission  presented,  on  8  April 
2005, a proposal, based on which the Council extended the Programme for the year 2006 with 
a financial envelope of one million euro. 

Article  13(3)(b)  requires  a  detailed  report  on  the  implementation  and  results  of  the 
Programme to be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council by 30 June 2006. The 
present report responds to that requirement. 

2. 

Developments in euro counterfeiting 

Since  early  Summer  2003,  the  number  of  counterfeit  euro  banknotes  detected  in  circulation 
has stabilised at about 50 000 a month, a level below the pre-euro levels, lower than the US 
dollar and extremely low compared to the nine billion genuine euro banknotes in circulation. 
At  the  same  time,  the  number  of  counterfeit  euro  coins  is  continuing  to  increase  but  also 
remains low by historical standards. In addition, the police forces have successfully conducted 
a  number  of  operations  to  dismantle  workshops  and  seize  large  numbers  of  counterfeit 
banknotes and coins before they enter into circulation. 

Tables 1a and 1b summarise developments in the counterfeiting of euro banknotes and coins.  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Table 1a 

  Table 1b 

Counterfeit euro banknotes detected in circulation 

  Counterfeit euro coins detected in circulation 

2002 - 2005 

2002 - 2005 

Jan-Jun 2002 

Jul-Dec 2002 

Year 2002 

Jan-Jun 2003 

Jul-Dec 2003 

Year 2003 

Jan-Jun 2004 

Jul-Dec 2004 

Year 2004 

Jan-Jun 2005 

Jul-Dec 2005 

21965 

145153 

230534 

311925 

307000 

287000 

293442 

287459 

Jan-Jun 2002 

Jul-Dec 2002 

167118 

Year 2002 

Jan-Jun 2003 

Jul-Dec 2003 

542459 

Year 2003 

Jan-Jun 2004 

Jul-Dec20 04 

68 

2271 

8100 

18091 

36191 

38309 

2339 

26191 

594000 

Year 2004 

74500 

Jan-Jun 2005 

Jul-Dec 2005 

184007 

78677 

Year 2005 

580901 

Year 2005 

262684 

This  overall  favourable  situation  is  the  result  of  a  long  preparation  at  both  legislative  and 
institutional  level  and  demonstrates  the  high  level  of  cooperation  achieved  in  EU  and  at 
international level. The Commission set out the basic ideas for the protection of the euro in a 
Communication  it  published  as  early  as  19981.  On  that  basis,  the  Council  adopted  a  basic 
Regulation in 20012, laying the institutional foundations for the protection structure; that was 
preceded  by  a  Council  Framework  Decision3,  adopted  in  2000,  by  which  protection  of  the 
euro  with  criminal  penalties  is  strengthened  and,  to  some  extent,  harmonised.  In  1999 
Europol’s  mandate  was  extended  to  include  money  counterfeiting4  and  it  was  further 
enhanced  in  2005  with  Europol  being  designated  as  the  Central  Office  for  combating  euro 
counterfeiting. With regard to criminal sanctions, the Commission has published two reports5 
on  the  implementation  of  the  above-mentioned  Framework  Decision,  which  show  a 
satisfactory level of implementation. 

With a view to ensuring the clear structure in the fight against currency counterfeiting as well 
as close cooperation and efficient flow of information National Central Offices (NCO) were 
established in all Member States. Databases and communication systems are operating in the 
ECB and Europol. Dedicated bodies were created for the technical analysis of counterfeits in 
the Member States, the ECB - for banknotes, and the Commission - for coins. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

The communication of the Commission of 22 July 1998 to the Council, the European Parliament and 
the ECB entitled ‘Protection of the euro- combating counterfeiting’ COM(98) 474 final. 
OJ  L  181,  4/7/2001  Council  Regulation  (EC)  no  1338/2001  laying  down  measures  necessary  for  the 
protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting;  and  OJ  L  181,  4/7/2001  Council  Regulation  (EC)  no 
1339/2001 extending the effects of Regulation (EC) N° 1338/2001 to those Member States which have 
not adopted the euro as their single currency. 
OJ L 140, 29/05/2000 Council Framework Decision on increasing protection by criminal penalties and 
other sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro 
OJ  C  149/16,  28/05/1999  Council  Decision  of  29.04.1999  extending  Europol’s  mandate  to  deal  with 
forgery of money and means of payment 
Commission  Report  COM(2001)  771  of  13.12.2001,  Second  Commission  report  COM(2003)  532  of 
03.09.2003 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  Pericles  programme  is  playing  a  significant  role  in  achieving  the  present  results  in  the 
protection of the euro and the fight against the crime of counterfeiting, through the exchange 
of information and the development of cooperation. Continuing vigilance is needed in order to 
maintain and build on the results currently achieved in the fight euro counterfeiting. Training 
and technical assistance plays an important role in this respect, hence the need to continue the 
Pericles programme. 

3. 

The evaluation report 

In  line  with  Article  13(3)(a)  of  the  Pericles  Decision,  the  evaluation  of  the  Pericles 
programme  was  assigned  to  the  independent  auditor  of  the  European  Anti-fraud  Office 
(OLAF) who submitted the evaluation report on 30 November 2004. 

