Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament -  Evaluation of EU Policies on Freedom, Security and Justice {SEC(2006) 815}
Date: 2006-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU police cooperation, area of freedom, security and justice, customs cooperation, evaluation method, fight against crime, free movement of persons, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, migration policy, public safety

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 28.6.2006 
COM(2006) 332 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Evaluation of EU Policies on Freedom, Security and Justice 

{SEC(2006) 815} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Evaluation of EU Policies on Freedom, Security and Justice 

INTRODUCTION 

The Hague Programme (2004)1 states that “evaluation of the implementation as well 
as of the effects of all measures is, in the European Council's opinion, essential to the 
effectiveness  of  Union  action”.  The  Action  Plan  implementing  The  Hague 
Programme  (2005)2,  which  sets  out  a  policy  framework  for  the  European  Union 
activities on freedom, security and justice over the next five years, provides for the 
adoption,  in  2006,  of  a  general  Communication  from  the  Commission  on  how  to 
develop an evaluation mechanism at EU level in this area3.  

The Heads of State and Government had identified evaluation of implementation as a 
key tool to ensure that the significant results achieved by the Union and its Member 
States on the development of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice are properly 
implemented and constantly reviewed, where appropriate, in order to respond to the 
real expectations of European citizens. 

By  underlining  the  importance  of  evaluation,  The  Hague  Programme  aimed  at 
(1) further improving the way policies, programmes and instruments are set up, 
by  identifying  problems  and  obstacles  encountered  when  implementing  them, 
(2) laying down more systematic rules on the financial accountability and scrutiny 
of  policies,  (3)  favouring 
learning  and  exchanges  of  good  practice  and 
(4) participating in developing an evaluation culture across the Union.  

In view of (1) the mandate given to the Commission by The Hague Programme and 
its  Action  Plan,  (2)  the  fragmentation  of  existing  monitoring  and  evaluation 
mechanisms and (3) the need to transmit extensive information to all stakeholders 
on  the  implementation  and  results  of  policies,  the  Commission  considers  that  the 
time  has  come  to  work  towards  setting  up  a  coherent  and  comprehensive 
mechanism  for  evaluation  of  EU  policies  on  freedom,  security  and  justice,  in  a 
spirit of partnership with Member States and EU institutions.  

Annex 1 to the Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council, November 2004. 
Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, 
security and justice in the European Union (OJ C 198, 12.8.2005, p. 1). 
The Action Plan also calls for a Communication on the systematic, objective and impartial evaluation of 
the implementation of EU policies in the field of justice, with a view to reinforcing mutual trust while 
fully respecting the independence of the judiciary. Later this year the Commission will present a further 
Communication  which  will  address  this  issue  in  detail,  in  accordance  with  the  general  principles 
established in this Communication. 

1. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1 
2 

3 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Such  a  mechanism  will  include  monitoring  implementation  (as  detailed  in  the 
Communication  on  "Strengthening  Freedom,  Security  and  Justice  in  the  European 
Union: report on the implementation of The Hague Programme for the year 2005", 
hereafter the "Scoreboard plus")4 and evaluating the results of the policies. 

THE CONCEPT OF EVALUATION  

A  distinction  must  be  drawn  between  the  principles  of  monitoring  implementation 
and of evaluation: 

•  Monitoring  implementation  consists  of  reviewing  progress  on  carrying  out 

policies.  

•  The Communication on Evaluation presented by the Commission in 20005 defines 
evaluation  as  “judgement  of  interventions  (public  actions)  according  to  their 
results, impacts and the needs they aim to satisfy”. The main role of evaluation is 
to  provide  policy-makers  with  input  about  the  impact  and  effectiveness  of 
activities planned and carried out.  

The Commission interprets the mechanism referred to in the Action Plan as a means 
of  monitoring  implementation  and  evaluating  the  concrete  results  of  policies  on 
freedom, security and justice. In this context, evaluation goes beyond and builds up 
on monitoring implementation of policies by studying the effects of implementation, 
as outlined below. This is in line with The Hague Programme since  the  concept of 
“evaluation  of  the  implementation  as  well  as  of  the  effects  of  all  measures” 
encompasses both monitoring implementation itself and evaluating the results of the 
measures taken. 

This  is  the  rationale  for  the  Commission  to  propose  a  coherent  and  comprehensive 
the  "Scoreboard  plus"  for  monitoring 
package  built  around 
implementation and the evaluation mechanism proposed in this Communication. 

two  pillars: 

The mechanism put forward in this Communication is based on this comprehensive 
definition which, in the Commission’s view, should allow a full understanding of the 
quantity  and  quality  of  results  achieved  on  freedom,  security  and  justice.  Such  a 
mechanism would operate within the framework of the principles established in The 
Hague  Programme.  Ultimately  this  should  improve  policy-making,  by  promoting 
systematic feedback of evaluation results into the decision-making process. 

4 
5 

COM(2006) 333. 
SEC(2000) 1051. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Box 1: Evaluation across the decision-making process 

Political Mandate: Multiannual Planning 

2 
Implementation 
of the measure by 
the Member 
States 

National law 
transposing the 
Directive in line with 
the directive provisions 

1 
Adoption of the 
measure through 
the decision 
making process 

Example:  
Council Directive on the 
exercise of the right to 
vote and stand as a 
candidate in elections to 
the European Parliament 
for citizens of the Union 
residing in a Member 
State of which they are 
not nationals 

3 
Immediate result 
of the measure 

4 
Outcome/impact 
of the measure 

National 
implementation of the 
measure, e.g. by 
compiling electoral lists, 
etc. 

Outcome: Number of 
EU citizens residing in a 
Member State of which 
they are not nationals 
which exercise their 
right to vote and/or to 
stand as a candidate in 
EP elections. 
Impact: Increased 
electoral participation; 
Increased legitimacy 
and representativity of 
the EP.

Monitoring the state of play of the 
adoption and implementation of the 
measures (Scoreboard) 

Evaluating the results of the measures 

Evaluating the implementation as well as the effects of all measures 
(General Evaluation Report) 

3. 

EVALUATING  EU  POLICIES  ON  FREEDOM,  SECURITY  AND  JUSTICE  -  CHALLENGES 
TO BE ADDRESSED  

3.1. 

Complex and ambitious policy goals and arrangements 

8. 

9. 

Freedom,  security  and  justice  is  one  of  the  EU’s  most  diverse  policy  areas.  The 
objectives to be achieved encompass some of the most topical issues: free movement 
of  persons,  terrorism  and  organised  crime,  police  and  judicial  cooperation,  asylum 
and migration policy, all of this while respecting fundamental rights and promoting 
the  rights  of  Union  citizens.  Often  national  sovereignty  considerations  necessitate 
compromises  at  EU  level  or  make  implementation  difficult.  Therefore,  any  new 
evaluation mechanism will have to take account of this political context. 

The  complex  and  ambitious  policy  goals  sought  are  further  complicated  by  a 
sometimes  confusing  legal  framework,  a  mix  of  decision-making  and  compliance 
procedures.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
To  accommodate  this  complexity,  the  proposed  evaluation  mechanism  needs  to  be 
further  development  and 
progressive  and 
consolidation. 

include  possibilities 

for 

to 

3.2. 

Timing  

10. 

As a result of the specific role of the Commission and the decision-making process in 
the  freedom,  security  and  justice  field,  the  various  policies  often  require  different 
time frames before they can be developed and become fully operational. A case-by-
case approach is therefore necessary to identify the right level of analysis for each 
individual  policy.  While  immediate  and  intermediate  results  will  be  taken  into 
consideration for all policies, analysing the practical impact could be more difficult 
for some of them (e.g. drugs or migration policies). 

The  proposed  evaluation  mechanism  should  allow  sufficient  flexibility  for 
differentiated  in-depth  evaluation  of  specific  policies,  taking  due  account  of  their 
level of development and consolidation. 

Focusing on immediate and intermediate results therefore seems appropriate, at least 
in the first stage. Identification of the overall impact of policies must be the ultimate 
objective of the evaluation mechanism in the longer term. 

3.3. 

Involving institutions and stakeholders 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

Another  unique  aspect  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  is  the  impact  of  policy  on 
stakeholders.  Any  evaluation  mechanism  in  this  field  must  take  into  consideration 
stakeholders’  expectations  and  priorities  and,  in  particular,  the  need  for 
confidentiality in some policy areas, such as terrorism and organised crime. 

In  a  spirit  of  partnership,  the  Commission  will  consult  and  debate  with  Member 
States  and  EU  institutions  during  and  after  preparation  of  the  evaluation  report.  To 
that  end,  Member  States  and  EU  institutions  will  be  invited  to  designate  contact 
points  to  facilitate  dialogue  with  the  Commission.  The  evaluation  report6  will  be 
public and addressed to the Member States and EU institutions. 

The Council and the Member States together with the Commission will be the main 
players  in  the  proposed  evaluation  mechanism.  The  European  Parliament  will  be 
closely associated, in compliance with the institutional prerogatives and obligations. 
National Parliaments will also be involved in evaluation of the regular reports. 

In  the  areas  covered  by  the  EC  Treaty,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  and  the 
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  will  be  involved  in  preparation  and 
implementation  of  the  evaluation  mechanism.  Evaluation  reports  will  be  routinely 
transmitted to the Committees after adoption. 

Agencies such as the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, the European 
Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), Europol, Eurojust or 
the  European  Agency  for  the  Management  of  Operational  Cooperation  at  the 

6 

Cf. paragraph 30. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
External Borders will play an important role in the mechanism. First, they will feed 
the  evaluation  exercise  with  information  and  analysis  when  available.  Second,  the 
Commission will consult them on the evaluation reports.  

16. 

The  contribution  of  civil  society  will  be  very  valuable  in  this  context.  The 
Commission will ensure that the views of the civil society will be taken into account 
and  will  establish  appropriate  mechanisms  to  ensure  its  participation  in  the 
evaluation of all policies in the area of freedom, security and justice. 

The  proposed  evaluation  mechanism  should  include  transparent  consultation 
mechanisms,  which  could  also  be  used  to  gather  and  cross-check  relevant 
information. 

3.4. 

Availability of statistics 

17. 

Availability  of  statistics7  and  of  the  necessary  analytical  capacity  is  a  key 
component  in  the  development  of  an  evaluation  system.  While  statistics  are  well-
developed  for  some  activities  (e.g.  drugs  policy),  further  work  needs  to  be  done  in 
other areas, such as crime and criminal justice8. Statistics on evolution of the needs 
addressed  by  policies  on  freedom,  security  and  justice  will  be  required  as  baseline 
data to assess whether existing needs are attenuated or aggravated by a policy over 
time  and,  ultimately,  to  be  able  to  draw  conclusions  about  the  impact  of  policies. 
Improvements should be made in three areas: quality, availability and analysis. Work 
by  agencies,  including  the  European  Monitoring  Centre  for  Drugs  and  Drug 
Addiction  (EMCDDA),  Eurojust,  Europol  and  the  future  Fundamental  Rights 
Agency, will play a special role in this context. Research projects and networks will 
also contribute to this objective. 

Consequently,  in  parallel  with  setting  up  the  proposed  evaluation  system, 
improvements  will  have  to  be  made  to  the  quality,  availability  and  analysis  of 
statistics on freedom, security and justice. 

4. 

EVALUATING EU POLICIES ON FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE - PROPOSAL FOR 
A STRATEGIC EVALUATION MECHANISM  

4.1. 

Description of the evaluation mechanism 

18. 

7 

8 

The  proposed  strategic  evaluation  mechanism  for  freedom,  security  and  justice 
builds upon the consolidated results achieved in other areas of EU policy. Such a 
mechanism would build on current practices, as described in Annex 2, and, in the 
specific  case  of  funding  programmes,  use  information  derived  from  existing 
evaluation requirements. Also, in other areas where information is already available 

The  production  of  Community  statistics  is  governed  by  the  rules  set  out  in  Council  Regulation  on 
Community  Statistics,  and  actions  on  the  establishment  of  Community  statistics  are  carried  out 
according  to  the  Community  Statistical  Programme  and  its  Annual  Programmes,  respecting  the 
principles set out in the European Statistics Code of Practice. 
To  this  end,  the  Commission  is  planning  to  adopt  an  EU  plan  on  developing  a  comprehensive  and 
coherent  EU  strategy  to  measure  crime  and  criminal  justice.  The  ultimate  goal  will  be  to  have 
community statistics based on harmonised definitions and collection and reporting mechanisms. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
particular  attention  will  be  paid  to  making  use  of  existing  data  and  avoiding 
duplication of work. 

19. 

A three-step progressive mechanism is proposed: 

(1)  First, it provides for setting up a system for information gathering and sharing.  

(2)  Second,  it  includes  a  reporting  mechanism  which  consolidates,  uses  and 

analyses this information.  

(3)  Third, it is completed by targeted in-depth strategic evaluations. 

Box 2: The three steps of the mechanism 

3 steps 

System of 
information 
gathering and 
sharing 

Reporting 
mechanism 

Strategic policy 
evaluations 

Deliverables 

Set of factsheets 

Evaluation report 

Specific in-depth 
evaluation report 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

9 

10 

The mechanism will be comprehensive and will encompass all policies in the area of 
freedom, security and justice9. 

Evaluation reports10 will be transmitted to the Council and European Parliament and 
also  to  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions  and  disseminated  as  appropriate  to  wider  audiences,  including  via  ad-hoc 
public events. 

By  enhancing  reporting  and  dissemination  of  evaluation  results,  the  mechanism 
ultimately seeks to foster actual use of the results at the decision-making level. 

The  mechanism  is  consistent  with  current  Commission  guidance  on  evaluation  and 
will operate in conformity with its general principles. 

In the third step of the proposed mechanism, the peer review evaluation mechanism described in Annex 
2, point 2.3.2 could continue to be carried out. Depending on how the current institutional framework 
evolves, the Commission could manage this mechanism at a later stage. In any event, the Commission 
will back up this mechanism with its own in-depth strategic evaluations in the areas covered by Title VI 
of the EU Treaty. 
Cf. paragraph 30. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
4.1.1. 

Information gathering and sharing system 

24. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

The information gathering and sharing system will be based on “factsheets” (one for 
each  policy  area)  which  will  be  filled  in  by  the  Member  States’  competent 
authorities.  In  areas  for  which  information  is  already  available  in  a  similar  format, 
the Commission will fill in the factsheets in advance as far as possible. In parallel, 
the factsheets will be put out to consultation with relevant stakeholders11 and civil 
society.  Consultations  will  be  specific  to  each  policy  and  will  build  upon  existing 
networks  and  consultation  mechanisms,  with  due  regard  to  confidentiality 
requirements in certain areas. 

