Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the final evaluation of the Community's action programme to promote bodies active at European level and support specific activities in the field of education and training
Date: 2008-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, action programme, aid system, education policy, report, vocational training

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 5.6.2008 
COM(2008) 337 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the Final Evaluation of the Community's action programme to promote bodies active 
at European level and support specific activities in the field of Education and Training 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

4.1. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Background to the External Evaluation ....................................................................... 3 

The External Evaluation: terms and methodology....................................................... 4 

The terms of the evaluation.......................................................................................... 4 

The methodology ......................................................................................................... 4 

The Evaluator's Findings and Recommendations on Action 1 – Support for specified 
Institutions.................................................................................................................... 4 

Specified institutions that specialise in education, training and research with a focus 
on European integration ............................................................................................... 4 

4.1.1.  The Evaluator's findings............................................................................................... 5 

4.1.2.  The Evaluator's main recommendations and the Commission's comments................. 5 

4.2. 

The European Inter-University Centre for Human Rights and Democratisation......... 6 

4.2.1.  The Evaluator's findings............................................................................................... 6 

4.2.2.  The Evaluator's main recommendations and the Commission's comments................. 6 

4.3. 

The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education ........................ 7 

4.3.1.  The Evaluator's findings............................................................................................... 7 

4.3.2.  The Evaluator's main recommendations and the Commission's comments................. 7 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

8. 

8.1. 

8.2. 

9. 

The Evaluator's Findings and Recommendations on Action 2 – Support for European 
Associations active in Education and Training............................................................ 8 

The Evaluator's findings............................................................................................... 8 

The Evaluator's main recommendations and the Commission's comments................. 8 

The Evaluator's Findings and Recommendations on Action 3A – the Jean Monnet 
Action........................................................................................................................... 8 

The Evaluator's findings............................................................................................... 9 

The Evaluator's main recommendation and the Commission's comments .................. 9 

The Evaluator's Findings and Recommendations on Action 3B – Support for the 
Open method of Coordination in Education ................................................................ 9 

The Evaluator's findings............................................................................................. 10 

The Evaluator's main recommendations and the Commission's comments............... 10 

The Evaluator's Findings and Recommendations on Action 3C – Training for 
National Judges .......................................................................................................... 10 

The Evaluator's findings............................................................................................. 10 

The Evaluator's main recommendation and the Commission's comments ................ 11 

The Commission's Conclusions ................................................................................. 11 

EN 

2 

   EN 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the Final Evaluation of the Community's action programme to promote bodies active 
at European level and support specific activities in the field of Education and Training 

1. 

INTRODUCTION  

This  Report  is  presented  under  Article  8  of  Decision  No  791/2004/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 establishing a Community action programme 
to  promote  bodies  active  at  European  level  and  support  specific  activities  in  the  field  of 
education and training (hereinafter referred to as "the Decision").1 It requires the Commission 
to  submit  a  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  achievement  of  the 
programme's objectives. This report must be based, inter alia, on an external evaluation. Such 
an evaluation was conducted in 2007 in the form of the "Final Evaluation of the Community's 
action programme to promote bodies active at European level and support specific activities 
in the field of education and training". This Final Evaluation can be obtained via the following 
link: 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/education/2007/activereport_en.pdf. 
The  present  Report  sets  out  the  Commission's  position  on  the  main  conclusions  and 
recommendations of the Final Evaluation. 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

Between April 2004 and December 2006, the Decision formed the legal basis for a variety of 
Community activities in the field of education and training. The programme was divided into 
five separate actions: 

•  Action  1:  which  provided  support  to  seven  named  institutions  (College  of  Europe; 
European  University  Institute;  European  Institute  of  Public  Administration;  Academy  of 
European Law; European Inter-University Centre for Human Rights and Democratisation; 
European  Agency  for  Development  in  Special  Needs  Education;  and  the  International 
Centre for European Training); 

•  Action 2: which supported European associations active at European level in the field of 

education or training; 

•  Action  3A:  which  supported  teaching,  research  and  debate  activities  in  European 

integration studies at higher education institutions through the Jean Monnet Action;  

•  Action  3B:  which  supported  activities  contributing  to  the  objectives  set  out  in  the 
Education and Training 2010 work programme, using the Open Method of Coordination;  

•  Action 3C: which supported the training of national judges in the field of EU law.  