The evaluator examined the files of 21 of the Pericles actions carried out until March 2004, on 
Member  State  or  Commission  initiative.  Based  on  questionnaires  to  organisers  and 
participants,  as  well  as  discussions  with  stake  holders,  he  reached  the  following  main 
conclusions6: 

•  The programme has improved awareness of the Community dimension of the euro 
and  has  also  developed  a  greater  understanding  amongst  the  participants  of  the 
related  laws  and  instruments  and,  in  particular,  of  the  relevant  Community  and 
broader European law. 

•  With regard to the range of information exchanges and methodologies/measures, 

most have been presented in the various workshops, meetings and seminars. 

•  The target groups for the programme have been reached in part with a very high 
participation  by  law  enforcement  officials;  attendance  by  commercial  banking 
sector, specialist lawyers or chambers of commerce was not sufficient. 

•  The  activities  examined  were  considered  relevant  to  and  among  the  main 

objectives of the programme. 

•  In terms of costs, the evaluator found that some of the projects were particularly 

costly and highlighted specific cost items. 

The evaluator made several recommendations that have been taken into consideration for the 
Pericles 2006 programme. Notably: 

•  The programme should continue for a further 4 years at least with the same budget 
(€  1  million  per  year)  and  with  the  same  measures  and  target  groups.  A  second 
evaluation should take place after four years. 

•  Emphasis should be put on practical training. There should be a prioritisation in 
favour  of  staff  exchanges  and  specific  training,  including  case  studies.  These 
activities are also more cost efficient. 

6 

Evaluation report p.4, 21, 22 and 23 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

The implementation of the programme 

Based on the reference amount of 4 million euro for the period 2002-2005 and 1 million euro 
for  2006,  the  annual  appropriations  authorised  under  the  Pericles  programme,  were  €  1.2 
million for 2002; € 0.9 million for 2003; € 0.9 million for 2004; € 1 million for 2005 and € 1 
million for 2006. 

The  implementation  of  the  Programme  made  a  slow  start,  mainly  due  to  its  adoption  in 
December 2001. Thus, the first project under Pericles was only carried out in October 2002 
and  the  amount  committed  in  2002  was  just  under  40%  of  the  initial  budget  allocation  (the 
allocation was reviewed downwards in the course of the year). Subsequently, the programme 
took  off  and  the  budget  allocation  was  committed  at  high  levels  in  2003,  2004  and  2005. 
Member States expressed intentions show complete implementation in 2006.  

Based on these statistics/forecasts, the overall level of commitments during the period 2002-
2006 will have reached 80% of the initial reference amount. 

The main aggregates in the implementation of Pericles are shown on Table 2.  

TABLE 2 

PERICLES - SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION 2002 – 2005 AND INTENTIONS FOR 2006 

Financial year  Number of 

Initiating MS   Main Target 

Groups 

Number of 
participants 

Grant 
commitments 

Budget 
allocation 

Level of commitment

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 
(intentions) 

TOTAL 
(estimates) 

actions 

7 

MS 

5 

COM   2 

16 

MS 

12 

COM  4 

15 

MS  

11 

COM   4 

12 

MS 

7 

COM  5 

14 

MS 

13 

COM  1 

64 

MS 

48 

COM  16 

DE, IT, ES, 
EL, (NL + UK) 

Police, financial 

366 

474 905 

1 200 000 

39.6 % 

PT, IT, DE, ES, 
FR, FI, EL 

Police, judiciary, 
financial, 
commerce 

753 

847 168 

900 000 

94.1 % 

AT, FR, DE, 
EL, IT, ES, PT, 

Police, judiciary, 
financial, banks 

586 

774 926 

900 000 

86.1% 

FR, DE, IT, ES   Financial, banks, 
police, judiciary, 
commerce 

B, DE, ES, FR, 
HU, IT, IR, PO 

Technical, 
financial, banks, 
judiciary 

738 

921 912 

1 000 000 

92.1% 

700 

980 000 

1 000 000 

98.0% 

3143 

3 998 911 

5 000 000 

80.0% 

5. 

Value added of the programme 

The  Pericles  programme  has  been  offering  substantial  value  added  to  the  protection  of  the 
euro  against  counterfeiting.  This  has  materialised  through  a  broad  range  of  actions 
undertaken,  the  precise  targeting  of  the  actions  and  the  large  numbers  of  participants. 
Emphasis was put on the European dimension of the fight against euro counterfeiting and, in 
addition  to  the  EU  Member  States,  it  was  possible  to  target  sensitive  geographical  areas. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Finally,  the  Pericles  programme  has  made  a  substantial  contribution  to  the  further 
improvement of coordination and cooperation at international, European and Member States 
level,  as  well  as  the  creation  of  more  solid  structures  for  the  protection  of  the  European 
currency. 

Broad range of Actions 

In  the  course  of  the  first  four  years  of  the  programme  50  projects  were  initiated;  for  2006 
another 14 actions  are intended by the Member States and the Commission. Of the total  64 
projects,  48  originate  from  the  competent  authorities  of  Member  States,  while  16  were 
initiatives of the Commission/OLAF.  