The  factsheets  will  indicate  an  overall  policy  objective  for  each  area  and  list  the 
main  instruments  (legislative,  non-legislative  and  financial)  contributing  to 
attaining  that  objective.  The  mechanism  should  provide  a  clear  overview  of  the 
achievements.  

The factsheets will also provide a set of indicators for each policy. These indicators 
will be clearly linked to the overall objective of the policy area. The factsheets will 
be an integral part of the consultation process which will follow publication of this 
document and will be finalised in partnership with Member States. Examples of the 
proposed factsheets are given in Annex 1 to this Communication.  

The Commission intends to invite each Member State to designate contact points at 
national level. The contact points will play an important role in coordination of the 
response at national level and work in consultation with Commission departments.  

As regards EU legislation, the indicators and the rating system in the factsheets will 
focus on tangible results of application of the legislation in practice not on the level 
of  transposition  into  national  law  or  the  impact  of  EU  law  on  the  national  legal 
systems. The latter are the main objectives of the "Scoreboard plus", which assesses 
transposition  and  implementation  rather  than  judging  the  degree  of  achievement  of 
the objectives. 

Regarding  EU  funding  programmes,  the  factsheets  will  build  on  existing 
implementation and evaluation reports produced to meet the obligations set out in 
the Financial Regulation and the relevant legal basis. The information required by the 
factsheets  on  funding  programmes  is  expected  to  be  readily  available  and  any 
additional contributions required from Member States should therefore be minimal.  

4.1.2.  Reporting mechanism 

30. 

Following  receipt  of  the  factsheets  and  consultation  with  stakeholders,  the 
Commission  will  validate  the  information  received  and  elaborate  an  “evaluation 
report” consolidating and analysing the information provided. This evaluation report 
will  also  include  political  recommendations  regarding  the  different  policy  areas 
addressed.  

11 

Cf. section 3.3. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
31. 

The aim of this exercise is to evaluate the policies carried out at EU level in the area 
of  freedom,  security  and  justice  and  to  identify  areas  suitable  for  an  in-depth 
strategic evaluation. 

4.1.3. 

Strategic policy evaluations 

32. 

Following  the  evaluation  report  and  further  consultation,  in-depth  strategic  policy 
evaluations  can  be  conducted  in  selected  areas.  These  evaluations  will  aim  at 
producing  useful  and  timely  information  as  inputs  for  political  decisions  in  each 
policy area, as appropriate.  

33. 

Strategic evaluations should add value to the current practices described in Annex 2, 
notably by:  

(a) 

(b) 

focusing on policies (or coherent sub-sets), rather than individual instruments 
(for instance, evaluation of the common immigration policy);  

analysing  the  coherence  of  different  instruments  within  a  given  policy 
(e.g. how  financial  programmes  support  and  facilitate  implementation  of  the 
EU legislation in a given field); 

(c) 

investigating  how  a  certain  policy  contributes  to  the  overall  objective  of 
establishing an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice;  

(d)  determining the overall rate of achievement of that general objective; and 

(e) 

assessing  achievement  of  an  overarching  objective  in  the  field  of  freedom, 
security and justice (for instance, safeguarding of fundamental rights).  

4.2. 

Frequency and follow-up 

34. 

A  set  frequency  makes  it  possible  to  monitor  progress  at  regular  intervals  and  to 
draw  comparisons.  As  regards  the  timetable,  the  proposal  is  to  conduct  this 
evaluation  exercise  (“factsheets”  plus  “evaluation  report”)  twice  every  five  years. 
The Commission will draw on available information as far as possible. 

35. 

The proposal takes into account the fact that this mechanism: 

(a) 

should be conducted on a regular basis, 

(b) 

should not be too burdensome,  

(c) 

does  not  need  to  be  conducted  every  year  since  it  focuses  on  slow-moving 
outputs and results and on medium-term data, 

(d) 

should be coordinated with the existing strategic and multi-annual plans. 

36. 

In  particular,  the  proposed  timetable  would  also  enable  the  Council  and  the 
Commission  to  use  the  results  of  the  evaluation  reports  as  input  for  assessing  the 
need to prepare a further Strategic Programme in 2009 after The Hague Programme 
expires. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
37. 

38. 

Publishing  the  evaluation  report  every  two  or  three  years  will  make  it  possible  to 
synchronise the mechanism with the five-year cycle. This will foster more thorough 
and  strategic  use  of  evaluation  results  in  decision-making.  2006-2007  will  be  a 
transition period (see table below). 

In  order  to  coordinate  with  the  "Scoreboard  plus",  the  schedule  is  to  send  the 
factsheets  to  Member  States  at  the  end  of  2006  and  publish  the  evaluation  report, 
together with the second "Scoreboard plus", in mid-2007.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Timetable 

"Scoreboard 
plus" (SB) 

Review mechanism 

Action Plan 

2005 

2006 

SB+ 1 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

SB+ 2 

SB+ 3 

SB+ 4 

SB+ 5 

SB+ 6 

SB+ 7 

SB+ 8 

SB+ 9 

(Transition period in grey) 

Adoption of The Hague Action 
Plan 

Intermediate assessment of 
implementation (end of 2006) 

Evaluation report 1 

First policy review 

End of The Hague programme 

Evaluation report 2 

Evaluation report 3 

Evaluation report 4 

39. 

40. 

41. 

An assessment of the additional administrative costs to Member States is included 
in the annexed impact assessment. Member States are encouraged to work, with the 
support  of  the  Commission,  towards  data  comparability  and  accuracy.  Recent 
experience with the evaluation of a number of legislative instruments has shown that, 
at times, basic data concerning policies are neither harmonised nor accurate. Ad hoc 
evaluations  of  policies  on  freedom,  security  and  justice  by  the  Council  or  the 
Commission will be an additional source of information. 

This Communication is intended to mark the start of a medium-term process. The 
proposed  mechanism  and  the  factsheets  are  presented  so  that  comments  on  and 
improvements to them can be made in the follow-up to this Communication. To this 
end, a wide-ranging consultation process will be launched, including the organisation 
of a hearing in the autumn. 

An  assessment  of  the  mechanism  will  be  conducted  after  five  years  to  decide  on 
possible adjustments and improvements to the system. The outputs to be considered 
will  be  the  deliverables  identified  in  box  2.  The  assessment  will  be  against  the 
objectives stated in paragraph 3.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. 

42. 

43. 

44. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  Commission  considers  it  necessary  to  set  up  a  coherent  and  comprehensive 
mechanism for evaluation of EU policies on freedom, security and justice, bearing 
in mind the current situation and the mandate given by The Hague Programme. Such 
a  mechanism  will  have  to  be  progressive  and  take  into  account  the  evolving 
institutional  and  legal  framework,  with  a  view  to  ensuring  further  enhancement 
and effectiveness of freedom, security and justice policies.  

This  mechanism  will  provide  a  means  of  bringing  together  individual  evaluation 
results in a coherent framework and thereby informing political  decision-making at 
the  appropriate  level.  In  this  respect,  the  proposed  mechanism  will  also  provide 
policy-makers  with  relevant  information  in  time  for  considering  the  appropriate 
follow-up to The Hague Programme when it expires in 2009. 

The proposed mechanism will be implemented by the Commission and the Council 
in full compliance with their institutional prerogatives and in close association with 
the European Parliament. Concerted action and full commitment by EU institutions 
and Member States are necessary for effective establishment and implementation of 
the  evaluation  mechanism,  with  national  authorities  and  administrations  playing  a 
key role in this respect. 

45. 

Finally,  such  an  evaluation  mechanism  will  aim  at  making  the  action  taken  by  the 
Union  more  effective  and  will  contribute  to  the  strategic  objectives  of  better 
regulation and transparency of EU activities. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
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 

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
 
 
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 

Immediate results  Outcomes 

Impacts 

Schengen 
Information 
System (SIS) II 

of 

Sharing 
information 
in 
among  MS 
refuse 
to 
order 
entry  on  the  basis 
of 
uniform 
practices  

Consistent input and 
further use of 
information among MS 

and 

a 
Quality 
Availability  of  SIS 
II  information  for 
competent  national 
authorities 

Measured by: 

Number of records 
per category 

(Source: MS and 
Commission) 

Success  in  using 
SIS information. 

Measured by:  

of 

Number 
correctly 
identified  persons 
who  should  be 
refused  entry  and 
wanted 
goods 
discovered  

(Source: MS) 

Reduced 
permeability of the 
external border.  

Increased 
confidence 
promote 
movement’ 
policies.  

to 
‘free 

Specific 
/comments 

issues 

Clear  intervention 
logic.  

Evaluation 
methods 
– 
analysis  of  trends 
and 
process 
changes. 

Commission 
for 
responsible 
co-
evaluation 
ordination 
and 
analysis,  MS  for 
information 
analysis.  Most  of 
the  analysis  will 
depend 
upon 
information  from 
MS. 

EN 

14 

EN 

 
  
 
European  Agency 
for 
the 
of 
Management 
Operational  Co-
operation  at 
the 
External  Borders 
(FRONTEX)  

of 

Improvement 
operational 
cooperation 
between  Member 
State authorities 

Increased 
competences 
border guards 

of 

Co-operation 
with 
Agency  and  responses 
practice, 
to 
training 
other 
advice. 

good 

and 

Operational 
cooperation 

Improvement  of 
border control 

Measured by: 

Measured by: 

joint 
Number  of 
operations and pilot 
projects carried out 

(Source: Agency) 

Development 
risk analysis 

of 

Measured by: 

Number  of 
risk 
analyses carried out 

Effective 
operations 

joint 

(Source: Agency) 

Increased 
intelligence  

Measured by: 

of 

Use 
analyses 
national services 

risk 
by 

Improved resource 
deployment 
at 
borders 
external 
(due 
better 
intelligence) 

to 

Reduced 
permeability 
external 
(due 
trained staff)  

to 

of 
borders 
better 

Difficult  to  assess 
causality 
of 
intervention.  

Evaluation 
methods  –  case 
studies,  follow  up 
surveys.  

leading 

EU 
evaluation. 

the 

(Other EU Agency 
evaluations  have 
tended 
be 
process rather than 
impact oriented) 

to 

(Source: Agency) 

(Source: MS) 

Increased training 

Measured by: 

Number  of  border 
guards trained  

Better 
border guards  

trained 

Measured by: 

Use  of  newly 
acquired skills 

Number  of  training 
and 
courses 

(Source: MS) 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
  
 
for 

Action 
Programme 
administrative 
cooperation  in  the 
fields  of  external 
visas, 
borders, 
asylum 
and 
immigration 
(ARGO) 

for 

national 

promote 

To 
cooperation 
between 
administrations 
responsible 
implementing 
Community 
rules 
and  to  ensure  that 
proper  account  is 
taken 
the 
of 
Community 
dimension  in  their 
actions  

To  promote 
uniform 
application 
Community law  

the 

of 

To 
transparency 
actions 
the 
authorities 

encourage 
of 
taken  by 
national 

To 
the 
improve 
overall  efficiency 
national 
of 

EN 

Disbursement 
rate/amount  spent  per 
year 

seminars offered 

(Source: Agency) 

Successful 
implementation  of 
programme 
measured by: 

Number of projects 
implemented 
per 
activity area 

Number  of  training 
actions 
implemented 

staff 

Number  of 
exchanges 
implemented 

Number  of  actions 
promoting 
data 
exchange 
implemented 

Number  of  studies, 
conferences 
and 
seminars conducted 
(Source: 
Commission) 

16 

Mid-term 
evaluation 
to  be 
completed  by  July 
2006. 

Uniform 
application 
Community law 

of 

Improved 
transparency 
actions 
national 
authorities  

of 
taken  by 

Improved 
efficiency 
national 
administrations 

of 

Increased 
cooperation 
between  national 
administrations 
and  with 
countries  

third 

Measured by: 

of 

Number 
common 
operative  centres 
and 
teams 
joint 
set up 

of 

Number 
cooperation 
activities  in  third 
countries set up 

(Source: 
Commission) 

EN 

 
  
 
Evaluation 
methods  –  case 
studies, qualitative 
analysis.  

Reduced 
of 
permeability 
external 
borders 
(due  to  assistance 
to staff) 

Facilitated 
legitimate travel 

Teams  of  national 
experts  

administrations  in 
their tasks  

Further  objectives 
FRONTEX 
of 
agency:  

Better  deployment 
in 
resources 
of 
circumstances 
requiring 
assistance 

special 

Increased 
competences 
border guards 

of 

Secondment  of  experts 
to teams.  

Provision 
technical 
operational 
assistance.  

of 
and 

Improved 
practice  in  border 
surveillance.  

by: 
Measured 
number 
of 
assignments carried 
teams 
by 
out 
(Source: Agency) 

Measured by:  

use  of  results  of 
teams’  work 
in 
border 
surveillance  and 
of 
efficiency 
teams 
work 
(Source:  Agency 
and MS)  

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

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  

EN 

17 

EN 

 
  
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 
/comments 

issues 

Immediate results  Outcomes 

Impacts 

Common 
application centres 

(for 
countries)  

Schengen 

Render 
the 
reception  of  visa 
applications  more 
efficient  through  a 
better allocation of 
resources. 

Reduce  costs 
relation 
capturing 
biometrics. 

in 
to 
of 

Harmonisation  of 
reciprocal 

Commitment 
centres.  

to 

the 

Participation  in  setting 
up the centres.  

Number  of  centres 
established and MS 
involved 
(Source: 
MS). 

Increased 
efficiency 
providing 
services. 

of 
visa 

Reduced  costs  to 
visa applicants. 

Reduced  costs  to 
administrations. 

Evaluation 
method – 
efficiency 
analysis.  

Number  of  visas 
issued  through  the 
centres 
(Source: 
MS).  

Measured by:  

taken 

time 
issue 
(Source: MS)  

to 
visas 

(Source: MS). 

Improved  use  of 
related 
visa 

Increased 
fide travel. 

bone 

Potential 
evaluation 
leadership from 
the MS and use of 
peer review 
process.  

EN 

18 

EN 

 
  
procedures by MS 

by 

Improve 
the 
implementation  of 
the  common  visa 
policy 
the 
exchange  of  visa 
between 
data 
Member  States,  in 
order 
to  prevent 
visa  shopping,  to 
facilitate  the  fight 
against 
fraud, 
checks on visas, to 
the 
in 
assist 
identification 
of 
illegal immigrants, 
the 
facilitate 
to 
application  of  the 
Dublin 
II 
Regulation  and  to 
contribute  to  the 
prevention 
of 
threats  to  internal 
security. 

To 
ensure  EU 
citizens  can  travel 
without  a  visa  to 
all  third  countries 
nationals 
whose 

Information 

Visa 
System  

reciprocity 

The 
mechanism 
(Council 
Regulation 

EN 

Implementation  at  the 
national level, including 
the 
development/adaptation 
of national systems. 