The Decision expired on 31 December 2006. Its actions have been given new legal bases and 
not all of them still form part of a single programme. 

1 

O.J. L 138 of 30.4.2004. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
3. 

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION: TERMS AND METHODOLOGY 

3.1. 

The terms of the evaluation 

Following a request for services in the context of the Framework Contract on Evaluation and 
Impact  Assessment  Related  Services,  ECOTEC  Research  and  Consulting  Ltd  was 
commissioned  in  December  2006  to  carry  out  the  final  external  evaluation  of  the  Decision. 
The evaluation encompassed all actions covered by the Decision between its start date in 2004 
and its expiry at the end of 2006. In view of the diversity of the objectives and beneficiaries in 
each  of  the  actions  under  the  Decision,  the  evaluation  covered  them  separately,  with 
conclusions and recommendations devoted to each one.  

3.2. 

The methodology 

The  ex-post  evaluation  took  place  between  December  2006  and  June  2007.  In  carrying  out 
their task, the evaluators made use of desk-based research, extensive surveys of stakeholders 
and in-depth interviews. The method employed in the evaluation reflected the differing levels 
of  budgetary  allocation  for  the  programme.  Accordingly,  data  collection  was  greater  for 
Action 1 than for any of the other actions, and was particularly limited in relation to Action 2. 

4. 

THE  EVALUATOR'S  FINDINGS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  ON  ACTION  1  –  SUPPORT 
FOR SPECIFIED INSTITUTIONS 

Action  1  of  the  Decision  authorised  Community  grants  to  support  certain  operational  and 
administrative  costs  for  seven  specified  institutions  pursuing  an  aim  of  general  European 
interest. Among these seven institutions, a distinction can be made between three groups: (1) 
institutions  that  specialise  in  education,  training  and/or  research  with  a  focus  on  European 
integration  (College  of  Europe;  European  University  Institute;  European  Institute  of  Public 
Administration; Academy of European Law; the International Centre for European Training); 
(2)  the  European  Inter-University  Centre  for  Human  Rights  and  Democratisation;  (3)  the 
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.  

4.1. 

Specified institutions  that specialise in education, training and research  with a 
focus on European integration 

Among the institutions listed in Action 1, five specialise in education, training and/or research 
with a focus on European integration: 

–  The  College  of  Europe  (with  campuses  in  Bruges  and  Natolin)  focuses  on  postgraduate-

level education and training in European integration at Master's level;  

–  The  European  University  Institute  (EUI)  in  Florence  offers  doctoral  and  post-doctoral 

research opportunities in history, law, economics, political and social science;  

–  The European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA) in Maastricht provides mainly 
vocational training, applied research and consultancy services for public administrations in 
the EU Member States, the Candidate Countries and the EU Institutions; 

–  The Academy of European Law (ERA) in Trier promotes awareness, understanding and 
good  practice  of  EU  law  through  vocational  training  courses  and  debate  for  legal 
professionals; 

–  The Centre International de Formation Européenne (CIFE) in Nice is an education and 
training institution running programmes in the field of European studies and federalism in 
different locations in Europe.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

4.1.1.  The Evaluator's findings 

Given  the  clear  need  for  greater  knowledge  with  respect  to  European  integration,  law  and 
policy, the Evaluator underlines the high relevance of the educational, training and research 
activities  of  the  supported  institutions.  The  Evaluator  emphasises  the  particularly  successful 
integration  of  graduates  of  the  institutions  in  the  labour  market  and  the  objective  need  for 
institutions  delivering  continuing  training  for  individuals  and  authorities  involved  in  the 
application and implementation of EU law and policy. 