Most  of  the  actions  carried  out  have  been  conferences,  seminars  and  workshops,  as  well  as 
specialised  training  courses.  Staff  exchange  has,  nonetheless,  gained  ground  and  has  now 
become a standard feature of Pericles. Following enlargement, this type of activity is likely to 
develop further, which is also in line with the recommendation of the Pericles evaluator. Only 
one  technical  study  was  implemented  under  the  current  Pericles  and  another  two  are  in  the 
process  of  implementation  in  2006.  The  analysis  of  Pericles  by  type  of  project  is  shown  in 
Table 3. 

TABLE 3  PERICLES – ANALYSIS BY TYPE OF ACTION 2002 – 2006 

Financial 
year 
2002 
2003 
2004 
2005 

2006 
(intentions) 

TOTAL 
(estimates) 

Conference
-type 

Staff 
exchange 

Studies 

Total 

6 

11 

10 

8 

9 

44 

1 

4 

5 

3 

4 

17 

- 

1 

- 

1 

1 

3 

7 

16 

15 

12 

14 

64 

Selected target groups and participants 

About 3150 experts participated in these events. In the first years of the programme, the large 
majority  of  participants  were  law  enforcement  agents  not  normally  involved  in  the 
Community  efforts  to  prevent  euro  counterfeiting.  This  focus  reflects  the  initial  priority  of 
establishing closer professional ties for a more efficient fight against euro counterfeiting. In 
this  respect,  the  evaluation  report  (p.  10  and  11)  shows  that,  until  March  2004,  65%  of 
participants were mainly from law enforcement agencies. As of 2003, a greater involvement 
of judiciary authorities is observed, while as of 2004 and 2005, there is a more pronounced 
participation  of  the  financial  sector  (public  sector  financial  intermediaries,  National  Central 
Banks, commercial banking and other financial institutions). 

This development is in line with the recommendation of the evaluator, while the organisation 
of more technical seminars is also being promoted. In managing the programme, it was sought 
to avoid overlapping in participation; and the evaluation report notes that this was achieved. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
In  terms  of  origin  of  the  participants,  the  evaluation  report  notes  that  these  came  from  76 
countries,  a  majority  from  Member  States.  It  was  noted  that  some  countries  showed  a  low 
level of participation, among them some of the euro area countries. This situation may reflect 
organisational  rather  than  structural  situations  and  an  effort  to  balance  it  is  currently  under 
way. Some countries are more active in organising events, with Italy representing over 21% 
of  the  total  number  of  activities.  As  of  2005,  the  new  Member  States  became  active  in 
organising Pericles actions. 

European Dimension 

As the evaluation report also mentions (p. 14) that the organisation of Pericles actions covered 
all  the  areas  relevant  to  the  protection  of  the  euro:  law  enforcement,  judicial,  financial  and 
technical  and  promoted  particularly  the  creation  of  networks  useful  for  achieving  greater 
efficiency  in  the  fight  against  the  crime  of  counterfeiting.  The  European  dimension  of  the 
protection of the euro is emphasised through the systematic involvement of ECB, Europol and 
other European and international organisations in Pericles actions. Europol complements the 
role  of  OLAF  in  by  its  involvement  in  the  evaluation  and  implementation  phases  of  the 
Pericles programme. Europol collaborates with OLAF in the designing and implementation of 
specialised  projects  such  as  the  training  entitled  ‘Bitmap’;  Europol  supplied  the  technical 
expertise,  while  the  Commission/OLAF  provided  the  infrastructure  and  Pericles  funding. 
With regard to the aspects of euro protection, where the responsibility belongs to the Member 
States, expertise was systematically sought in their specialised services. 

Geographical Emphasis 

The  Pericles  actions  have  taken  place  mostly  inside  the  EU.  However,  a  number  of  actions 
have been organised in third or candidate countries, reflecting the specific needs to protect the 
euro. Awareness-raising actions were a priority for candidate countries before accession. By 
identifying  areas  having  a  major  impact  on  the  production  of  counterfeit  banknotes,  South 
America, in particular Colombia became a major focus for Pericles actions, as were countries 
neighbouring the EU, including Bulgaria and Romania. 

As  a  result  the  geographical  areas  covered  and  the  diversified  target  groups  reached,  the 
transnationality  and  multidisciplinarity  dimensions  of  the  programme,  as  required  under 
Article 3 of the Pericles Decision have been respected. Multidisciplinarity has been achieved 
by  ensuring  the  level  of  expertise  and  by  controlling  the  professional  background  of  the 
participants, as well as verifying the content of the actions.  

Coordination among European Bodies and within the Commission 

In line with Article 5 of the Pericles Decision, the programme is implemented and coordinated 
by the Commission and the Member States working closely together. The coordination of the 
Pericles  and  other  training  actions  is  carried  out  at  the  Commission’s  Euro  Counterfeiting 
Experts  Group,  which  brings  together  experts  from  all  Member  States  and  candidate 
countries,  with  participation  of  Europol,  the  ECB  and  Interpol.  This  forum  ensures  that 
resources and efforts to protect the euro are used in the most effective manner. Training and 
technical assistance actions carried out by the ECB and Europol are closely coordinated with 
Pericles. This coordination is in also line with Recital (7) of the Pericles Decision. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Pericles  has  now  practically  centralised  Community  level  initiatives  carried  out  by  the 
Commission and Member State with respect to the protection of the euro and has also largely 
replaced the Commission’s specific ‘Protection of the euro’ budget line. A small number of 
actions  geared  to  the  protection  against  currency  counterfeiting  are  carried  out  under  other 
Community  programmes,  such  as  TAIEX  and  Twinning.  Such  actions  are  mainly  single-
country  or  single-subject  actions  (i.e.  not  eligible  under  Pericles)  and  are  systematically 
coordinated  with  Pericles  by  the  competent  service  in  the  Commission  in  coordination  with 
Member States. 