Number  of  number 
refused, 
of  visas 
annulled,  revoked, 
processing 
times 
(Source: 
Commission). 

Availability rate 

(Source: 
Commission) 

Monitoring 
and 
evaluation,  by  the 
Commission 
at 
EU level.  

information 
(Source: MS). 

Retention 
and 
sharing  of  data 
from 
visa 
applications  and 
related decisions. 

Measured 
by: 
number  of  entries 
in  VIS  (Source: 
Commission). 

of 

Measured: 
number 
analyses 
conducted  using 
VIS data (Source: 
Commission). 

of 

Improvement 
application 
of 
procedures, 
at 
checks 
the 
borders 
external 
the 
and  within 
Schengen 
territory,  of 
the 
application  of  the 
Dublin 
II 
Regulation,  of  the 
identification 
of 
illegal  immigrants 
and 
the 
of 
detection of fraud. 

Facilitated 
legitimate travel.  

Co-operation  with  the 
Commission, 
information  sharing  on 
bilateral  dialogue  with 

Number  of 
third 
countries who have 
visa 
waived 
requirements 
for 
nationals 
EU 

Improved 
reciprocity 
measured by 
percentage of 
decrease of non-

Facilitated 
legitimate 
for EU travelers  

travel 

Diplomatic  efforts 
on EU level vis-à-
vis  third  countries 
concerned.  

19 

EN 

 
  
851/2005)  

Council 
Regulation  on  a 
Border code 

don’t  need  a  visa 
to 
the 
EU. 

travel 

to 

third countries  

(Source: 
Commission)  

reciprocity cases 

Improved 
dialogue 
diplomatic 
contacts 
third countries 

and 

with 

The first Report of 
the  Commission 
on  reciprocity  in 
visa  waivers  was 
adopted  on  10 
January 2006 

Application  in  MS  that 
apply 
the  Schengen 
acquis 

Harmonisation  of 
rules  governing  the 
movement 
of 
persons  at  internal 
and 
external 
borders 

(Source: 
Commission) 

Improved border 
management and 
control 

Improved  control 
of external borders 

Facilitated 
within 
Schengen acquis 

travel 
the 

This regulation 
was adopted 
recently – 
February 2006. 

To implement 
common rules 
governing the 
movement of 
persons across 
borders, to include 
both rules on 
checks at external 
borders and rules 
on the removal of 
checks on persons 
at internal borders 
and the 
reintroduction of 
such checks in 
certain 
circumstances. 

improve 
To 
integrated  border 
management 

EN 

20 

EN 

 
  
 
POLICY AREA: CITIZENSHIP AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS  

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism:  

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

Policy sub-area 1: Citizenship of the Union  

Global objectives:  

Increase awareness of Union citizens of their rights and of the ways these can be 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) 

EN 

21 

EN 

 
  
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 
/comments 

issues 

Immediate results  Outcomes 

Impacts 

Directive 
2004/38/EC on free 
movement 
and 
residence  

and 
Clarify 
existing 
simplify 
Community  law  in 
field  

Transposition 
national 
systems  

into 
legal 

Transposition 
national 
systems 

into 
legal 

Community 
legislation  on  the 
EP  elections  and 
on the right of non-
national 
Union 
citizens’  electoral 
their 
rights 
in 
of 
country 
residence 

Ensure  that  the  EP 
elections 
are 
conducted 
the 
according 
basic  principles  of 
democratic 
elections 

to 

the 
Ensure 
participation 
of 
non-national Union 
citizens  to  the  EP 
elections and to the 

Relevant  national 
in 
laws  adopted 
line  with  Directive 
and 
provisions 
the 
notified 
by 
Commission 
30.4.2006  together 
with  a 
table  of 
conformity. 
(Source: 
Commission)  

Relevant  national 
laws  adopted 
in 
with 
line 
of 
provisions 
Community 
law 
and  notified  to  the 
Commission 
(Source: 
Commission) 

Correct  application 
and 
rules 
of 
provisions 
contained 
law  

the 

in 

Measured 
by: 
number  of  court 
cases/complaints 
resulting  from  the 
Directive  (Source: 
Commission)  

Correct  application 
of 
and 
rules 
provisions 
contained 
law 

the 

in 

Measured 
by: 
number  of  court 
cases/complaints 
resulting  from  the 
legislation (Source: 
Commission) 

Facilitated 
movement 
residence  

free 
and 

Evaluation 
leadership  by  the 
EU.  

benefit 
Would 
strong 
from 
involvement of MS 
in evaluation 

EP 
carried 
democratically.  

elections 
out 

Non-national 
citizens 
Union 
participate 
the 
in 
the 
elections  on 
same  conditions  as 
in  EP 
nationals 
in 
elections  and 
municipal 

EN 

22 

EN 

 
  
 
municipal elections 

elections. 

Fundamental 
Rights 
Citizenship 
programme 
Citizenship) 

Improve  awareness 
of  citizenship  of 
and 
the  Union 
related rights 

and 

(part 

Implementation  of 
measures 
and 
projects. 

Encourage  citizens 
to 
to  participate 
actively 
to 
democratic life 

Improved 
awareness 
of 
Union  citizenship 
and  related  rights 
amongst 
EU 
citizens. 

Clear intervention 
logic. Evaluation 
would benefit from 
systematic surveys 
of public 
awareness. 

Increased 
participation 
democratic life. 

in 

Number of projects 
supported  (studies 
conducted, 
activities 
undertaken)  

(Source: 
programme 
monitoring system) 

Number 
‘beneficiaries’ 
reached  

of 

(Source: 
programme 
monitoring system) 

Improved 
intelligence base 

Measured by:  

use  of  analytical 
results  by  policy 
(Source: 
makers 
Commission 
and 
MS)  

of 
Dissemination 
good  practice 
in 
voter education and 
activation.  

Measured by: 

level  of  awareness 
Programme’s 
of 
outputs 
(Source: 
MS)  

Policy sub-area 2: Fundamental Rights  

Global objectives:  

Increase the awareness of fundamental rights amongst citizens. (This concerns the rights as protected on European Union and national level including 
the relevant regional and international instruments.) 

Decrease  instances  of  breaches  of  fundamental  rights  (including  breaches  of  privacy,  personal  data  protection  and  protection  from  violence  against 

EN 

23 

EN 

 
  
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 
/comments 

issues 

Immediate results  Outcomes 

Impacts 

Relevant 
the 
provisions  of 
on 
Treaties 
European  Union 
and  on  European 
Community 

Ensure  that  the  EU 
institutions  and  the 
States 
Member 
fully 
respect 
fundamental rights 

Compliance  of  the 
national  legislation 
and  practices  with 
the 
fundamental 
rights 

Community 
legislation  as  well 
implementing 
as 
laws 
national 
adopted 
in 
compliance  with 
the Treaty 

Correct  application 
of 
and 
rights 
principles 
contained 
Treaty  

the 

in 

by: 
Measured 
number  of  court 

Decreased  level  of 
breaches of FR 

Increased 
protection  of  rights 
of citizens 

EN 

24 

EN 

 
  
 
Clear intervention 
logic. Evaluation 
would benefit from 
systematic surveys 
of public 
awareness. 

cases/complaints 
resulting  from  the 
legislation (Source: 
Commission 

Improved 
intelligence base 

Measured by:  

Improved 
awareness  of  FR 
amongst 
EU 
citizens  

Stronger 
society in the MS 

civil 

use  of  analytical 
results  by  policy 
(Source: 
makers 
Commission 
and 
MS)  

Increased 
awareness of issues 
in  focus  under  the 
(Source: 
action 
public 
opinion 
surveys, 
Commission)  

Implementation  of 
measures 
and 
projects. 

Fundamental 
Rights 
Citizenship 
programme 
Fundamental 
Rights) 

and 

(part 

Improve  awareness 
of FR 

as  protected  on 
European 
and 
national level 

Improve 
base 

research 

Number of projects 
supported  (studies 
conducted, 
activities 
undertaken)  

(Source: 
programme 
monitoring system) 

of 

Number 
‘beneficiaries’ 
reached 
programme 
monitoring system) 

(Source: 

intensity 
of 
and 

quality 

Improve 
and 
interfaith 
intercultural 
dialogue in MS 

Improve 
in the EU 

tolerance 

Improve  quality  of 
civil 
society 
organisations  

Improve 
law 

rule  of 

Decrease  breaches 

EN 

25 

EN 

 
  
 
support 

Preparatory  action 
to 
civil 
society in the NMS 
in  areas  of  rule  of 
democracy, 
law, 
FR, 
media 
fight 
pluralism, 
against corruption. 

of FR in MS 

Improve  quality  of 
society 
civil 
in 
organisations 
NMS 

Improved  rule  of 
law in NMS 

Improve 
democracy in NMS 

Decrease  breaches 
of FR in NMS 

Implementation  of 
measures 
and 
projects. 

Number of projects 
supported  (studies 
conducted, 
activities 
undertaken)  

(Source: 
programme 
monitoring system) 

Increased 
awareness of issues 
in  focus  under  the 
(Source: 
action 
public 
opinion 
surveys, 
Commission) 

Stronger 
civil 
society in the NMS 

of 

Number 
beneficiaries 
reached 
programme 
monitoring system) 

(Source: 

Daphne 
programme  

II 

Reduce 
against 
adolescents 
women 

violence 
children, 
and 

Implementation  of 
and 
measures 
projects.  

Reduced  violence 
children, 
against 
adolescents 
and 
women 

Number of projects 
supported  (studies 
conducted, 
activities 
undertaken) 
(Source: 
programme 
monitoring system) 

Number  of  good 
practices  identified 
(Source: 
programme 
monitoring system) 

Increased 
awareness  of 
issues 
society 
public 
surveys, 
Commission) 

the 
in  wider 
(Source: 
opinion 

Adoption  of  good 
practice  in  tackling 
violence 
(Source: 
MS).  

Better  intelligence 

Clear intervention 
logic but difficult 
to measure 
outcomes and 
impacts, in part 
because of the 
scale and scope of 
the underlying 
objectives.  

Strong 
involvement of MS 
in evaluation 

Evaluation 
leadership by the 
EU.  

Major problems of 
data reliability at 
the level of 
impacts. 

EN 

26 

EN 

 
  
of 
Number 
‘beneficiaries’  and 
victims reached 

(Source: 
programme 
monitoring system) 

base.  

Measured by:  

use  of  analytical 
results  by  policy 
(Source: 
makers 
Commission 
and 
MS)  

of 
and 

Number 
knowledge 
practitioner 
communities 
created 
Commission).  

(Source: 

Number 
of 
improved  facilities 
victims 
for 
(Source: 
programme 
monitoring system) 

Better  intelligence 
base. Measured by: 
use  of  analytical 
results  by  policy 
(Source: 
makers 
Agency 
and 
Commission)  

Participation 
in 
Agency’s activities 

Provision  of  data 
and analyses of FR.  

by: 
Measured 
number 
of 
analytical  outputs 
(Source: Agency)  

27 

Decreased  level  of 
breaches of FR  

Evaluations  of  EU 
agencies 
have 
tended  to  focus  on 
process issues. 

Whilst objectives 
are clear it will be 
difficult to assess 

EN 

the 

Improve 
availability, 
quality, 
comparability 
information 
respect 
promotion of FR. 

and 
of 
on 
and 

Fundamental 
Rights Agency  

EN 

 
  
co-
Improve 
ordination  between 
stakeholders  

public 
Improve 
awareness  of  their 
FR  

of 
Number 
reporting  activities 
(Source: Agency).  

Better 
ordination 
activities.  

co-
of 

of 
of 

Number 
networks 
stakeholders 
supported  (Source: 
Agency).  

public 
Increased 
awareness  (Source: 
opinion 
public 
Agency 
surveys, 
and Commission).  

causality and 
measure the 
impacts of the 
agency. 

Data 
Directive  

Protection 

Facilitate  the  free 
of 
movement 
personal 
information  within 
the EU 

Protect 
individuals 

rights  of 

Conclude 
agreements  with 
third countries 

Transposition 
Directive 
national 
systems  

of 
into 
legal 

of 
Data 

Establishment 
National 
Protection 
Supervisory 
authorities 

Relevant  national 
adopted 
laws 
pursuant 
the 
to 
Directive 
provisions  

Application 
rules 
provisions 
contained 
law.  

in 

of 
and 

the 

Facilitated 
movement 
personal 
information  within 
the EU 

of 

Evaluation 
leadership by the 
EU but in 
partnership with 
MS 

(Source:  MS  and 
Commission) 

Harmonised 
of 
protection 
a 
at 
individuals 
high 
(both 
level 
inside  the  EU  and 
in  third  countries 
for  personal  data 
transferred 
from 
the EU)  

Measured by: - 
Appropriate 
enforcement 
mechanisms and 
remedies available 
to ensure respect 
for the law and 
assistance to 
individuals 
through: 

a) Judicial 
remedies 

b)  Intervention  of 
protection 
data 

EN 

28 

EN 

 
  
supervisory 
authority 
(ex 
officio or following 
complaints) 

(Source: MS) 

EN 

29 

EN 

 
  
 
POLICY AREA: COORDINATION IN THE FIELD OF DRUGS 

Factors  influencing  evaluation  mechanism:  Activities  in  this  policy  area  are  cross  pillar  and  cover  a  variety  of  areas,  including  health,  police 
cooperation, information, evaluation and coordination. 

The EU Drug Action Plan and EU Drug Strategy are very important documents endorsed by the Council as the basic policy framework for all drugs 
issues within the EU and within the context of the EU's external relations. They cover all activities in this policy area and provide the guidelines for all 
Member States to implement the objectives and actions they contain into national policy. The Action Plan takes its lead from the objectives of the EU 
Drug Strategy and translates these objectives into 80 concrete actions. It concentrates on the two major aspects of drug policy, demand reduction and 
supply reduction, and also covers a number of cross-cutting themes: international cooperation, research, information and evaluation. It includes actions 
within EU competence (public health, precursor control, money laundering and development aid) as well as close cooperation between Member States 
and partnerships with international organisations.  

The Action Plan furthermore covers monitoring and evaluation and includes assessment tools and indicators for each action. The actions covered by 
the Action Plan are subject to an annual progress review by the Commission's services. Evaluation in this area is already well-established through the 
methods  and  indicators  developed  during  the  evaluation  of  the  previous  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and  Action  Plan.  Reliable  data  is  available  from  the 
European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction, Europol and the Commission. As with other policies relating to complex, global socio-
political issues, the evaluation of the impacts of EU drug policy is a problematical and sensitive matter due to the multiple factors that have to be taken 
into account and for which there may not be reliable data by their very nature (e.g. figures for trafficking in illicit drugs are always rough estimates; 
corruption caused by trade in drugs is hidden, etc.). 