With respect to the effectiveness of the institutions in delivering results, the Evaluator finds a 
high degree  of satisfaction  among  former students and trainees,  who  indicated  that  the  time 
spent  at  the  institutions  greatly  enhanced  their  understanding  of  European  law  or  policy  (as 
well  as  their  language  skills),  and  that  this  tended  to  boost  their  job  prospects  and/or  led  to 
increased individual performance at work.  

The Evaluator is satisfied with the degree of efficiency in the functioning of the institutions 
and  notes,  in  particular,  the  excellent  (very  low)  failure  rate  among  Masters'  students  at  the 
College of Europe and the high doctoral completion rate at the European University Institute. 

4.1.2.  The Evaluator's main recommendations and the Commission's comments 

The  Evaluator  formulates  18  specific  recommendations  with  respect  to  the  five  institutions 
listed  above.  To  allow  for  systematic  treatment,  the  recommendations  were  regrouped  and 
reformulated in the following main points. The Commission's comments are in italics. 

(1)  The  profile  of  the  institutions:  The  Evaluator  considers  it  necessary  to  review  the 
profiles of some of the institutions (ERA in particular) to further develop complementarities 
between them, build on the particular strengths of each, and avoid overlaps. 

The  Commission  agrees  with  this  recommendation  and  it  is  already  giving  consideration  to 
the  complementarities  among  the  named  institutions.  The  Commission  will  continue  its 
approach of avoiding the financing of needless duplications between the specified institutions. 

(2) Internal monitoring and evaluation within the institutions: The Evaluator recommends 
encouraging  some  of  the  specified  institutions  (in  particular  CIFE  and  EIPA)  to  develop  a 
more systematic approach to internal monitoring and evaluation of the quality and relevance 
of  their  educational  and  training  activities.  The  Evaluator  specifically  recommends 
encouraging CIFE to undertake a more systematic analysis of the objectives and coherence of 
its different activities, as a basis for more informed consideration of whether some activities 
could be "streamlined" to increase focus. 

The Commission agrees with this recommendation. Improving the quality of monitoring and 
evaluation is a main concern of the Commission. During 2007, the first efforts were made in 
this field and it is the intention of the Commission to continue working with CIFE and EIPA 
on these issues during 2008.  

(3)  Broadening  participation  in  the  activities  of  the  institutions:  The  Evaluator 
recommends  getting  the  institutions  (in  particular  EIPA  and  EUI)  to  take  measures 
encouraging applications and participation from countries with low representation. 

The Commission is willing to participate in the analysis of the reasons for the possible under-
representation of certain nationalities in the activities of the institutions. The Commission is 
in favour of the widest possible dissemination of information to remedy the situation. 

(4) Personnel policy of the institutions: The Evaluator recommends encouraging the College 
of  Europe  in  its  policy  of  strengthening  its  permanent  teaching  staff  and  the  EUI  in  taking 

EN 

5 

   EN 

additional  measures  for  recruitment  and  retention  of  key  staff,  in  particular  in  the  area  of 
economics. 

The Commission points out that strategic decisions relating to personnel policy are taken by 
the beneficiaries and that the Commission does not intend to interfere. Within the limits of its 
role,  the  Commission  agrees  to  discuss  these  questions  with  the  specified  institutions, 
whenever appropriate.  

(5)  Financing  of  the  institutions:  The  Evaluator  recommends,  especially  with  respect  to 
CIFE, that alternative financing be explored for some of its non-core activities. With respect 
to  ERA,  the  Evaluator  recommends  exploring  the  viability  of  alternative  financing 
arrangements more conducive to entrepreneurial activity. 

The  Commission  has  underlined  the  importance  of  this  issue  to  CIFE  on  several  occasions 
and  CIFE  is  aware  of  it.  The  Commission  is  also  willing  to  explore  alternative  financing 
arrangements more conducive to entrepreneurial activity of ERA. 

4.2. 

The European Inter-University Centre for Human Rights and Democratisation 

The  European  Inter-University  Centre  for  Human  Rights  and  Democratisation  (EIUC)  is  an 
interdisciplinary centre formed by 41 universities from all EU Member States, with a central 
unit based in Venice. Its flagship programme is the uniquely transnational European Master 
course in human rights and democratisation (EMA).  