Increased cooperation and coordination among Member States  

The success of the Pericles programme is demonstrated by the increased effectiveness of the 
cooperation  among  law  enforcement  agents,  and  more  recently,  representatives  of  the 
judiciary and financial institutions. This is true particularly between Member States but also 
with  respect  to  acceding,  candidate  and  other  neighbouring  countries.  In  addition  to  its 
training and technical content, the Pericles programme provides a forum for regular contacts 
among  experts  responsible  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  but  importantly,  also  enables 
professionals to develop links which contribute to closer working relationships and improved 
cooperation  overall.  Close  coordination  of  Pericles’  projects  with  Community  and  Member 
State  initiatives  has  also  led  to  more  training  methods  based  on  best  practices  and  a  better 
managed  content  of  training  actions.  This  has  ensured  that  the  best  experts  available  are 
trained by top level people while the content of each action has been targeted to the audience 
to achieve particular aims. 

Structural improvements 

Significantly, in addition to their awareness and training content, Pericles actions have led to a 
number of structural and other improvements in Member States and in third countries. Among 
others,  National  Central  Offices  for  the  fight  against  counterfeiting  were  created  in  several 
countries; two Pericles seminars assisted the (then) acceding countries in their efforts to apply 
the  Community  acquis  in  the  specific  area  of  protecting  the  euro;  a  code  of  conduct  was 
drawn  with  respect  to  press  and  communication  issues;  and  one  of  the  workshops  led  to  a 
proposal, by Member States, for a Council Recommendation. 

* * *

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

Pericles, the Community programme for exchange, assistance and training in the protection of 
the  euro  against  counterfeiting,  was  established  by  Council  Decision  of  17  December  2001 
(2001/923/EC)  and  is  designed  to  support  and  supplement  the  measures  undertaken  by  the 
Member States and in existing programmes to protect the euro against counterfeiting. Based 
on  the  Pericles  evaluation  report  of  30  November  2004  it  is  proposed  that  the  Council 
Decision 17 December 2001 now be extended until 31 December 2013. 

The first extension to 2006 

Pericles initially ran from 1 January 2002 until end 2005. On 8 April 2005 the Commission 
submitted a amending and extending the Pericles Programme for the period from  1 January 
2006 to 31 December 2011 (COM/2005/0127/final). Based on the Pericles evaluation report 
of  30  November  2004,  the  Council  agreed  that  the  Pericles  programme  should  be  further 
extended.  

The  Council  decided  to  extend  the  programme  up  until  31  December  2006  taking  into 
consideration the fact that at the time of discussions Community financial perspectives were 
available only until 2006.  

Proposed further extension and amount 

The agreement reached at the Council provides that the Pericles programme should be further 
extended for a number of years, up to 2011, as was proposed at the time by the Commission. 
Specifically the Council stated at its meeting on 30 January 2006 the following: ‘the Council 
considers that Pericles has a multi-annual nature and it should be extended to 2011. To this 
effect  it  invites  the  Commission  to  present  a  proposal  for  extending  the  programme  for  the 
period starting from 2007 as soon as an agreement on the future financial framework 2007-
2013 has been reached’7. 

In detail, the Council considered the following grounds for extending the programme: 

•  continuing  vigilance  in  order  to  maintain  or  reduce  the  current  level  of  euro 
banknote  counterfeiting  and  avoid  any  increase  in  euro  coin  counterfeiting  that 
would undermine the confidence of the public; 

•  training/informing  new  staff  and  extend  the  training  to  sectors  that  have  less 
benefited from the Pericles programme, namely financial agents, prosecutors and 
technical staff; 

•  training relevant staff in the features of the new generation of the euro banknotes, 

to be issued at the end of this decade; 

•  particularly  insisting  on  training  and  technical  assistance  in  the  new  Member 
States,  with  priority  to  those  who  will  first  introduce  the  euro  as  their  single 
currency. 

7 

General Affairs and External Relations Council Conclusions 30 January 2006 p. 11 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
There is a manifest need for continuous training and technical assistance for the protection of 
the euro. This is both because Member States are likely to join the euro area and due to the 
need for continuous updating of expertise in relevant services.  

The Council reached final agreement on the financial perspectives for the period 2007- 2013 
at the European Council meeting on 15-16 December 20058.  

It  is  current  practice  that  Community  financing  programmes  match  the  duration  of  the 
Community’s  financial  perspectives.  This  contributes  to  streamlining  the  approval  of 
programmes and avoiding procedures to fill gap periods.  

In  the  light  of  the  above  considerations,  it  is  proposed  that  the  Pericles  programme  be 
extended for a further period of seven years, until the end of 2013 with an unchanged yearly 
amount of one million euro per year –7 million euro in total. 