Objectives:  

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

Policy-level indicators:  

The  EU  Action  Plan  contains  the  major  legal  instruments  such  as  the  Council  Decision  on  the  information  exchange,  risk  assessment  and 
control of new psychoactive substances, or the Framework Decision on penalties for drug trafficking. It also contains the assessment tools and 
indicators required for the evaluation process of these instruments and all other actions. These have been drawn up in cooperation with the 

EN 

30 

EN 

 
  
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. 

EN 

31 

EN 

 
  
 
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,  

EN 

32 

EN 

 
  
 
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 States12 (Source: Commission - Eurostat) 

Differences in the level of capacity per Member State (asylum systems and reception facilities) relative to needs (Source: Member States) 

Main 
(and 
instrument) 

instrument 
of 
type 

Dublin Regulation 

(Council  Regulation 
(EC)  No  343/2003 
of 18 February 2003 
the 
establishing 
and 
criteria 
for 
mechanisms 

Objectives 

Implementation 
at national level 

Indicators/evaluation questions 

Specific 
/comments 

issues 

Immediate results 

Outcomes 

Impacts 

reduce 

To 
'asylum 
shopping' 

increase 

To 
responsibility 
sharing  among 

of 

Adoption 
measures 
implementing 
the Regulation at 
national level  

Number of take back 
requests (Source: 
Commission – 
Eurostat) 

Number  of  applicants 
sent to another Member 
(Source: 
State 

Decreased delay 
in the 
examination of 
claims and 
attribution of 
responsibility  

Measured by: 

Increased 
responsibility 

sharing  of 

Greater  efficiency  and 
effectiveness 
in 
implementing  decisions 
on transfers 

are 

Numbers 
available 
through  Eurodac 
which allows for 
an assessment of 
trends. 
Evaluation 
the 

of 
‘Dublin 

12 

EN 

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. 

33 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
the 
determining 
State 
Member 
for 
responsible 
examining 
an 
asylum  application 
lodged in one of the 
Member States by a 
third-country 
national) 

MS.  

increase 
To 
efficiency 
by 
granting  MS  a 
realistic  period 
in  which 
to 
implement 
decisions 
transfers. 

on 

Eurodac 

Member  States 
to  send  required 
data 
to  central 
unit. 

facilitate 
of 
Dublin 
by 

To 
application 
the 
Regulation 
identifying 
asylum  seekers 
and persons who 
have entered the 
EU irregularly.  

To 
whether 

determine 
a 

Commission 
Eurostat) 

– 

Number  of  multiple 
(Source: 
claims 
Commission 
– 
Eurostat) 

Number  of  registered 
irregular 
entrants 
(Source:  Commission  – 
Eurostat ) 

Proportion  of 
cases 
dealt  within  country  of 
(Source: 
entry 
Commission 
– 
Eurostat) 

Efficiency 
system  

of 

the 

Measured by: 

Number  of  records  per 
Member  State  (Source: 
Eurodac) 

Number  of  successful 
rejected 
and 
transactions recorded in 
(Source: 
the 

system 

average delay of 
examination 
before and after 
implementation 
of the Regulation 
(Source: MS) 

Decreased  delay 
implement 
to 
decisions 
on 
transfers  

Measured by: 

average  delay  of 
before 
transfer 
and after 

(Source: MS) 

Increased number 
of 
asylum 
applications 
being  examined 
first 
in 
the 
country 
of 
asylum/entry 

Measured by: 

Percentage rate of 
before 
change 

Reduction  of  persons 
making multiple claims 

System’  will  be 
ready 
in  June 
2006. 

Improved  efficiency  in 
applying 
the  Dublin 
Regulation  

Difficult 
to 
judge  whether 
MS  use  system 
and 
correctly 
systematically. 
Some  scope  for 
peer  review  but 
there  could  be 
constraints 
on 
independent 
evaluation. 
Evaluation 

is 

EN 

34 

EN 

 
  
foreign  national 
has  previously 
claimed  asylum 
in another MS. 

Eurodac) 

and 
introduction 
the 
(Source: MS) 

after 
of 
system 

Reduction 
of 
persons  making 
multiple claims  

Measured by: 

Percentage rate of 
change 
before 
and after (Source: 
MS) 

Transposition 
into 
legal systems. 

national 

Reduction of disparities 
among Member States 

Reduction 
false claims 

of 

Measured by: 

Measured by: 

of 
Guarantee 
minimum 
level 
protection  across 
EU 

underway  of  the 
‘Dublin  system’ 
which  considers 
both 
the 
Regulation  and 
Eurodac. 

a 
of 
the 

of 
to 

Common 
standards 
difficult to 
achieve as 
Directive allows 
scope for 
interpretation 

Changes  made 
national 
(Source:  MS 
Commission) 

to 
legislation 
and 

Numbers  of  Member 
States 
achieving 
minimum  standards  or 
above 
(Source: 
Commission) 

35 

Number 
of 
unfounded  cases 
(Source: MS) 

Approximation 
rights 
refugees 

granted 

Improved 
protection 

Measured by: 

Numbers  granted 
refugee 
and 
subsidiary 

Reduction in disparities 
between  legislation  and 
practice 

Reduction of secondary 
movements 

EN 

Qualification 
Directive 

2004 

(Council  Directive 
2004/83/EC  of  29 
April 
on 
minimum  standards 
for  the  qualification 
country 
of 
third 
nationals 
and 
stateless  persons  as 
as 
refugees 
who 
persons 
otherwise 
need 
international 
protection  and  the 

or 

ensure 

a 
To 
minimum 
level 
of  protection  in 
Member 
all 
States  for  those 
in 
of 
need 
protection.  

To guarantee the 
rights of persons 
for 
qualifying 
refugee status or 
subsidiary 
protection status 

To 

reduce 

EN 

 
  
 
content 
protection granted) 

of 

the 

disparities 
between  MS' 
legislation 
and 
practice.  

limit 

To 
secondary 
movements. 

To  prevent  false 
claims. 

Fewer false claims 

Improved integration 

protection  status 
(Source: MS) 

Improved  access 
to rights 

Measured by: 

of 

Increased 
numbers 
refugees 
accessing 
education, 
services, 
employment, 
appropriate 
accommodation, 
integration 
programmes 
(Source: MS) 

Reception Directive 

(Council  Directive 
2003/9/EC  of  27 
January 2003 laying 
minimum 
down 
standards 
the 
for 
reception  of  asylum 
seekers) 

a 

Ensure 
dignified 
standard 
of 
living  to  asylum 
seekers 
across 
the EU.  

Address 
applicants 
special needs. 

EN 

Transposition 
into 
legal systems 

national 

Improved facilities 

Measured by: 

Expenditure  on 
improvement 
reception 
(Source: MS) 

the 
of 
facilities 

Improvement  of  equal 
standards across the EU 

36 

Improved 
standard of living 
for 
asylum 
seekers 

Approximation 
of 
standards  of  living  for 
asylum  seekers  across 
the EU 

Measured by: 

Number 
asylum 
living 
appropriate 

of 
seekers 
in 

Improved  facilities  and 
services 
asylum 
for 
seekers 

Improved 
vocational 

socio-
integration 

Common 
standards 
to 
difficult 
achieve 
as 
Directive  allows 
for 
scope 
interpretation.  

Evaluation  due 
the  end  of 
at 
2006. 

EN 

 
  
equal 
Ensure 
standards  across 
the EU.  

Limit  secondary 
movements.  

ERF II  

and 

in 

and 

Support 
encourage 
efforts 
receiving 
refugees 
displaced 
persons 

Measured by: 

Numbers 
achieving 
standards 
(Source: Commission) 

of  MS 
minimum 
above 

or 

Disbursement 
rate/amount 
spent per year 

Increased 
capacity  

reception 

Measured by: 

accommodation 
(Source: MS) 

of 
seekers 

Number 
asylum 
accessing 
services  (Source: 
MS) 

of 
seekers 

Number 
asylum 
accessing 
employment  and 
vocational 
activities 
(Source: MS) 

of 

Number 
specific 
for 
provisions 
applicants  with 
special 
needs 
(Source: MS) 

Increased balance 
of  effort  among 
MS  Measured 
by: 

Numbers  of  projects 
implemented  per  type 
of action (Source: MS) 

The proportion of 
resource 
all 
commitments 

of asylum seekers 

Reduction of secondary 
movements 

Improved 
standards 
conditions  

reception 
and 

Increased 
access  of 
asylum 
to 
housing, 
health, 
education,  services  and 

seekers 

Indicators  have 
been  developed 
in  the  context  of 
the 
final 
evaluation. 

EN 

37 

EN 

 
  
Foster  solidarity 
among MS 

Promote balance 
in  the  efforts  to 
receive  asylum 
seekers 

Promote 
the 
social, economic 
cultural 
and 
of 
integration 
target groups 

Promote 
voluntary return 

of 
Number 
beneficiaries 
(per 
country  of  origin  and 
target  group)  per  type 
of action (Source: MS) 

Number  of  reception 
places (Source: MS) 

Increased  capacity  of 
services 
asylum 
to 
seekers  

Measured by:  

Number  and  type  of 
services 
available(Source: MS) 

of 
Number 
beneficiaries  receiving 
education  and  training 
(Source: MS) 

Increased 
returns 

voluntary 

Measured by: 

Number  of  voluntary 
returns (Source: MS) 

38 

EN 

(Source: MS) 

labour market 

Increased  social, 
economic 
and 
cultural 
integration 
target 
Measured by: 

of 
groups 

Percentage 
of 
persons per target 
and 
group 
activity  able 
to 
apply  new  skills 
(i.e. percentage of 
who 
persons 
benefited 
from 
vocational 
training 
employment)  

in 

Fairer 
effective 
procedures 
return) 

and 

more 
asylum 
(including 

An improved balance in 
effort to receive asylum 
seekers 

EN 

 
  
Policy sub-area 2: Legal and illegal migration 

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

Policy sub-area level indicators: 

Skill shortages in vocations and professions (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS Labour Force Surveys, EEO) 

Employment rates amongst migrant groups (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS Labour Force Surveys) 

Estimation of the numbers of migrants overstaying the duration of their work permits (Source: MS) 

Objectives 

Implementation 
at national level 

Indicators/evaluation questions 

Immediate results 

Outcomes 

Impacts 

Main 
(and 
instrument) 

instrument 
of 
type 

Family reunification 
Directive 

(Council  Directive 
2003/86/EC  of  22 
September  2003  on 
the  right  to  family 
reunification) 

Determine 
conditions 
for 
the  exercise  of 
to 
right 
the 
family 
reunification  by 
TCNs. 

Specific 
/comments 

issues 

Common 
standards 
difficult 
to 
as 
achieve 
Directive  allows 
scope 
for 
interpretation.  

Transposition 
into 
legal systems. 

national 

Reduction of disparities 
among Member States 

Improved 
efficiency 
procedures 

Facilitated  procedures 
for family reunification  

of 

Protection  of  right  to 
family life 

Measured by: 

Changes  made 
national 
(Source:  MS 
Commission) 

to 
legislation 
and 

Numbers 
achieving 
standards 
(Source: Commission) 

of  MS 
minimum 
above 

or 

Measured by: 

Number of family 
members reunited 
(Source: MS) 

length 
Reduced 
process: 
of 
average 
delay 
before  and  after 
(Source: MS) 

EN 

39 

EN 

 
  
Directive  on  status 
of  TCNs  as  long-
term residents 

Approximate 
national laws by 
creating  a  single 
status.  

Transposition 
into 
legal systems. 

national 

Ensure 
treatment 
TCNs 
throughout 
EU. 

equal 
of 

the 

Common 
standards 
to 
difficult 
as 
achieve 
Directive  allows 
for 
for 
scope 
interpretation 

Reduction of disparities 
among Member States 

treatment 

Equal 
of TCNs 

Approximation 
national laws 

of 

Equal 
treatment  and 
application  of  uniform 
rights  for  TCNs  across 
the EU  

Improved  mobility  of 
TCNs 

Improved integration of 
TCNs 

Measured by: 

Measured by: 

Changes  made 
national 
(Source:  MS 
Commission) 

to 
legislation 
and 

Numbers 
granted/refused 
status 
MS) 

(Source: 

Numbers 
achieving 
standards 
(Source: Commission) 

of  MS 
minimum 
above 

or 

Increased number 
TCNs 
of 
accessing 
employment, 
education 
and 
training  (rate  of 
increase) 
(Source: MS) 

Increased 
mobility of TCNs 

Measured by: 

Number  of  TCNs 
moving  from  one 
to  another 
MS 
(Source: 
Commission) 

EN 

40 

EN 

 
  
 
Transposition 
into 
legal systems. 

national 

Approximation 
national legislation 

of 

Measured by: 

Changes  made 
national 
(Source:  MS 
Commission) 

to 
legislation 
and 

Numbers 
achieving 
standards 
(Source: Commission) 

of  MS 
minimum 
above 

or 

Approximation 
national laws 

of 

Improved  mobility  of 
study, 
for 
TCNs 
vocational 
and 
volunteer purposes 

Common 
standards 
to 
difficult 
as 
achieve 
Directive  allows 
for 
for 
scope 
interpretation 

Increased 
mobility of TCNs 
the 
to 
for 
Community 
the  purposes  of 
study/vocational 
training 

Measured by: 

Numbers  granted 
for 
entry 
study/vocational 
training/voluntary 
service 
(Source: 
MS) 

the 
Directive  on 
admission  of  TCNs 
for  the  purposes  of 
pupil 
studies, 
exchange, 
unremunerated 
training 
voluntary service 

or 

promote 
To 
Europe 
a 
as 
world  centre  of 
for 
excellence 
studies 
and 
vocational 
by 
training 
the 
promoting 
of 
mobility 
TCNs 
the 
Community  for 
the  purpose  of 
studies 

to 

The 
approximation 
of  the  Member 
States'  national 
on 
legislation 
of 
conditions 
entry 
and 
residence  

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

Objectives:  

To prevent the isolation of certain groups and achieve successful integration of Third Country Nationals and their descendents 

To fight discrimination against legally residing Third Country Nationals 

EN 

41 

EN 

 
  
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 
(and 
instrument) 

instrument 
of 
type 

INTI 
preparatory 
actions  (integration 
of TCNs) 

Objectives 

Implementation 
at national level 

Indicators/evaluation questions 

Immediate results 

Outcomes 

Impacts 

new 
innovative 
of 

Promote 
and 
ways 
integrating 
immigrants.  

encourage 

To 
co-operation 
between MS and 
the  creation  of 
transnational 
partnerships  and 
networks.  