4.2.1.  The Evaluator's findings 

The  Evaluator  underlines  the  great  relevance  of  the  EIUC  as  a  unique  network  that  draws 
together  Europe's  leading  human  rights  experts  from  a  large  number  of  academic 
organisations  and  offers  a  variety  of  perspectives  that  no  single  faculty  can  provide.  The 
relevance of the EMA resides in its interdisciplinary character, unique combination of theory 
and practice and extensive networking in this crucial policy field for Europe and the world. 

With  respect  to  the  EIUC's  effectiveness,  the  Evaluator  notes  the  high  degree  of  student 
satisfaction and the increase in commissioned research and high-level academic publications 
related to human rights. A majority of the participants reported a definite career-enhancement 
effect of the EMA. This comes in addition to the impact in terms of raising awareness about 
European human rights and democratisation issues among national politicians, policy-makers 
and NGOs. 

In terms of efficiency, the EIUC's new management structure is reported to be working well. 
Management  arrangements,  however,  are  complex  given  the  structure  of  the  EIUC  and  the 
EMA programme, with the result that EIUC staff has to deal with staff in 41 other institutions. 
One  of  the  main  problems  faced  by  the  EIUC  in  the  past  has  been  the  lack  of  financial 
stability,  but  this  has  recently  been  solved,  in  the  framework  of  the  financial  perspectives 
2007-2013. 

4.2.2.  The Evaluator's main recommendations and the Commission's comments  

The Evaluator formulates seven specific recommendations with respect to the EIUC. To allow 
for  systematic  treatment,  the  recommendations  were  regrouped  and  reformulated  in  the 
following main points. The Commission's comments are in italics. 

(1) The profile, structure and budget of the EIUC: The Evaluator recommends exploring 
the  value  of  simplification  of  the  network  involved  in  the  delivery  of  the  EMA  and 
encouraging the EIUC to seek a clearer profile outside the EMA. 

Simplification  of  the  network  is  a  particular  challenge  given  the  41  universities  involved  in 
the  EMA  programme,  but  efforts  have  recently  been  made  to  create  a  more  workable 

EN 

6 

   EN 

management structure. The Commission agrees that the EIUC could further explore ways of 
expanding its activities outside the EMA. The Commission has also encouraged the EIUC to 
look for more diversified external funding so as to make it less dependent on EU funding.  

(2)  EIUC  personnel  policy:  The  Evaluator  recommends  the  possibility  of  enhancing  the 
EIUC's research capacity through permanent staff. 

The  Commission  agrees  with  this  recommendation;  however,  external  stable  sources  of 
funding will be required to achieve this. 

(3) EIUC policy towards graduates: The Evaluator recommends ensuring that selection for 
the Fellowship Programme takes place at an earlier date and that the EIUC undertakes closer 
monitoring of employment of graduates. 

The Commission agrees that the selection process for the Fellowship Programme should take 
place at an earlier date; however, this is dependent on a number of stakeholders (including 
the EU Presidencies) and their decision-making process. An alumni association exists, which 
should  make  the  task  of  monitoring  of  employment  of  graduates  easier  for  the  EIUC.  The 
alumni association is in a development phase;  a questionnaire has recently been sent to  all 
EMA  graduates  in  order  to  gather  a  wide  range  of  information,  including  on  their 
employment. 

(4) Broadening participation in the activities of the EIUC: The Evaluator recommends the 
organisation  of  EIUC  events  in  new  Member  States  and  participation  by  new  universities 
from these countries in the programme. 

The  Commission  confirms  that  this  has  already  been  taken  on  board  by  the  EIUC  in  the 
framework of the 2007-2008 grant, mainly through a re-allocation of funds inside this grant. 

4.3. 

The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education 

The Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (AED) in Odense aims to improve 
educational  policy  and  practice  for  learners  with  special  needs.  It  focuses  on  issues  such  as 
equal  opportunities,  accessibility,  inclusive  education  and  the  promotion  of  quality  of 
education.  