Proposed modifications 

Specifically, it is proposed to modify: 

- Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Pericles Decision to define as new end-date 31 December 2013;  

- Article 6 to set the reference amount at EUR 7 million.  

Considering  the  period  of  extension  it  is  proposed  to  modify  the  deadlines  referred  to  in 
Article 13, paragraph 3 as follows: 

- in point (a) replace “30 June 2005” with “30 June 2013”; 

- in point (b) define an additional deadline at 30 June 2014. 

The date of application in Article 15 should be 1 January 2007. 

8 

(Doc. 15915/05) 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2006/0078 (CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL DECISION 

amending and extending Decision 2001/923/EC establishing an exchange, assistance and 
training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ 
programme) 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the third 
sentence of Article 123(4) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission9, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament10, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank11, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

In  accordance  with  Article  13(3)(a)  of  Council  Decision  2001/923/EC  12,  the 
Commission is to send to the European Parliament and to the Council by 30 June 2005 
a  report,  which  shall  be  independent  of  the  programme  manager,  evaluating  the 
relevance, the efficiency and the effectiveness of the programme and a communication 
on  whether  this  programme  should  be  continued  and  adapted,  accompanied  by  an 
appropriate proposal. 

The  evaluation  report  provided  for  in  Article  13  of  that  Decision  was  issued  on  30 
November  2004.  It  concludes  that  the  programme  has  been  achieving  its  objectives 
and recommends its continuation. 

A financial reference amount, within the meaning of point 34 of the Interinstitutional 
Agreement  of  6  May  1999  between  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the 
Commission on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure13 is 
inserted in this Decision for the entire duration of the programme, without the powers 
of the budgetary authority as defined by the Treaty being affected thereby. 

(4) 

The continuation of the programme reflects the need for continuing vigilance, training 
and  technical  assistance  necessary  to  sustain  the  protection  of  the  euro  against 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

OJ C , , p.  
OJ C , , p.  
OJ C , , p.  
OJ L 339, 21.12.2001, p.50.. Decision as amended by Decision 2006/75/EC (OJ L 36, 8.2.2006, p. 40). 
OJ C 172, 18.6.1999, p. 1. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
counterfeiting,  by  providing  a  stable  framework  for  the  planning  of  Member  States 
programmes,  particularly  over  a  period  during  which  new  countries  become 
participants in the euro. 

In  this  spirit,  the  Commission  submitted  on  8  April  2005  a  proposal  for  the 
continuation of the “Pericles” programme14 until 31 December 2011. 

In  the  process  of  reaching  final  agreement  on  the  Community  financial  perspectives 
for 2007-2013, the Council decided to extend Pericles for the year 2006. 

In  its  conclusions  of  30  January  2006,  the  Council  agreed  that  Pericles  has  a  multi-
annual  nature  and  that  it  should  be  extended  to  2011.  To  this  effect  it  invited  the 
Commission to present a proposal for extending the programme for the period starting 
from 2007 as soon as an agreement on the future financial framework 2007-2013 has 
been reached. 

It  is  appropriate  that  the  Community  programmes  be  in  line  with  the  Community’s 
financial perspectives. 

Consequently, and in view of the need for continuous training and assistance for the 
protection of the euro the Pericles programme should be extended until 31 December 
2013. Decision 2001/923/EC should therefore be amended accordingly, 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: 

Article 1 
Amendments 

Decision 2001/923/EC is hereby amended as follows: 

(1) 

The last sentence of Article 1(2) is replaced by the following:  

“It shall run from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2013.” 

(2) 

The following paragraph is added after the second paragraph of Article 6: 

“The  financial  reference  amount  for  the  implementation  of  the  Community 
programme of action for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013 shall 
be EUR 7 million.” 

(3) 

Article 13(3) is amended as follows: 

(a) In point (a), the date “30 June 2005” is replaced by “30 June 2013”. 

(b) Point (b) is replaced by the following: 

“(b) on completion of the initial and the additional periods of the programme and no later than 
30 June 2006 and 2014 respectively, detailed reports on the implementation and the 

14 

COM (2005)127 final. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
results  of  the  programme  setting  out  in  particular  the  added  value  of  the 
Community’s financial assistance.” 

Article 2 
Applicability 

This  Decision  shall  have  effect  in  the  participating  Member  States  as  defined  in  the  first 
indent of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction 
of the euro15. 

Article 3 
Entry into force 

This  Decision  shall  take  effect  on  the  day  of  its  publication  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the 
European Union. 

It shall apply from 1 January 2007. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 
The President 

15 

OJ  L  139,  11.5.1998,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  2169/2005  (OJ  L  346, 
29.12.2005, p. 1). 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2006/0079 (CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL DECISION 

extending  to  the  non-participating  Member  States  the  application  of  Decision  2006/…/EC 
amending  and  extending  Decision  2001/923/EC  establishing  an  exchange,  assistance  and 
training  programme  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting  (the  ‘Pericles’ 
programme) 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community,  and  in  particular  Article  308 
thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission16, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament17, 

Whereas: 

(1)  When  adopting  Decision  2006/…/EC  18  the  Council  indicated  that  it  should  apply  in  the 
participating Member States as defined in the first indent of Article 1 of Council Regulation 
(EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro19. 