Disbursement 
rate/amount 
spent per year 

Successful 
implementation 
REFINE 

Identification  of 
and 
new 
innovative 
practices 

Increased  cooperation 
through 
among  MS 
networks 
and 
cooperation activities 

Measured by: 

Numbers  of  projects 
activities 
and 
and 
implemented 
average sums of money 
involved  (Source:  MS 
+ Commission) 

Number 

of 

TCNs 

of 
Exchange 
information  and 
best 
practices 
promoted  among 
EU MS 

Transnational 
and 
networks 
dialogue  between 

Increased dialogue with 
civil society 

Enhanced integration of 
TCNs 

Development 
promotion 
European 

and 
a 
framework 

of 

Specific 
/comments 

issues 

Integration 
policies are 
implemented 
mainly at 
regional and 
local levels in 
MS. 

Differences exist 
among MS in 
terms of 
numbers of 
migrants and 
integration 

EN 

42 

EN 

 
  
Enhance 
empowerment 
of migrants. 

Promote 
dialogue  with 
civil society. 

benefiting 
projects 

from 

stakeholders 
supported  among 
MS 

Increased cooperation 

Measured by: 

Number 
of 
transnational  networks 
set  up  (Source:  MS  + 
Commission) 

of 

Number 
integration 
identified 
exchanged among MS 

new 
models 
and 

approach on integration 
of TCNs  

experience.  

Potential 
impacts may not 
be significant 
considering that 
this is a small 
fund with very 
diverse projects. 

Final  evaluation 
for 
is  planned 
2007. 

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

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

Policy sub-area level indicators: 

Increase/decrease over a 5-year period of: 

Numbers of legal migrants by third country (Source: Commission - Eurostat) 

Numbers of illegal migrants by third country intercepted crossing an external border (Source: Commission – Eurostat) 

Numbers of visa overstayers by third country intercepted (Source: MS) 

EN 

43 

EN 

 
  
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) 

instrument 
Main 
(and 
of 
type 
instrument) 

for 
and 

Programme 
financial 
technical 
assistance  to  third 
countries 
(AENEAS) 

Objectives 

Implementation 
at national level 

Indicators/evaluation questions 

Immediate results 

Outcomes 

Impacts 

specific 

Give 
and 
complementary 
and 
financial 
technical  aid  to 
third countries in 
order  to  support 
to 
their  efforts 
improve 
the 
management  of 
migratory flows  

Develop 
in 
legislation 
countries 
third 
on 
legal 
immigration  and 
international 
protection 

applicable 
Not 
(action 
at 
is 
Community 
level) 

Successful 
implementation 

Measured by; 

of 

Number  of  information 
campaigns organised on 
legal 
advantages 
migration/consequences 
of  illegal  migration  in 
third  countries  (Source: 
Commission) 

Number  of 
benefiting 
reintegration 
programmes 
Commission) 

returnees 
from 

(Source: 

Improved  management 
of migration flows 

Decrease 
migration 
trafficking 

in 

illegal 
and 

Increased  awareness  in 
on 
third 
countries 
advantages 
legal 
migration/consequences 
of illegal migration 

of 

Successful  reintegration 
of returnees 

Development  of 
legislation 
in 
third countries 

Measured by: 

New 
legislation 
third 
in 
passed 
countries on legal 
and 
illegal 
migration 
(Source: 
Commission) 

Decreased 
number  of  illegal 
migrants  entering 
the EU  

Measured by: 

Specific 
/comments 

issues 

High number of 
external factors 
to the 
programme 
influence impact 
indicators. 
Causality links 
difficult to 
establish. 

As  action  is  at 
Community 
level,  MS  will 
not  contribute  to 
evaluation. 

May  be  difficult 
to  evaluate  as 
this is a new area 
is  also 
which 

EN 

44 

EN 

 
  
rate  of  decrease 
(Source: 
Commission) 

highly  political. 
A 
Communication 
on  the  future  of 
AENEAS 
the 
was 
fund 
adopted 
in 
January 2006. 

public 
Raise 
in 
awareness 
third 
countries 
on advantages of 
legal  migration 
and 
consequences  of 
illegal migration 

Establishment  in 
third 
countries 
preventive 
of 
in 
policy 
the 
fight 
against 
illegal migration 

Readmission and 
durable 
reintegration  of 
returnees 

Policy sub-area 5: Return and re-admission 

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

Policy sub-area level indicators: 

Increase/decrease over a 5-year period of: 

Proportion of failed asylum seekers (and illegal migrants) who are repatriated (Source: MS) 

EN 

45 

EN 

 
  
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 

instrument 
Main 
(and 
of 
type 
instrument) 

Preparatory actions 
for 
Return 
Management 

EN 

Objectives 

Implementation 
at national level 

Indicators/evaluation questions 

Specific 
/comments 

issues 

Immediate results 

Outcomes 

Impacts 

Disbursement 
rate/amount 
spent per year 

To 
support 
efforts  made  by 
MS  to  improve 
the  organisation 
and 
implementation 
of 
return 
management and 
specific 
measures  in  the 
area  of 
return 
management 

integrated 

increase 
To 
knowledge  and 
capabilities 
in 
the area of return 
management 

To  develop  co-
operation 
between 
MS 
with  respect  to 

Increased number 
of returnees  

by: 
Measured 
rate  of  increase 
(Source:  MS  and 
Commission) 

Reduction in cost 
of 
detaining 
illegal migrants  

Measured 
by: 
rate  of  reduction 
(Source:  MS  and 
Commission) 

The strengthening of 
efforts made by 
Member States at 
improving the 
organisation and 
implementation of 
integrated return 
management 

Improved  organisation 
and  implementation  of 
integrated 
return 
management 

Increased 
and 
capabilities 
return management 

knowledge 
in 

cooperation 
Increased 
between  MS 
and 
countries  of  return  with 
return 
to 
respect 
management 

Number 
actions 
of 
implemented  relating  to 
introduction  and 
the 
the 
improvement  of 
and 
organisation 
implementation 
of 
return 
integrated 
(Source: 
management 
Commission) 

actions 
of 
Number 
implemented  relating  to 
the 
introduction  and 
improvement of specific 
measures  in  the  area  of 
return 
management 
(Source: Commission) 

actions 
of 
Number 
implemented  relating  to 
the 
of 
increase 
and 
knowledge 
capabilities  in  the  area 
of  return  management 

46 

EN 

 
  
 
 
return 
management  as 
well 
co-
as 
operation  with 
of 
countries 
return  

promote 

thereby 

To 
sustainable 
return, 
avoiding 
secondary 
movements 

(Source: Commission) 

in 

illegal 
Reduction 
migrants  living  in  the 
Member 
States 
(overstayers) 

Increased 
illegal 
nationals 

removal  of 
country 

third 

Decrease 
movements 

Improved 
conditions 

secondary 

return 

Increased number 
of returnees  

Decrease 
immigration 

in 

illegal 

Improved  effectiveness 
of return procedures 

Measured 
by: 
rate  of  increase 
(Source: 
Commission  and 
MS) 

Reduction in cost 
for 
detaining 
illegal migrants  

Measured 
by: 
rate  of  reduction 
(Source: MS) 

Agreements 
have been signed 
with 
Hong 
Kong,  Macao, 
Sri 
Albania, 
Lanka 
and 
Russia.  Others 
currently 
are 
being negotiated. 

Re-admission 
agreements 

are 

(These 
reciprocal 
agreements 
between  the  EU 
and 
third 
countries.) 

To  facilitate  the 
to 
readmission 
own 
their 
of 
country 
persons  residing 
without 
authorisation 
in 
a Member State. 

combat 

To 
illegal 
immigration 

To  improve  the 
effectiveness  of 
return 

Successful 
implementation  of  the 
agreements 

Measured by: 

of 

persons 
Number 
third 
readmitted 
countries covered by the 
agreements 

to 

EN 

47 

EN 

 
  
procedures 

Policy sub-area 6: Horizontal issues  

Main 
(and 
instrument) 

instrument 
of 
type 

Objectives 

Implementation 
at national level 

Indicators/evaluation questions 

Specific 
/comments 

issues 

Immediate results 

Outcomes 

Impacts 

Proposed  mutual 
information 
procedure 
planned 
asylum 
immigration 
measures  

on 
national 
and 

Enhance  mutual 
information  of 
national 
immigration  and 
asylum  policies 
between  MS 
policy-makers 

Cooperation  by 
MS 

Successful 
implementation 
procedure 

Measured by: 

of 

Increased 
knowledge 
of 
other  Member 
State policies and 
measures 

Number  of  national 
submitted 
measures 
through the system 

Number  of  responses 
to  requests 
generated 
information 
for 
(Source: 
+ 
Commission) 

MS 

Meetings 
(Source: 
Commission) 

organised 
+ 
MS 

Anticipation  of  effects 
of  changes 
to  other 
national policies 

Procedure  yet  to 
be implemented.  

Implementation 
could 
2007. 

start 

in 

Better  understanding  of 
other  national  contexts 
an 
could 
to 
lead 
the 
enhancement  of 
possibilities 
for 
harmonisation 

European  Migration 
Network  

Provide 
the 
Community  and 
with 
MS 
objective, 

Organisation  of 
activities 
at 
national  level  by 
national  contact 

Successful 
implementation 
network 

of 

Better  and  faster 
to 
access 
on 
information 
and 
migration 

Increased 
knowledge 
and  understanding  of 
migration 
the 
at 
phenomenon 

Proposal and 
impact 
assessment due 
by September 

EN 

48 

EN 

 
  
 
 
and 

reliable 
comparable 
information  on 
migration 
and 
asylum. 

points 

Measured by: 

asylum 

Increased 
knowledge 
of 
issues  at  national 
level 

Increased 
information 
sharing  between 
actors 

Number  of  products 
produced  (Source:  MS 
+ Commission) 

Number  of  meetings 
and  conferences  held 
(Source: 
+ 
Commission) 

MS 

Number  of  networks 
set  up  at  national  level 
(Source: MS) 

Member  State  and  EU 
level 

Increased  capacity 
to 
“anticipate”  migratory 
developments 

2006 for a 
Council 
Decision on the 
future EMN. 

Proposed 
Regulation 
Community 
statistics 
migration 
international 
protection 

on 

on 
and 

of 

the 

Improve 
statistical 
knowledge 
migration-
related 
phenomena  by 
the 
specifying 
be 
to 
data 
collected, 
the 
timetables  to  be 
applied, 
the 
definitions  and 
the 
quality 
standards. 

Adoption 
measures 
national level 

of 
at 

Successful 
implementation 
Regulation 

of 

Increased 
availability 
data 

Improved  analyses  of 
data 

of 

Improved 
knowledge 

statistical 

Regulation  will 
probably 
be 
adopted in 2006. 
reference 
First 
year 
the 
for 
statistics  will  be 
2008. 

Measured by: 

Increased  proportion  of 
items 
statistical  data 
supplied  according  to 
the 
harmonised 
definitions  as  opposed 
to  national  definitions 
(Source: MS) 

Increased  proportion  of 
items 
statistical  data 
on 
directly 

based 

to 
Improvement 
quality 
and 
comparability  of 
between 
data 
Member States 

Measured by:  

Improvements  in 
the  completeness, 
timeliness 
and 
of 
degree 
harmonization  of 

EN 

49 

EN 

 
  
Action  Programme 
for 
administrative 
cooperation  in  the 
fields  of  external 
visas, 
borders, 
asylum 
and 
immigration 
(ARGO) 

Disbursement 
rate/amount 
spent per year 

data 
appropriate 
sources  as  opposed  to 
statistical 
estimations 
(Source:  Commission  - 
Eurostat)) 

Successful 
implementation 
of 
programme  measured 
by: 

Number  of  projects 
implemented 
per 
activity area 

Number  of 
actions implemented 

training 

of 

Number 
exchanges 
implemented 

staff 

of 

actions 
Number 
promoting 
data 
exchange implemented 

and 
migration 
data 
asylum 
the 
supplied 
to 
Commission 
- 
Eurostat  (Source: 
Commission 
– 
Eurostat) 

Increased 
cooperation 
between  national 
administrations 
and  with 
countries  

third 

Measured by: 

of 

Number 
common 
operative  centres 
and  joint  teams 
set up 

of 

Number 
cooperation 
activities  in  third 
countries set up 

Number  of 
conferences 
seminars conducted 

studies, 
and 

(Source: 
Commission) 

Mid-term 
evaluation  to  be 
completed 
in 
July 2006. 

Uniform  application  of 
Community law 

Improved  transparency 
of  actions 
taken  by 
national authorities  

Improved  efficiency  of 
national administrations

for 

promote 

To 
cooperation 
between  national 
administrations 
responsible 
implementing 
Community rules 
to  ensure 
and 
that 
proper 
account  is  taken 
the 
of 
Community 
dimension 
their actions  

in 

To  promote  the 
uniform 
application 
of 
Community law  

To 
encourage 
transparency  of 
actions  taken  by 
national 
the 

EN 

50 

EN 

 
  
 
(Source: Commission) 

authorities 

To  improve  the 
overall 
efficiency 
national 
administrations 
in their tasks  

of 

EN 

51 

EN 

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

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism:  

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

Policy sub-area 1: Civil matters 

Objectives: 

To increase mutual recognition and enforcement of judicial 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 

EN 

52 

EN 

 
  
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 
/comments 

issues 

Immediate results  Outcomes 

Impacts 

Horizontal cooperation activities  

Specific 
programme ‘Civil 
justice’ 
(Framework 
Programme 2007-
2013 Fundamental 
Rights and Justice) 

To increase 
mutual confidence 
of judicial actors.  

To increase 
instances of 
mutual 
recognition.  

To reduce 
application of 

Participation in 
and support for 
cooperation 
programme. 

Number of 
meetings, 
workshops. 

Numbers of legal, 
judicial and 
administrative 
authorities 
involved in 
cooperation.  

Increased 
knowledge of 
Member States 
legal and judicial 
systems in civil 
matters. 

Measured by:  

Levels of 
knowledge 

Mutually 
recognised 
decisions acted 
upon/ enforced. 

Increased legal 
certainty. 

Improved access to 
justice. 

Establishing causal 
links between the 
interventions and 
outcomes and impacts 
will be problematic  

EN 

53 

EN 

 
  
intermediate 
procedures. 

Source: 
programme 
monitoring system 

amongst relevant 
authorities 
(Source: MS 
surveys)  

Decreased costs 
and time spent in 
accessing justice 
due to disparities 
in civil law and 
civil procedures. 

European judicial 
network in civil 
and commercial 
matters  

To improve and 
facilitate co-
operation in civil 
justice matters  

Participation in 
and support for 
cooperation 
programme. 

To facilitate 
access to justice 
and information 

To reduce costs of 
access to 
information on 
international and 
European law and 
national judicial 
systems by EU 
nationals (and 
therefore increase 
access). 