4.3.1.  The Evaluator's findings 

As  regards  relevance,  the  Evaluator  emphasises  the  AED's  important  contribution  to 
enhancing collaboration between Ministries of Education in its member countries and acting 
as their platform in the sensitive field of special needs education. The AED's effectiveness lies 
particularly  in  raising  awareness  of  European  issues  in  special  needs  education  among 
national politicians, policy makers, NGOs and the public. Furthermore, the AED has made a 
significant  contribution  to  improvements  in  special  needs  education  policy  at  the  national, 
regional and local level. The AED acts as a unique common European frame of reference for 
the inclusion of pupils with special needs. 

4.3.2.  The Evaluator's main recommendations and the Commission's comments  

The Evaluator formulates five specific recommendations with respect to the AED. To allow 
for  systematic  treatment,  the  recommendations  were  regrouped  and  reformulated  in  the 
following main points. The Commission's comments are in italics. 

(1)  AED  cooperation  with  other  partners:  The  Evaluator  recommends  encouraging  the 
AED to explore closer cooperation with professionals in its core areas of interest as well as 
collaborative projects with external agencies. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

The Commission wishes to obtain the maximum of synergies from the amounts allocated and 
intends to promote AED cooperation with professionals and external agencies. 

(2)  AED  communication  and  dissemination:  The  Evaluator  recommends  that  the  AED 
enhance dissemination of its activities, outputs and results at national level, making use of its 
membership  and  new  dissemination  methods,  and  improve  its  communication  with  the 
Commission. 

It  is  the  intention  of  the  Commission  to  collaborate  with  the  AED  to  improve  the 
dissemination  methods,  including  at  national  level,  as  from  2008.  Communication  with  the 
Commission improved dramatically during 2007, after the period covered by the evaluation 
(2004-2006) elapsed. 

5. 

THE  EVALUATOR'S  FINDINGS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  ON  ACTION  2  –  SUPPORT 
FOR EUROPEAN ASSOCIATIONS ACTIVE IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

Action  2  of  the  Decision  authorised  Community  grants  to  support  certain  operational  and 
administrative costs of European associations active in the field of education and training that 
have members in at least 12 EU Member States. Grants were awarded following annual calls 
for proposals.  

5.1. 

The Evaluator's findings 

The  Evaluator  finds  Action  2  relevant  because  all  strategic  priorities  of  the  Education  and 
Training  Work  Programme  were  addressed  by  at  least  one  of  the  supported  European 
associations.  The  effectiveness  of  Action  2  is  seen  in  the  creation  of  lasting  networks  and 
structures  between  various  stakeholder  groups  across  the  EU,  long-term  profile  raising  and 
shaping  of  policy.  With  one  exception,  the  Evaluator  concludes  that  the  support  provided 
created added value and was efficient. 

5.2. 

The Evaluator's main recommendations and the Commission's comments 

The  Evaluator  formulates  two  specific  recommendations  with  respect  to  Action  2.  The 
Commission's comments are in italics. 

(1) Strategic objectives: The Evaluator recommends reassessing what strategic objectives of 
the education and training work programme are addressed by associations funded through this 
action. 

The  Commission  takes  good  note  of  the  recommendation  with  a  view  to  reformulating  the 
priorities and award criteria in the call for proposals.  

(2) Results: The Evaluator recommends that greater emphasis should be put on enhancing the 
impact of the activities developed through the supported associations. The Evaluator believes 
that Action 2 has focused too strongly on establishing, maintaining and expanding networks at 
the expense of other tangible outputs. 

The  specific  purpose  of  Action  2  is  –  and  will  remain  –  to  support  the  operational  and 
administrative  aspects  of  European  network  associations.  The  Commission  is  nevertheless 
also  in  favour  of  enhancing  the  impact  of  the  activities  developed  by  beneficiaries  and  will 
explore ways to increase such tangible outputs. 

6. 