(2) 

However,  the  exchange  of  information  and  staff  and  the  assistance  and  training  measures 
implemented  under  the  Pericles  programme  should  be  uniform  throughout  the  Community 
and  the  requisite  provisions  should  therefore  be  taken  to  guarantee  the  same  level  of 
protection for the euro in the Member States where the euro is not their official currency, 

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: 

Article 1 

The  application  of  Decision  2006/…/EC  shall  be  extended  to  Member  States  other  than  the 
participating Member States as defined in the first indent of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 
974/1998.  

16 
17 
18 
19 

OJ C , , p.  
OJ C , , p.  
See page … of this Official Journal. 
OJ L 139, 11.5.1998, p.1. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Article 2 

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European 
Union. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX  

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

1. 

NAME OF THE PROPOSAL: 

Council  Decision  of  […]  extending  Council  Decision  of  17  December  2001  establishing  an 
exchange,  assistance  and  training  programme  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting 
(the ‘Pericles’ programme) as last amended and extended by Council Decision 2006/75/EC 

2. 

ABM / ABB FRAMEWORK 

Policy Area(s) concerned and associated Activity/Activities: Fight against fraud. 

3. 

BUDGET LINES 

3.1. 

Budget lines (operational lines and related technical and administrative assistance lines (ex- 
B..A lines)) including headings : 

24 02 02 Pericles 

3.2. 

Duration of the action and of the financial impact: 

From 1 January 2007 until 31 December 2013 

3.3. 

Budgetary characteristics (add rows if necessary) : 

Budget 
line 

24 02 02 

Type of expenditure 

New 

EFTA 
contribution 

Contributions 
from applicant 
countries 

Heading in 
financial 
perspective 

Non 
Comp 

Diff 

 NO 

NO 

NO 

No 1a) 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
4. 

SUMMARY OF RESOURCES 

4.1. 

Financial Resources 

4.1.1.  Summary of commitment appropriations (CA) and payment appropriations (PA) 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Section 

Expenditure  

no. 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Total 

type 

Operational 
expenditure20 

Commitment 
Appropriations 
(CA) 

Payment 
Appropriations 
(PA) 

8.1 

a 

b 

1,000  1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000  1,000  7,000 

0,500  1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000  1,500  7,000 

Administrative expenditure within reference amount21: 
none 

RREEFFEERREENNCCEE  

a+c 

b+c 

1,000  1,000  1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000  1,000 

7,000 

0,500  1,000  1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000  1,500 

7,000 

8.2.5 

d 

0,207  0,207  0,207 0,207 0,207 0,207  0,207  1,449 

8.2.6 

e 

0,090  0,090  0,090 0,090 0,090 0,090  0,090  0,63 

TTOOTTAALL  
AAMMOOUUNNTT  

Commitment 
Appropriations 

Payment 
Appropriations 

Human 
resources  and 
associated 
expenditure 
(NDA) 

Administrative 
costs, other than 
human 
and 
resources 
associated  costs, 
not  included  in 
reference 

20 
21 

Expenditure that does not fall under Chapter xx 01 of the Title xx concerned. 
Expenditure within article xx 01 04 of Title xx. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
amount (NDA) 

Total indicative financial cost of intervention  

including 
TOTAL  CA 
cost of Human Resources 

a+c+d+e 

1,297 1,297 1,297 1,297 1,297  1,297  1,297 9,079

TOTAL  PA 
including 
cost of Human Resources 

b+c+d+e 

0,797 1,297 1,297 1,297 1,297  1,297  1,797 9,079

Co-financing details 

If the proposal involves co-financing by Member States, or other bodies (please specify which), an 
estimate of the level of this co-financing should be indicated in the table below (additional lines may 
be added if different bodies are foreseen for the provision of the co-financing):  

The programme will be implemented as a Commission initiative by 20% and as initiative of Member 
States  by  80%.  In  view  of  the  proposed  co-financing  proportions  (80%  Community  –  20% 
beneficiary) the amount of subsidy is increased proportionally by the national contribution. 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Co-financing body 

Competent national 
authorities 

20% by Member States 

TOTAL  CA  including  co-
financing 

f 

a+c+
d+e+
f 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Total 

0,324 

0,324 

0,324 

0,324 

0,324 

0,324 

0,324 

1,621 

1,621 

1,621 

1,621 

1,621 

1,621 

1,621 

2,268 

11,347 

4.1.2.  Compatibility with Financial Programming 

The proposal is compatible with existing financial programming for the whole period of its 

(cid:59) 
implementation.  

4.1.3.  Financial impact on Revenue 

(cid:59) 

Proposal has no financial implications on revenue 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. 

CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVES 

Details  of  the  context  of  the  proposal  are  required  in  the  Explanatory  Memorandum.  This 
section  of  the  Legislative  Financial  Statement  should  include  the  following  specific 
complementary information: 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

Need  to  be  met  in  the  short  or  long  term:  Continuation  of  the  facility  for  training  and 
technical assistance for the protection of the euro; provision of a medium term framework 
for the planning of Member States. 