Meetings, 
publications 
website. 

Hits and usage of 
website (Source: 
Commission)  

Numbers of legal 
actors involved in 
cooperation. 

Source: Network 
management 
reports (Source: 
Commission)  

Improved access to 
justice and quality 
of advice on cross 
(internal) border 
issues. 

Establishing causal 
links between the 
interventions and 
outcomes and impacts 
will be problematic 

Improvement of 
judicial 
cooperation 
between MS and 
courts 

Rules on procedures  

Regulation on 
jurisdiction and 
the recognition 

To harmonise 
national rules of 
conflict of 

Implementation  

Harmonised 
Community rules  

Simpler and 
quicker procedures 
to recognise and 

Better and quicker 
access to justice  

Clear intervention logic  

EN 

54 

EN 

 
  
and enforcement 
of judgements in 
civil and 
commercial 
matters (Brussels I 
44/2001)  

jurisdiction  

To simplify 
procedures for 
recognition and 
enforcement of 
judgements from 
MS  

Implementation 

Regulation on 
taking evidence in 
civil and 
commercial 
matters 
(1206/2001)  

To improve, 
simplify and 
speed up 
procedures for 
taking evidence 
between the courts 
of different MS 

Implementation 

Regulation on the 
service of 
documents in civil 
and commercial 
matters 
(Regulation 
1348/2000)  

To increase 
efficiency and 
speed in judicial 
procedures  

To improve and 
expedite the 
transmission of 

EN 

enforce the 
judgements  

Measured by:  

Length of time 
taken to recognise 
and enforce the 
judgements  

(Source: MS)  

Quicker and more 
efficient judicial 
procedures  

Measured by:  

Length of time 
taken to take 
evidence between 
courts  

(Source: MS) 

Quicker and more 
efficient judicial 
procedures  

Measured by:  

Length of time 
taken to transmit 

(Source: MS 
reporting to 
Commission)  

Establishment of 
facilitated cross-
border procedures 
between courts in 
different MS for 
taking evidence  

(Source: MS 
reporting to 
Commission) 

Establishment of 
common rules on 
transmission of 
judicial and 
extrajudicial 
documents 
between 

55 

Prevent conflict of 
jurisdiction 

Better and quicker 
access to justice 

Clear intervention 
logic.  

Better and quicker 
access to justice 

Clear intervention 
logic. 

Quicker judicial 
procedures  

EN 

 
  
Directive on legal 
aid in cross-border 
disputes (Council 
Directive 
2003/8/EC)  

documents 
between MS  

To guarantee 
adequate level of 
legal aid in cross-
border disputes 
through 
establishing 
minimum 
common 
standards between 
MS 

Resolution of cross border disputes 

European payment 
order 
(forthcoming) 

To reduce the 
costs and time 
taken to make 
payments. 

To increase the 
number of cross-
border orders for 
payment 

MS(Source: MS 
reporting to 
Commission) 

the documents and 
enforce 
judgements 

(Source: MS) 

Adequate levels of 
legal aid in cross-
border disputes  

(Source: MS)  

Improved access to 
justice, especially 
of vulnerable 
groups  

Clear intervention 
logic. 

Implementation 

Minimum 
common 
standards relating 
to legal aid in 
cross-border 
disputes  

(Source: MS 
reporting to 
Commission) 

Implementation 

Numbers of cross-
border orders for 
payment made 

Reduction of 
intermediate 
procedures 

Establishing causal 
links between the 
interventions and 
outcomes and impacts 
will be problematic. 
Proposal yet to be 
adopted.  

Reduced costs and 
time of litigation in 
cross-border cases 
concerning 
uncontested 
pecuniary claims. 

Improved access to 
justice. 

Facilitated 
recovery of cross-
border debts 

EN 

56 

EN 

 
  
 
European 
enforcement order 
for uncontested 
claims (Regulation 
805/2004)  

To enable quick 
and efficient 
enforcement of an 
uncontested claim 
between MS  

Implementation 

Number of 
applications of 
European 
enforcement order 
in EU MS  

Quicker and more 
efficient 
enforcement of 
uncontested claims 
in another MS  

(Source: MS) 

Measured by:  

Reduced costs and 
time in such cross-
border cases  

Improved access to 
justice  

Establishing causal 
links between the 
interventions and 
outcomes and impacts 
will be problematic 

Length of time 
needed to enforce 
such a claim  

(Source: MS) 

Instrument on 
Alternative 
Dispute Resolution 
(ADR) 

Instrument on 
small claims 

To reduce the 
costs of dispute 
resolution 

To facilitate 
recourse to 
mediation by 
improving legal 
certainty 

To facilitate cross-
border access to 
justice for small 
claims 

To reduce the 
costs and time 
taken to resolve 

Implementation 

More possibilities 
and better 
awareness of 
possibilities for 
ADR 

More attempts to 
use ADR 

Reduced costs of 
dispute resolution  

More disputes 
resolved without 
going to court 

Establishing causal 
links between the 
interventions and 
outcomes and impacts 
will be problematic  

Implementation 

Application of 
Small Claims 
Procedure in the 
25 EU MS 

(Source: MS) 

Increased number 
of small claims 
pursued. 

(Source: MS) 

More small claims 
resolved. 

Proposal yet to be 
adopted.  

Increased legal 
certainty. 

Increased access to 
justice. 

EN 

57 

EN 

 
  
small claims. 

To increase the 
number of 
legitimate small 
claims made. 

Marriage and divorce law  

Instrument on 
maintenance 
obligations 

Implementation 

Application of 
Regulation in 
maintenance 
obligations 
proceedings in 25 
EU MS 

(Source: MS) 

To improve and 
simplify 
enforcement 
procedures of 
maintenance 
obligations.  

To enhance 
cooperation.  

To clarify what is 
applicable (non-
conflicting) law 

Reduction of 
intermediate 
procedures. 

Reduced cases of 
forum shopping 

Increased 
cooperation 
between legal 
professionals / 
competent 
authorities in the 
Member States 

(Source: MS) 

Regulation on 
jurisdiction and 
recognition and 
enforcement of 
judgements in 
matrimonial 

To harmonise 
rules of 
jurisdiction  

To enable 
automatic 

Implementation 

Establishment of 
harmonised rules 
on jurisdiction  

(Source: MS) 

Quicker and more 
efficient 
recognition and 
enforcement of 
judgements  

Instrument is at the 
Council discussion 
stage. 

Establishing causal 
links between the 
interventions and 
outcomes and impacts 
will be problematic. 
Evaluation requires 
good data from the 
Member States. 

Evaluation requires 
good data from the 
Member States. 

Increased legal 
certainty 

Better informed 
decisions 

Mutually 
recognised 
decisions acted 
upon/ enforced. 

Facilitated 
recovery of debts 
(maintenance for 
creditors) 

Better access to 
justice  

Better protection 
of citizens in case 
of divorce 

EN 

58 

EN 

 
  
Measured by:  

Length of time 
taken to recognise 
and enforce a 
judgement  

(Source: MS) 

Facilitated visiting 
rights for parents 

Better protection 
of children’s’ 
rights 

Implementation 

Numbers of cross-
border disputes 
settled 

Improved mutual 
trust between 
judicial authorities 

Reduced 
uncertainty. 

Proposal in discussion 
stage. 

Application of 
conflict of law 
rules in the MS 

(Source: MS) 

Faster procedures. 

(Source: MS) 

Reduced costs. 

Facilitated mutual 
recognition of 
international 
contracts 

matters and 
parental 
responsibility 
(Brussels II, 
2201/2003) 

recognition and 
enforcement of 
judgements 
between MS 

Various  

Instrument on the 
conflict of laws in 
the area of 
contractual 
obligations (Rome 
I). 

To reduce costs 
associated with 
differences 
regarding non-
contractual 
obligations 

To increase party 
autonomy and 
flexibility  

To increase legal 
certainty for 
consumers and 
internal market  

Proposal for a 
regulation on the 
law applicable to 
non-contractual 
obligations (Rome 

To harmonise 
rules on non-
contractual 
obligations  

Implementation 

Provision of a set 
of community 
rules 

Improved mutual 
trust between 
judicial authorities 

Application of 

Faster procedures. 

Reduced legal 
uncertainty.  

Better access to 
justice  

Establishing causal 
links between the 
interventions and 
outcomes and impacts 

EN 

59 

EN 

 
  
 
II, COM(2003) 
final)  

To increase legal 
certainty  

rules in the MS  

(Source: MS) 

Regulation on 
insolvency 
proceedings 
(1346/2000)  

Implementation 

Provision of a set 
of community 
rules 

Application of 
rules in the MS  

(Source: MS) 

To improve 
efficiency and 
effectiveness of 
cross-border 
insolvency 
proceedings  

To prevent 
shopping for a 
more favourable 
legal position  

Reduced costs of 
accessing justice  

will be problematic 

(Source: MS) 

Increased legal 
certainty for 
victims of 
damages and 
perpetrators of 
torts 

More efficient and 
effective cross-
border insolvency 
proceedings  

Better access to 
justice  

Reduced costs of 
accessing justice 

Clear intervention logic  

Better resolution of 
cross border 
insolvencies 

Better cooperation 
between courts and 
administrators of 
insolvency 

Prevention of 
shopping for a 
more favourable 
legal position 

Measured by:  

Time taken for 
proceedings  

Perceptions of 
shopping amongst 
legal professionals 

(Source: MS, 
surveys) 

Directive on 

To facilitate better 

Implementation 

Co-operation 

Better access to 

Better access to 

Clear intervention logic  

EN 

60 

EN 

 
  
mechanism 
between MS set 
up 

(Source: MS) 

compensation to 
victims of crimes 
in cross-border 
situations  

(Source: MS) 

justice  

Better 
compensation for 
victims of cross-
border crime in 
Europe 

compensation to 
crime victims 
(2004/80/EC)  

access for victims 
to compensations 
where crime was 
committed in 
another MS  

To establish a 
compensation 
mechanism in 
such cases  

Policy sub-area 2: Criminal matters (Justice)  

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  

EN 

61 

EN 

 
  
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 
of 
type 
instrument) 

Objectives 

Implementation 
at national level 

Indicators/evaluation questions 

Immediate results  Outcomes 

Impacts 

Transposition  

European arrest 
warrant and the 
surrender 
procedures 
between Member 
States (Council 
Framework 
Decision of 13 
June 2002on the 

To facilitate and 
expedite 
surrender 
procedures in 
respect of persons 
wanted for trial 
and sentenced 
persons between 
Member States  

Numbers of arrest 
warrants issued, 
executed and 
refused 

Numbers of persons 
surrendered and of 
persons received 
from other Member 

Faster and simpler 
surrender procedures 

Measured by: 

Average duration of 
surrender procedures 
(Source: MS) 

Increased 
visibility of 
mutual 
recognition, better 
knowledge of 
each other's 
judicial systems 
and increased 
mutual confidence 

Specific 
/comments 

issues 

Requires good data 
from MS. MS must 
actively participate in 
evaluation.  

EN 

62 

EN 

 
  
European arrest 
warrant and the 
surrender 
procedures 
between Member 
States 
(2002/584/JHA)) 

Instrument on the 
execution of 
orders freezing 
property or 
evidence (Council 
Framework 
Decision 
2003/577/JHA of 
22 July 2003) 

To facilitate 
recognition and 
execution of 
freezing orders 
issued by a 
judicial authority 
of another 
Member State 

between judicial 
authorities. 

Increased security 
and safety within 
the EU  

Increased 
efficiency of 
procedures; 
increased mutual 
confidence 
between judicial 
authorities. 

Decreased levels 
of organised 
crime (Source: 
Europol reports) 

Requires good data 
from MS. 

States and numbers 
of persons 
consenting to 
surrender.  

(Source: MS) 

Transposition  

Number of freezing 
requests issued and 
executed 

Increased efficiency 
and effectiveness of 
freezing orders  

(Source: MS) 

Measured by: 

Faster procedures to 
freeze assets  

Increased use of 
procedures to freeze 
assets  

Increased speed of 
national procedures 
as a consequence of 
freezing order  

Improved access to 
evidence obtained/ 

Improved recovery 
of assets  

EN 

63 

EN 

 
  
Instrument on the 
application of the 
principle of 
mutual 
recognition to 
financial penalties 
(Council 
Framework 
Decision 
2005/214/JHA of 
24 February 2005)

To facilitate the 
enforcement of 
financial 
penalties imposed 
by judicial or 
administrative 
authorities in a 
Member State 
other than the 
State in which the 
penalties were 
imposed. 

(Source: MS) 

Transposition 

Number of 
decisions and 
issued and executed 

(Source: MS) 

Faster and more 
effective procedures 
to ensure 
enforcement of 
financial penalties  

Dissuasive effect 
to potential 
criminals and 
decreased level of 
financial crime  

Requires good data 
from MS. 

Difficult to measure 
causal links between 
outcomes and impacts  

Measured by:  

Average length of 
procedures  

(Source: MS) 

Increased 
visibility of 
mutual 
recognition, better 
knowledge of 
each other's 
judicial systems 
and increased 
mutual confidence 
between judicial 
authorities. 

Voluntary 
compliance  

To improve 
exchanges of 
information on 
criminal records 
between Member 
States 

Instrument on the 
exchange of 
information 
extracted from the 
criminal record 
(Council Decision 
2005/876/JHA of 
21 November 
2005) 

Number of requests 
sent , number of 
replies sent  

-for the purpose of 
criminal 
proceedings, and 

- for other purposes 

Respect of 

Improved 
knowledge available 
to sentencing 
authorities about the 
convicted person's 
full European 
criminal record. 

Improved circulation 
of information on 
criminal records for 
other purposes (e.g. 

Dissuasive effect 
to potential 
criminals and 
hence decreased 
levels of crime  

Increased 
visibility of 
mutual 
recognition, better 
knowledge of 
each other's 

Requires good data 
from MS. 

Difficult to measure 
causal links between 
outcomes and impacts 

EN 

64 

EN 

 
  
deadlines 

employment)  

(Source: MS) 

To assist victims 
before or after 
criminal 
proceedings 

Transposition 

Application of rules 
the instrument  

(Source: MS)  

Instrument on the 
standing of 
victims in 
criminal 
proceedings 
(Council 
Framework 
Decision of 15 
March 2001) 

Improved quality of 
information on 
criminal records 
from abroad in the 
Member State of 
nationality  

(Source: MS) 

Better information 
for victims on legal 
advice and on their 
rights, protection for 
vulnerable victims 
and more 
appropriate methods 
of obtaining 
evidence 

Improved situation 
for victims in 
relation to criminal 
proceedings 

(Source: MS) 

judicial systems 
and increased 
mutual confidence 
between judicial 
authorities. 