THE EVALUATOR'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON ACTION 3A – THE JEAN 
MONNET ACTION 

Action  3A  of  the  Decision  authorised  Community  support  for  higher  education  activities  in 
the  field  of  European  integration.  It  has  taken  the  form  of  the  Jean  Monnet  Action  whose 

EN 

8 

   EN 

purpose is to enhance knowledge and awareness of issues relating to European integration by 
stimulating  teaching,  research  and  reflection  in  the  field  at  university-level  establishments 
throughout  the  world.  The  Jean  Monnet  Action,  launched  in  1990,  promotes  academic 
excellence by awarding prestigious titles such as Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence and Jean 
Monnet  Chair  to  successful  applications  in  the  annual  call  for  proposals.  Jean  Monnet 
professors  are  now  present  in  60  countries  on  five  continents  and  reach  an  audience  of 
250 000 students every year.  

6.1. 

The Evaluator's findings2 

The  Evaluator  underlines  the  high  relevance  of  the  Jean  Monnet  Action  in  promoting 
understanding and debate about the EU (in line with the Commission's priority in the field of 
Communication  and  Plan  D)  and  in  boosting  the  EU's  visibility  in  candidate  and  third 
countries, while helping educational capacity-building in the field.  

With  respect  to  effectiveness,  the  Evaluator  reports  that  the  Jean  Monnet  connection  is  a 
powerful tool in raising awareness of European studies, in improving the teaching quality and 
reputation of participating universities and in creating new EU-related teaching activities. The 
effects  are  found  to  be  particularly  pronounced  in  non-EU  countries.  The  Evaluator  also 
points  out  that  Jean  Monnet  academic  staff  are  widely  involved  in  dissemination  and 
exchange,  reflecting  the  "multiplier  effects"  of  activities  supported  by  the  Jean  Monnet 
Action. 

According  to  the  Evaluator,  the  added  value  of  the  Jean  Monnet  Action  lies  in  its  dual 
function  as  both  a  source  of  much-needed  revenue  for  academic  departments  active  in  the 
field  of  EU  studies  and  a  "label"  of  quality,  which  helps  to  boost  the  reputation  of  the 
department  where  Jean  Monnet  activities  are  located  and  the  individuals  who  lead  them. 
According  to  the  Evaluator,  this  dual  function  allows  the  Action  to  achieve  a  particularly 
impressive range of results and impacts with comparatively little money, making the Action 
very efficient. In addition, the Jean Monnet Action is one of the few EU programmes which is 
open to participants from across the world. This contributes positively to the visibility of the 
EU outside Europe. 

6.2. 

The Evaluator's main recommendation and the Commission's comments 

The  Evaluator  recommends  that  mechanisms  should  be  explored  to  publicise  the  Jean 
Monnet brand more widely both within and outside the EU, as a means to increase student 
and public recognition. The Commission's comments are in italics. 

The Commission agrees with this recommendation. New Jean Monnet publications and a new 
Jean Monnet website that are being prepared should help to publicise the Jean Monnet brand. 
Contacts  with  DG  External  Relations  and  DG  Communication  are  taking  place  to  further 
spread information on Jean Monnet as an essential instrument in the framework of bringing 
citizens closer to the EU and to improve the visibility of the EU in the world. 

7. 

THE EVALUATOR'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON ACTION 3B – SUPPORT 
FOR THE OPEN METHOD OF COORDINATION IN EDUCATION 

Action  3B  of  the  Decision  authorised  Community  support  for  activities  contributing  to  the 
achievement of future objectives of education and training systems in Europe. It has taken the 

2 

It should be noted that the Evaluator's findings relate only to the Jean Monnet projects resulting from 
the  annual  call  for  proposals.  The  Evaluator  did  not  study  the  impact  and  quality  of  the  high-level 
Jean Monnet  Conferences  and  reflection  activities  that  bring  together  top-level  academics,  policy 
makers and civil society representatives. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
form of calls for proposals for studies, meetings of experts and information activities with the 
purpose of supporting the Member States in the implementation of "Education and Training 
2010" objectives via the Open Method of Coordination (OMC). 

7.1. 