Value-added of Community involvement and coherence of the proposal with other financial 
instruments and possible synergy: Emphasis on the Community dimension of the protection 
of the euro; strengthening cooperation and awareness on the importance of the protection of 
the euro against counterfeiting. 

Objectives,  expected  results  and  related  indicators  of  the  proposal  in  the  context  of  the 
ABM framework: Maintain the current overall level of training and technical assistance in 
the form of Pericles actions. 

5.4. 

Method of Implementation (indicative) 

Show below the method(s)22 chosen for the implementation of the action. 

(cid:59) 

(cid:59) 

6. 

Centralised Management 

Directly by the Commission 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

6.1. 

Monitoring system 

The  Commission  keeps  detailed  the  Pericles  projects  and  analyses  periodically  its 
implementation. 

6.2. 

Evaluation 

6.2.1.  Ex-ante evaluation 

The  proposal  for  the  extension  of  Pericles  is  based  on  the  evaluation  of  the  programme 
during  the  first  years  of  its  implementation.  This  is  summarised  in  section  3  of  the 
Communication  (p.  4).  In  particular,  the  evaluator  recommended  that:  the  programme 
should continue for a further 4 years at least with the same budget (€ 1 million per year); the 
programme should give priority to those Member States with low participation or who did 
not organise actions in the first programme, as well as the new Member States. Emphasis 

22 

If more than one method is indicated please provide additional details in the "Relevant comments" section of 
this point 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
should  be  put  on  practical  training.  There  should  be  a  prioritisation  in  favour  of  staff 
exchanges and specific training, including case studies. Co-operation between the European 
institutions/bodies  (Commission/OLAF,  ECB  and  Europol)  should  be  further  developed. 
With a view to enabling the assessment of the effect of the programme, among others on the 
convergence of high level training for trainers, the evaluator recommends the preparation of 
a strategy document, to be finalised before the new Pericles enters into effect. 

With  regard  to  individual  projects,  an  ex-ante  evaluation  is  carried  out  by  the  Pericles 
Evaluation Committee (Commission). 

6.2.2.  Measures taken following an intermediate/ex-post evaluation (lessons learned from similar 

experiences in the past):  

The proposal for the extension of Pericles takes into consideration the conclusions reached 
by the programme evaluator (section 3, p. 4) namely:  

–  The programme has improved awareness of the Community dimension of the euro and 
has also developed a greater understanding amongst the participants of the related laws 
and instruments and in particular of the relevant Community and broader European law. 

–  With  regard  to  the  range  of  information  exchanges  and  methodologies/measures,  most 

have been presented in the various workshops, meetings and seminars. 

–  The  target  groups  for  the  programme  have  been  reached  in  part  with  a  very  high 
participation  by  law  enforcement  officials;  attendance  by  commercial  banking  sector, 
specialist lawyers or chambers of commerce was not sufficient. 

–  The activities examined were considered relevant to and among the main objectives of 

the programme. 

–  In terms of costs, the evaluator found that some of the projects were particularly costly 

and highlighted specific cost items. 

With regard to individual projects, the beneficiaries of each project selected submit a final 
and  a  financial  report  to  the  Commission.  The  Commission  analyses  the  reports  and 
evaluates, also on the basis of its attendance in the actions, the way in which they have been 
implemented and the impact they have had in order to gauge whether the objectives have 
been achieved. 

6.2.3.  Terms  and  frequency  of  future  evaluation.  The  programme  will  undergo  an  independent 
evaluation in 2013 and a detailed report on its implementation will be sent to the Council 
and the European Parliament by June 2014. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
7. 

ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES 

The careful examination at the Evaluation Committee, the discussions at the Commission’s relevant 
group and the financial analysis constitute guarantees against fraud. In addition, the beneficiaries are 
government agencies, usually law enforcement, which minimises the likelihood of fraud. 

The  Commission  may  carry  out  on-the-spot  checks  and  inspections  under  this  programme  in 
accordance with Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) N° 2185/9623. Where necessary, investigations 
are  conducted  by  the  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF)  and  governed  by  European  Parliament 
and Council Regulation (EC) N° 1073/199924. 

The  beneficiary  of  an  operation  grant  must  keep  available  for  the  Commission  all  the  supporting 
documents,  including  the  audited  financial  statement,  regarding  expenditure  incurred  during  the 
grant  year  for  a  period  of  five  years  following  the  last  payment.  The  beneficiary  of  a  grant  must 
ensure  that,  where  applicable,  supporting  documents  in  the  possession  of  partners  or  members  are 
made available to the Commission. 