More appropriate 
and better 
informed 
sentencing 
decisions 

Raised awareness 
of victims' rights 
amongst 
practitioners 

Measured by MS 
surveys  

Better access to 
justice  

Requires good data 
from MS.  

Framework 
programme on 
police and judicial 

Help legal 
practitioners, law 
enforcement 

Commitments to 
AGIS projects 

Number of 
activities promoting 
training and expert 

Development of 
instruments, 
strategies and 

Improved 
operational 
procedures and 

Transnational 
cooperation activities 
normally require 

EN 

65 

EN 

 
  
cooperation in 
criminal matters 
(AGIS) 

officials and 
representatives of 
victim assistance 
services from the 
EU Member 
States and 
Candidate 
Countries set up 
Europe-wide 
networks, 
exchange 
information and 
best practices.  

Encourage 
Member States to 
step-up co-
operation with the 
applicant 
countries and 
other third 
countries 

qualitative approaches 
to evaluation taking 
account of varying 
contexts. 

Participation 

mobility 

Number of 
dissemination 
activities 

Number of 
conferences and 
seminars 

Number of studies, 
research and 
evaluations 

(Source: 
Commission) 

activities for 
cooperation 

Development of 
methods, techniques 
and instruments for 
operational and 
training use 

Exchange and 
dissemination of 
information, 
experience and best 
practices 

(Source: 
Commission) 

approaches 

Better operational 
cooperation 

Cross-border use 
of good practices 

Mutual 
understanding of 
respective police, 
legal and 
administrative 
systems 

Common 
perception of 
criminality 

Flanking measures in place 

The European 
Judicial Network 
(Joint Action of 
29 June 1998 
adopted by the 
Council) 

To improve 
judicial 
cooperation 
between Member 
States through 
direct contacts 
between judicial 

Designation of 
national contact 
points  

Regular meetings, 
creation and 
updating of 
specific tools 
(website, "fiches 
belges", atlas and 
SOLON legal 

Increased efficiency 
of procedures and 
better communication 
between judicial 
authorities. 

Measured by:  

Improved 
functioning of 
mutual 
recognition 
instruments, 
better knowledge 
of each other's 

EN 

66 

EN 

 
  
 
authorities 

Eurojust (Council 
Decision of 28 
February 2002) 

Appointment of 
national experts 
to Eurojust  

Better co -
ordination of 
investigation and 
prosecution of 
serious cross-
border crime  

EN 

glossary)  

Number of cases 
in which the EJN 
is involved. 

(Source: EJN and 
Member States) 

Average duration of 
procedures, analysis 
of outcomes of 
proceedings, 
perceptions of ECJ as 
a communication tool 

(Source: EJN and 
Member States) 

Immediate access 
to information 
about legal 
systems from a 
practitioner of the 
nationality of the 
Member States in 
question. 

Increased efficiency 
of procedures and 
better communication 
between prosecutors 
and judicial 
authorities. 

Measured by:  

Measured by: 
number of cases 
where Eurojust is 
used  

Average duration of 
procedures, analysis 
of outcomes of 
proceedings 

(Source: Eurojust and 
MS) 

Establishment of 
the coordination 
role. 

Establishment of 
Eurojust as a 
potential arbiter 
of conflicts of 

67 

judicial systems 
and increased 
mutual confidence 
between judicial 
authorities. 

Increased cross 
border 
prosecution rates 
and improved 
efficiency 
(evidence 
gathering, mutual 
information 
exchange on 
procedural 
matters)  

Improved 
functioning of 
mutual 
recognition 
instruments, 
better knowledge 
of each other's 
judicial systems 
and increased 

EN 

 
  
 
mutual confidence 
between judicial 
authorities. 

jurisdiction. 

Establishment of 
Eurojust as 
peporting 
authority for 
problems with 
European Arrest 
Warrants. 

(Source: Eurojust 
and MS) 

Joint investigation 
teams 

(Council 
Framework 
Decision of 13 
June 2002) 

To facilitate, 
expedite and 
improve 
investigations in 
cross border cases 

Transposition  

Setting up of joint 
investigation 
teams 

Efficient gathering of 
evidence in cross 
border cases 

Increased range of 
judicial 
cooperation tools. 

Number of cases 
investigated by 
such teams  

(Source: MS) 

Measured by:  

Average duration of 
cross-border case 
reaching the court 

(Source: MS) 

Improved 
functioning of 
mutual 
recognition 
instruments, 
better knowledge 
of each other's 
judicial systems 
and increased 
mutual confidence 
between judicial 
authorities. 

EN 

68 

EN 

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

Judicial training  

Participation in 
training activities 

Organisation of 
training activities  

Measured by: 
Training 
programmes 
offered, number 
of participants 
benefiting from 
training on EU 
matters ) 

(Source: 
Commission. 
Participant 
feedback)  

To improve 
knowledge of 
relevant EU 
instruments 
among legal 
practitioners 

To enhance 
mutual 
understanding of 
legal systems 
among judges and 
prosecutors  

To co-ordinate 
national judicial 
training 
programmes 

To promote better 
language skills 
among European 
legal practitioners 

Increased 
understanding of 
mutual 
recognition 

Promotion of a 
European judicial 
culture. 

In evaluating the 
success of this policy, 
regard must be had to 
the effective use of 
available EU funding. 

Increased number of 
judicial training 
activities, increased 
coordination between 
national judicial 
training programmes, 
development of the 
European Judicial 
Training Network. 

Measured by:  

Quality of training 
activities, number of 
participants in 
exchanges Improved 
knowledge of 
European and 
international 
instruments amongst 
judges and 
prosecutors  

(Source: MS 

EN 

69 

EN 

 
  
 
Interviews with law 
enforcement and 
judicial actors) 

EN 

70 

EN 

 
  
5.1. 

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

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

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

Objectives: 

To combat:  

•  Terrorism 

•  Smuggling and trafficking of human beings,  

•  Sexual exploitation, racism and xenophobia,  

•  Financial and economic crime,  

•  Environmental crime,  

• 

Illicit trafficking in goods,  

•  Organised crime and cyber crime. 

EN 

71 

EN 

 
  
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) 

EN 

72 

EN 

 
  
Main 
instrument 

Objectives 

Implementation 
at national level 

Indicators/evaluation questions 

Specific 
/comments 

issues 

Immediate results  Outcomes 

Impacts 

Terrorism 

Council 
Framework 
Decision  (FD)  of 
13  June  2002  on 
combating 
terrorism 
(2002/475/JHA) 

To approximate 
the definition of 
terrorist 
offences, and 
penalties and 
sanctions in all 
MS 

To establish 
jurisdictional 
rules to ensure 
that offences 
are prosecuted 

To apply 
specific 
measures for 
victims of 
terrorist 
offences 

To help the 
victims of 
terrorist acts 
and/or their 
relatives to 

Pilot  project  on 
victims 
of 
terrorism 

Implementation 
of FD 

Application  of  FD 
provisions.  

Measured by:  

Number of 
terrorists 
prosecuted as a 
result of FD  

number 

The 
definitions 
offences, 
and 
approximated  

of 
of 
penalties 
sanctions 

Reduced 
instances 
terrorist 
activities  

of 

Improved  help 
to  victims  of 
terrorism  

Difficult 
to 
assess the causal 
links 
between 
outputs, 
outcomes 
impacts  

and 

Number  of  measures 
applied  for  victims 
of terrorist offences  

(Sources: MS) 

Implementation 
of projects 

Number 
of 
beneficiaries  assisted 
through 
psychological 

Improved 
cooperation 
exchange 

and 

Increased 

research 

Improved  social 
and 
psychological 
support 
victims 

to 
of 

EN 

73 

EN 

 
  
 
 
on  the  situation  of 
victims  of  terrorist 
acts 

Creation of 
reception centres 
for victims  

terrorist attacks 

Increase 
awareness 
the 
public 

of 
European 

support 

Number  of  special 
training  programmes 
organised 

social 

Number  of 
integration 
programmes 
organised for victims 

Number  of  special 
medical  programmes 
created 

Number  of  events 
and 
information 
campaigns organised 

recover by 
means of social 
or 
psychological 
support 
provided by 
organisations 
and/or their 
networks. 

To raise the 
awareness of 
the European 
public against 
the terrorist 
threat, so that 
the traditional 
fight against 
terrorism 
through police 
and judiciary 
measures can be 
complemented 
by public 
opinion 
condemning 
terrorism in all 
its forms. 

Pilot  project  on 
prevention, 
preparedness  and 

To 
terrorism  

combat 

Implementation 
of projects 

Number  of  studies 
carried out 

of 
Development 
capabilities  for  the 
of 
management 

Improved 
expertise 

on 

EN 

74 

EN 

 
  
 
response 
terrorist attacks 

to 

To  improve  the 
security 
of 
citizens  

Number  of  expert 
networks set up 

crises 

terrorism 

Exchange of 
experience and best 
practice 

Increased 
exchange 
expertise 

of 

Increased 
cooperation 
with 
international 
partners 

Smuggling and trafficking of human beings 

Council 
Framework 
Decision (FD) 
2002/629/JHA 
of 19 July 2002 
on combating 
trafficking in 
human beings 

Reduce human 
trafficking 

Implementation 
of FD 

Application of FD 
provisions. 

Successful 
prosecutions 
resulting from FD 

Reduced 
trafficking in 
human beings 

Measured by: 

Number of 
detentions resulting 
from FD 

(Source: MS) 

(Source: MS) 

Reduction in 
damage to 
victims of 
trafficking 

Identifying 
cases 
specifically 
linked to FD 
may be 
problematic 

Sexual exploitation  

Council 
frameword 
decision (FD) 
2004/68/JHA of 
22 December 
2003 on 

Reduce sexual 
exploitation of 
children.  

Reduce child 

EN 

Implementation 
of FD 

Application of FD 
provisions. 

Measured by: 

Number of 

75 

Successful 
prosecutions 
resulting from FD 

(Source: MS) 

Reduced sexual 
exploitation of 
children. 
Indicated for 
example by 
reductions in 

Identifying 
cases 
specifically 
linked to FD 
may be 

EN 

 
  
pornography. 

combating the 
sexual 
exploitation of 
children and 
child 
pornography 

detentions resulting 
from FD 

(Source: MS) 

problematic 

numbers of 
complaints. 

Reduced child 
pornography. 
Indicated for 
example by 
reduction in 
number of illicit 
websites and 
other outlets. 

Financial and economic crime  

Criminalise 
active and 
passive 
corruption  

Council 
Framework 
Decision (FD ) 
of 22 July 2003 
criminalising 
corruption in 
private sector 

Implementation 
of FD 

Application of FD 
provisions. 

Successful 
prosecutions 
resulting from FD 

Reduced 
corruption in 
private sector. 

(Source: MS) 

(Source: 
Transparency 
International 
surveys) 

Measured by: 

New crimes 
detected as a result 
of FD 

Number of 
detentions resulting 
from FD 

Source: MS) 

FD on money 
laundering and 
counterfeiting of 

Criminalise 
fraud involving 
any form of non-

Implementation 
of FD 

Application of FD 
provisions. 

Successful 
prosecutions 
resulting from FD 

Reduced money 
laundering and 
counterfeiting of 

EN 

76 

EN 

 
  
 
 
non-cash 
payments  

cash means of 
payment in all 
MS  

Illicit trafficking in goods  

Proposal for a 
regulation on 
import/export 
licensing system 
for firearms  

Reduce firearms 
trafficking. 
Harmonize the 
regime for 
import and 
export of 
firearms. 

Organised crime  

Measured by: 

(Source: MS) 

New crimes 
detected as a result 
of FD 

Number of 
detentions resulting 
from FD 

Source: MS) 

non-cash 
payments  

(Source: 
national 
criminal justice 
statistics) 

Establishment of 
the system 

Application of the 
regulation 

Increased control 
over imports and 
exports of firearms 

Reduced 
firearms 
trafficking  

Measured by: 
Numbers of arms 
licensed 

(Source: MS) 

Reduced use of 
illicit firearms 

Measured by: 

perceptions of law 
enforcement 
agencies 

(Source: MS) 

Clear 
intervention 
logic 
(forthcoming) 

The instrument 
is relevant to 
borders policy 
area. 

Council 
Framework 
Decision 
2001/500/JHA 

Approximate 
definitions, 
incriminations 
and sanctions  

Implementation 
of FD 

Application of rules 
and provisions 
contained in FD 

Assets frozen and 
confiscated.  

Reduced money 
laundering  

Measured by: 

Reduced crime 

Regular 
monitoring 
reports from the 
Commission  

EN 

77 

EN 

 
  
Improve mutual 
legal assistance 
in the 
investigation 
and prosecution 
of this type of 
crime 

of 26 June 2001 
relating to 
money 
laundering, 
identification, 
tracing, freezing 
or seizing and 
confiscation of 
the 
instrumentalities 
and proceeds 
from crime 

Proposal for a 
FD on fight 
against 
organised crime 
(2005)  

Harmonise the 
definition of 
offences and 
penalties 

Facilitate 

EN 

Measured by: 

Instances of 
suspicious 
transactions 
reported to entities 
subject to reporting 
obligations 

Penalties resulting 
from FD 

Prosecutions 
resulting from FD 

Reduction of the 
differences in 
maximum penalties 
among MS 

(Source: MS, 
Commission) 

Implementation 
of FD 

Application of rules 
and provisions 
contained in FD. 

Effective judgments 
pronounced 

Measured by: 

Amounts frozen 
and confiscated 
(Source: MS) 

Perceptions of 
law enforcement 
agencies. 

Identifying 
cases 
specifically 
linked to the FD 
may be 
problematic 

(This instrument 
might fit better 
under financial 
crime although 
it is about 
enacting 
penalties and 
might better fit 
under Justice 
criminal matters. 
Evaluation need 
to be done in 
combination 
with the third 
money 
laundering 
directive). 

Increased judicial 
co-operation  

Reduced 
organised crime 

Difficult to 
measure impacts 

Measured by:  

Better harmonised 

Measured by: 

Trials and 
successful 

78 

Measured by: 
Perceptions of 
law enforcement 

Identifying 
cases 
specifically 

EN 

 
  
Implementation 
of Directive 

definition of 
offences and 
penalties. 

Instances of judicial 
cooperation 

(Source: MS, 
Commission)  

Application of rules 
and provisions 
contained in 
Directive 

Measured by  

Instances of 
residence permits 
issued 

(Source: MS) 

prosecutions 
resulting from FD 

agencies. 

(Source: MS) 

More victims 
testifying against 
suspected criminals 

Successful 
prosecution of 
suspected criminals 

(Source: MS) 

Reduced 
organised crime 
participation in 
illegal migration 
and human 
trafficking  

Measured by: 

Perceptions of 
migration and 
law enforcement 
agencies. 

linked to the FD 
may be 
problematic  

(This too might 
better fit under 
Justice criminal 
matters policy 
area) 

This instrument 
is relevant to 
borders policy 
area. 