23 
24 

OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 2. 
OJ L 136 du 31.5.1999, p. 1. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
8 

DETAILS OF RESOURCES 8.1.  Objectives of the proposal in terms of their financial cost 

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Type of 
output 

Av. 
cost 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

TOTAL 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

(Headings of 
Objectives, 
actions and 
outputs should 
be provided) 

Operational obj: 
Maintenance of 
the current overall 
level of training 
and technical 
assistance 

Grants 

Seminar-
type 

Staff 
exchange 

Studies  – 
tech 
i t
COM 

Seminar-
type 

Staff 
exchange 

Studies  – 
tech 
assist 

Action 1 

- Output 1 

- Output 2 

- Output 3 

Action 2 

- Output 1 

- Output 2 

- Output 3 

Sub-total 
Objective 

7 

6 

1 

2 

1 

1 

0,450 

0,300 

0,050 

0,100 

0,050 

0,050 

7 

6 

1 

2 

1 

1 

0,450 

0,300 

0,050 

0,100 

0,050 

0,050 

7 

6 

1 

2 

1 

1 

0,450 

0,300 

0,050 

0,100 

0,050 

0,050 

7 

6 

1 

2 

1 

1 

0,450 

0,300 

0,050 

0,100 

0,050 

0,050 

7 

6 

1 

2 

1 

1 

0,450 

0,300 

0,050 

0,100 

0,050 

0,050 

7 

6 

1 

2 

1 

1 

0,450 

0,300 

0,050 

0,100 

0,050 

0,050 

7 

6 

1 

2 

1 

1 

0,450 

0,300 

49 

3,150 

42 

2,100 

0,050 

7 

0,350 

0,100 

14 

0,700 

0,050 

0,050 

7 

7 

0,350 

0,350 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

7,000 

TOTAL COST 

18 

1,000 

18 

1,000 

18 

1,000 

18 

1,000 

18 

1,000 

18 

1,000 

18 

1,000 

126 

7,000 

EN 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8.2. 

Administrative Expenditure 

8.2.1.  Number and type of human resources 

Types of 
post 

Officials 
or 
temporary 
staff25 
(A3 01 
01) 

Staff to be assigned to management of the action using existing resources (number of posts/FTEs) 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

A*/AD 

0,25A 

0,25A 

0,25A 

0,25A 

0,25A 

0,25A 

0,25A 

B*, 
C*/AST 

1B 

1B 

1B 

1B 

1B 

1B 

1B 

0,25C 

0,25C 

0,25C 

0,25C 

0,25C 

Staff  financed26  by 
art. A3 01 02 

1END 

1END 

1END 

1END 

1END 

TOTAL 

2,5 

2,5 

2,5 

2,5 

2,5 

0,25C 

1END 

0,25C 

1END 

2,5 

2,5 

The needs for human and administrative resources shall be covered within the allocation granted to 
the managing service in the framework of the annual allocation procedure. 

8.2.2.  Description of tasks deriving from the action 

Evaluation  of  applications:  management  of  the  evaluation  committee,  contacts  with  applicants; 
participation at events. 

Coordination: continuous monitoring of the implementation of Pericles; presentations at the relevant 
groups (Member States, ECB, Europol); contribution to the preparation of projects. 

Preparation and implementation of the Pericles actions under a Commission initiative. 

8.2.3.  Sources of human resources (statutory) 

(When more than one source is stated, please indicate the number of posts originating from each of 
the sources) 

(cid:133) 

Posts currently allocated to the management of the programme to be replaced or extended 

8.2.4.  Other Administrative expenditure included in reference amount (XX 01 04/05 – Expenditure on 

administrative management) 

25 
26 

Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount 
Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Year n+1  Year n+2  Year n+3 

Year n+4  

Year 
n+5 

Year 
n+6 

TOTAL 

Year 
n 

and 
later 

Budget line 

(number and heading) 

1  Technical  and  administrative 
assistance  (including  related  staff 
costs) 

Executive agencies 

Other  technical  and  administrative 

assistance 

- intra muros  

- extra muros 

Total Technical and administrative 
assistance 

8.2.5.  Financial cost of human resources and associated costs not included in the reference amount 

Type of human resources 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Officials  and  temporary  staff  (A3  01 
01) 

Staff  financed  by  Art  A3  01  02 
(auxiliary, END, contract staff, etc.) 

(specify budget line) 

Total cost of Human Resources and 
associated costs (NOT in reference 
amount) 

0,162 

0,162 

0,162 

0,162 

0,162 

0,162 

0,162 

0,045 

0,045 

0,045 

0,045 

0,045 

0,045 

0,045 

0,207 

0,207 

0,207 

0,207 

0,207 

0,207 

0,207 

Calculation– Officials and Temporary agents 

Reference should be made to Point 8.2.1, if applicable 

0,25A x 108.000 € +1B x 108.000 + 0,25C x 108.000 = 162.000 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Calculation– Staff financed under art. A3 01 02 

Reference should be made to Point 8.2.1, if applicable 

1 END x 45.000 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

TOTAL 

XX 01 02 11 01 – Missions 

0,030 

0,030  0,030 

0,030 

0,030  0,030 

0,030 

0,210 

XX 01 02 11 02 – Meetings & Conferences 

XX 01 02 11 03 – Committees  

0,060 

0,060  0,060 

0,060 

0,060 

0,060 

0,060 

0,420 

XX 01 02 11 04 – Studies & consultations 

XX 01 02 11 05 - Information systems 

 2  Total Other Management 
Expenditure (A3 01 02 11) 

Total Administrative expenditure, other 
than human resources and associated 
costs (NOT included in reference 
amount) 

0,090 

0,090  0,090 

0,090 

0,090 

0,090 

0,090 

0,630 

0,090 

0,090  0,090 

0,090 

0,090 

0,090 

0,090 

0,630 

Calculation - Other administrative expenditure not included in reference amount 

Missions 20 x 1.500 € and 4 meetings x 15.000 € 

EN 

25 

   EN