(It does not fit 
easily in this sub 
category.) 

cooperation 
between judicial 
authorities and 
coordinate their 
activities. 

Reduce 
organised crime 
participation in 
illegal migration 
and human 
trafficking  

Facilitate 
victims giving 
evidence against 
suspected 
criminals  

Directive on the 
residence permit 
issued to third-
country 
nationals who 
are victims of 
trafficking in 
human beings or 
who have been 
the subject of an 
action to 
facilitate illegal 
immigration, 
who cooperate 
with the 
competent 
authorities. 
(April 2004) 

EN 

79 

EN 

 
  
Policy sub area 2: Cooperation and exchange of information to enforce the law.  

(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 

EN 

80 

EN 

 
  
Main 
instrument 

Objectives 

Implementation 
at national level 

Indicators/evaluation questions 

Specific 
/comments 

issues 

Immediate results  Outcomes 

Impacts 

Schengen 
Information 
System (SIS) II 

Sharing of 
information 
among MS in 
order to refuse 
entry on the 
basis of 
uniform 
practices  

Consistent input 
and further use of 
information 
among MS 

and 

a 
Quality 
Availability  of  SIS 
II 
information  for 
competent  national 
authorities 

Measured by: 

Number of records 
per category 

(Source: MS and 
Commission) 

Success 
SIS information. 

in  using 

Measured by:  

Reduced 
permeability  of 
the 
external 
border.  

Clear 
intervention 
logic.  

Number 
of 
correctly  identified 
persons who should 
be 
refused  entry 
and  wanted  goods 
discovered  

Increased 
confidence to 
promote ‘free 
movement’ 
policies.  

(Source: MS) 

Evaluation 
– 
methods 
of 
analysis 
and 
trends 
process changes. 

Commission 
for 
responsible 
co-
evaluation 
ordination 
and 
analysis,  MS  for 
information 
analysis.  Most 
of  the  analysis 
depend 
will 
upon 
information 
from MS. 

Evaluation will 
be very difficult. 

Common 
position on the 

To prevent and 
combat serious 

Exchange of data 
with Interpol 

Number of data 
records forwarded to 

Enhanced 
cooperation 

Decreased  illicit 

EN 

81 

EN 

 
  
 
through database 
on stolen travel 
documents 

Interpol 

law 

activities 

between 
enforcement 
authorities 

exchange of data 
with Interpol on 
passports 

and organised 
crime 
including 
terrorism 
through 
improved 
cooperation 
between MS’ 
law 
enforcement 
authorities and 
between them 
and such 
authorities in 
third Countries 
by exchanging 
passport data 
with Interpol 

Task Force of 
Police Chiefs 

Create 
conditions for 
cooperation 

Participation of 
police chiefs (or 
alternates) 

By its nature a 
difficult 
instrument to 
evaluate in its 
own right. 

Cooperation 
activities. 

Measured by: 

Meetings held 

Informal contacts  

Formal cooperation 
agreements 

(Source: MS) 

Mutual cooperation 

Measured by: 

Instances of 
cooperation 

Perceptions of 
participants 

(Source: MS) 

Sustained 
cooperation 

Measured by: 

Instances of 
cooperation 
arising indirectly 
and at lower 
levels. 

Decrease in 
criminal 

EN 

82 

EN 

 
  
 
 
activities 

Measured by: 

Number of 
arrests, 
prosecutions, 
and convictions 

Cooperation 
activities 

Better law 
enforcement 

Reduced ‘cross 
border’ crime 

Measured by  

Measured by: 

Reduced crime 

Trials resulting 
from exchanges of 
intelligence and 
cooperation. 

Successful 
prosecutions 
resulting from 
exchanges of 
intelligence and 
cooperation. 

(Source: MS and 
Europol) 

(Sources: UN 
crime justice 
and crime trends 
surveys, 
European 
sourcebook of 
criminal justice 
statistics, UK 
Home Office 
international 
criminal justice 
statistics) 

Strategic analyses 
undertaken, 

Instances of 
exchange of 
intelligence. 

Use of formal joint 
investigation teams 

Use of informal 
joint investigation 
teams 

Number of 
investigations 
informed. 

(Source: Europol 

83 

Evaluation 
needs to 
acknowledge the 
real constraints 
on multilateral 
police 
cooperation 
(issues of 
confidentiality 
and credit for 
solving cases) 
and the 
potentially weak 
links between 
police 
cooperation and 
reductions in 
crime. 

Evaluation work 
has included 
peer reviews 

EN 

Europol 

Promote 
cooperation 
between MS 
law 
enforcement 
agencies 

Provision of 
information, 
application and 
use of information 
received from 
Europol or via 
bilateral 
cooperation 
initiated by 
Europol 

EN 

 
  
 
CEPOL 

Improve 
likelihood of 
(transnational) 
cooperation. 

Improve 
competences 
of trainees. 

and perceptions of 
participating MS 
and law 
enforcement 
agencies). 

Commitment to 
EU level training 

EU level Training 
activities 

Improved 
cooperation 

Measured by: 

Measured by: 

Increased 
competence in 
cross border 
level practice 

Number of police 
officers trained 

Number of courses 
offered 

(Source: CEPOL, 
including potential 
follow up survey of 
trainees.) 

Resulting instances 
of cooperation 
between individual 
officers. 

Reduced ‘cross 
border’ crime 

Reduced crime 

Resulting instances 
of cooperation 
between agencies 

Resulting improved 
investigations. 

Resulting 
detentions and 
prosecutions 

(Sources: MS Law 
enforcement agency 
records, judicial 
records) 

(Sources: UN 
crime justice 
and crime trends 
surveys, 
European 
sourcebook of 
criminal justice 
statistics, UK 
Home Office 
international 
criminal justice 
statistics) 

Identifying 
causal links with 
impacts will be 
especially 
difficult.  

An report on the 
operation and 
future of 
CEPOL was 
published in 
January 2006. 

EN 

84 

EN 

 
  
Commitments to 
AGIS projects 

Participation 

Transnational 
cooperation 
activities 
normally require 
qualitative 
approaches to 
evaluation 
taking account 
of varying 
contexts. 

Number  of  activities 
promoting 
training 
and expert mobility 

Number 
dissemination 
activities 

Number 
conferences 
seminars 

of 

of 
and 

Number  of  studies, 
research 
and 
evaluations 

(Source: 
Commission) 

Development of 
instruments, 
strategies and 
activities for 
cooperation 

Development of 
methods, 
techniques and 
instruments for 
operational and 
training use 

Exchange and 
dissemination of 
information, 
experience and best 
practices 

Source: 
Commission) 

Improved 
operational 
procedures and 
approaches 

Better 
operational 
cooperation 

Cross-border use 
of good 
practices 

Mutual 
understanding of 
respective 
police, legal and 
administrative 
systems 

Common 
perception of 
criminality 

Framework 
programme on 
police and 
judicial 
cooperation in 
criminal matters 
(AGIS) 

Help legal 
practitioners, 
law 
enforcement 
officials and 
representatives 
of victim 
assistance 
services from 
the EU 
Member States 
and Candidate 
Countries set 
up Europe-
wide 
networks, 
exchange 
information 
and best 
practices.  

Encourage 
Member States 
to  step-up  co-
operation  with 
applicant 
the 
countries  and 
other 
third 
countries 

EN 

85 

EN 

 
  
Policy sub area 3: Crime Prevention 

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 

Immediate results  Outcomes 

Impacts 

Forum on 
organised crime 
prevention 

Better 
exchange of 
information 

Active 
participation from 
MS  

Coordination and 
cooperation of 
activities 

Better and 
increased 
information base 

Reduced crime 

Specific 
/comments 

issues 

Difficult to 
measure causal 
links 

Creation of a 

Better legal and 

EN 

86 

EN 

 
  
Platform of 
expertise 

European crime 
prevention 
network 

Provide 
expertise and 
knowledge in 
developing 
effective crime 
prevention 
measures 

Active 
participation from 
MS 

other instruments 

Measured by: 

Application and 
dissemination of 
information and 
best practices 
exchanged 

(Source: MS)  

Application of 
Network 
Knowledge 

Measured by: 

Uptake of 
recommendations 

Improved policy 
making processes  

(Source: MS via 
Consultations)  

Measured by: 

Meetings and 
seminars held 

Studies undertaken 
etc. 

(Source: 
Commission) 

Network Activities 

Measured by 

Meetings, 

Exchange of 
information 

Identification and 
propagation of good 
practice. 

Copies/hits on good 
practice and 
recommendations. 

(Source: 
Commission) 

Difficult to 
measure causal 
links 

Improved 
policies and 
practices with 
respect to crime 
prevention 

Reduced crime 

EU  action  plan  Provide  better  Active 

Availability 

of  Application 

of  Better  informed  Difficult 

to 

EN 

87 

EN 

 
  
 
on  EU  statistics 
on  crime  and 
criminal justice  

information 
base  on  EU 
crime 
trends, 
levels  and  on 
victimisation 
as  well  as  on 
criminal 
justice. 

participation  from 
MS 

on 
information 
crime  and  criminal 
justice covering EU 

improved 
information 

Measured by: 

Availability, 
coverage 
comparability 
data. 

(Source: 
Commission) 

Measured by: 

Dissemination 
of 
information  to  EU 
and  MS 
policy 
makers 

and 
o 

Citation of statistics 
in policy documents

(Source: 
Commission 
MS) 

and 

policy making at 
EU level. 

measure  causal 
links  

Better  informed 
policy making at 
MS level. 

Statistical 
information 
not available 

is 

Active 
participation  from 
MS 

Action  plan  on 
public-private 
partnerships 

Establish 
public-private 
partnerships  at 
EU 
to 
level 
tackle 
multinational 
organised 
crime 
terrorism 

and 

EN 

Increased 
co-
operation  between 
public  and  private 
sector 

Reduced level of 
damage 
from 
organised  crime 
and terrorism 

Measured by:  

Number 
co-
operation activities  

of 

Source: 
Commission: 
Follow  up  studies 
specific 
of 
partnerships) 

Implementation  of 
Action plan 

Creation  of  a  EU 
level  Platform  for 
public-private 
partnership  against 
organised  crime  and 
terrorism 

Measured by 

Reports 
from  old 
and  new  partnership 
the 
structures 

to 

88 

of 

Instrument 
underpins 
evaluation 
other 
instruments  as  it 
should  improve 
statistics 
available  at  the 
EU level  

Process 
evaluation  could 
be appropriate 

EN 

 
  
 
platform 

Effective 
participation  in  the 
the 
of 
work 
Platform  and  new 
partnerships  

of 

Composition 
partnerships 
established  (Source: 
Commission) 

Policy sub area 4: Management of crises13 with cross border effects 

Objectives: Reduce detrimental cross border impacts of crises  

13 

With particular regard to preparedness and response to terrorist attacks. 

EN 

89 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
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 

Immediate results  Outcomes 

Impacts 

Setting  up  of 
and 
integrated 
co-ordinated  EU 
crisis-
management 
arrangements  in 
the  Commission 
and the Council 

the 
of 

Increase 
level 
preparedness 
to tackle cross-
border 
crises 
within the EU 

Active 
participation  from 
MS 
the 
in 
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 
established 

plans 

(Source: 
administrative 
records) 

MS 

Increased  level  of 
for 
preparedness 
cross border crises 

Reduced 
impacts  of  such 
crises  

Measured by: 

Actual  responses  to 
crises 

of 

MS 

Results 
‘Exercises’ 
undertaken. 

(Source: 
Potential 
stakeholder 
surveys) 

Specific 
/comments 

issues 

There  are  likely 
to  be  particular 
difficulties 
in 
establishing  the 
counter 
factual 
with  respect  to 
instrument. 
this 
Impacts 
may 
only be assessed 
sometime 
following 
emergencies. 
Some  scope  for 
peer review 

EN 

90 

EN 

 
  
ANNEX 2 

Current practice for monitoring and evaluating EU policies 
on 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  family14,  go  beyond  mere  analysis  of  implementation  and  contain  information  on 

14 

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

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
results. There are other examples concerning instruments adopted under Title II of the Treaty, 
such  as  reports15  relating  to  free  movement  of  Union  citizens  or  reports16  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 terrorism17). 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 Decision18).  

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 Eurojust19  

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 Warrant20, some 

15 

16 

17 

18 
19 

20 

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. 
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. 
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. 
Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings. 
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. 
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, 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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  Communication21  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  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.” 
COM(2006) 67 final. 

93 

   EN 

21 

EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
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 
this 
implementation.  The 
Communication,  one  year  after  adoption  of  the  Action  Plan  implementing  The  Hague 
Programme. 

first  "Scoreboard  plus" 

is  presented 

in  parallel 

to 

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) policies22. 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 

22 

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

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Fund, AGIS and DAPHNE are regularly evaluated23. 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  Warrant24  (2005),  the  economic  evaluation  of  the  Data 
Protection  Directive25  (2005)  and  the  on-going  evaluations  of  the  Directive  on  minimum 
standards for the reception of asylum-seekers26 and of the Brussels I Regulation27. 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 purpose28. 

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  framework29,  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. 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 
29 

of 

at: 

are 

these 

online 

results 

available 

The 
evaluations 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/justice_home/evaluation/dg_coordination_evaluation_annexe_en.htm. 
Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States. 
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. 
Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of 
asylum-seekers. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  44/2001  of  22  December  2000  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters 
SEC(2001) 380/3, COM(2005) 172. 
Decision 26 DEF 1998 of the Schengen Executive Committee. 

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 crime30. 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 
200131. 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 terrorism32  

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  2000-200433,  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 

30 
31 

32 

33 

For further information see: http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33053.htm. 
Final  report  on  the  first  evaluation  exercise  -  mutual  legal  assistance  in  criminal  matters  (2001/C 
216/02). 
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. 
COM(2004) 707. 

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 report34 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).  

34 

2000/2231(INI). 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 3  

Glossary 

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

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

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

–  Activity 1803 “Common immigration and asylum policies”, 

–  Activity 1804 “Citizenship and fundamental rights”, 

–  Activity 1805 “Law enforcement cooperation and prevention of and fight against general 

organised crime”, 

–  Activity  1806  “Establishing  a  genuine  European  area  of  justice  in  criminal  and  civil 

matters”, 

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

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

Ex ante/ex post evaluation 

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

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

Ex  post  evaluation:  Evaluation  conducted  either  on  or  after  completion  of  a  measure.  The 
main  interest  is  overall  assessment  of  the  measure,  in  particular  by  analysing  the  impact 

35 

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

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
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. 

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
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. 

EN 

100 

   EN