The Evaluator's findings  

The Evaluator considers Action 3B as relevant and consistent with the goals of the Education 
and Training 2010 work programme. As regards its effectiveness, the Evaluator states that the 
outputs  of  the  supported  activities  (mostly  seminars,  conferences  and  publications)  are 
expected to contribute positively to achieving the intended results in the longer run, notably 
by  creating  lasting  networks  between  national  stakeholders.  In  terms  of  efficiency,  the 
Evaluator reports that Commission funding is viewed by all authorities as very helpful. 

7.2. 

The Evaluator's main recommendations and the Commission's comments 

The Evaluator makes two main recommendations. The Commission's comments are in italics. 

(1)  The  "non  participation"  of  certain  Member  States:  The  Evaluator  recommends 
exploring the reasons for the "non participation" of certain Member States and taking steps to 
remove any barriers, if practical. 

This issue was discussed in the Education and Training 2010 Coordination Group. One major 
reason  put  forward  to  explain  the  “non  participation”  of  certain  Member  States  was  that 
these  countries  felt  that  they  had  to  go  through  time-consuming  application  procedures  for 
relatively  small  amounts  of  financial  support.  In  the  latest  Call  for  proposals  27/07 
"Establishment and Implementation of National Lifelong Learning Strategies – Education and 
Training 2010", the maximum amount has been increased to 100 000 euro.  

(2)  Attracting  new  stakeholders:  The  Evaluator  recommends  that  in  future  calls  for 
proposals,  greater  emphasis  should  be  placed  on  attracting  a  wider  range  of  actors  into  the 
events and other projects organised within the scope of projects. This would address a current 
perception by some that such events often fail to involve new stakeholders. 

This issue was discussed in the Education and Training 2010 Coordination Group. There was 
no  majority  for  making  other  organisations  besides  national  ministries  eligible  under  such 
calls. In the latest Call for proposals 27/07  "Establishment and Implementation of National 
Lifelong Learning Strategies – Education and Training 2010", one of the selection criteria is 
that all activities should involve a wide range of key stakeholders at all levels concerned with 
or  participating  in  the  establishment  and  implementation  of  lifelong  learning  strategies, 
including  policy  and  decision  makers,  practitioners,  providers,  social  partners, 
representatives of civil society and learners. 

8. 

THE  EVALUATOR'S  FINDINGS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  ON  ACTION  3C  – 
TRAINING FOR NATIONAL JUDGES 

Action  3C  of  the  Decision  authorised  Community  support  to  promote  training  in  European 
law, primarily for national judges. It took the form of calls for proposals to support training 
for judges in the specific field of EU competition law. 

8.1. 

The Evaluator's findings  

The  Evaluator  considers  Action  3C  as  highly  relevant  in  view  of  the  modernisation  of  EU 
competition  law  under  Regulation  (EC)  No  1/2003  that  gives  national  courts  the  power  to 
apply  Articles  81  and  82  of  the  EC  Treaty  in  full.  In  this  context,  supporting  projects  to 
strengthen  judicial  cooperation  between  national  judges  and  provide  training  linked  to  the 

EN 

10 

   EN 

implementation of Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty is found to be particularly necessary 
and coherent with the objectives of the programme.  

In terms of  effectiveness, the Evaluator reports that the available evidence suggests that the 
programme  has  created  the  intended  impact,  notably  a  better  knowledge  of  and  greater 
consistency  in  the  application  of  EC  competition  law  and  in  particular  the  application  of 
Articles  81  and  82  EC  by  national  judges.  The  Evaluator  also  believes  that  Action  3C  has 
raised awareness among  the  judges  about the need to upgrade their skills and knowledge in 
the field of EC competition law and that the Action has a multiplier effect. Networking and 
the creation of better links between national judges were also highlighted as added value. The 
Evaluator concludes that the resources committed (allocated to grants) were used efficiently. 

8.2. 

The Evaluator's main recommendation and the Commission's comments 

The Evaluator makes the recommendation that, given the importance of EC competition law 
in ensuring a level playing field in the EU Internal Market, the Commission should consider 
the possibility of providing more structured support in the field of cooperation between 
national  competition  law  judges,  namely  in  the  form  of  a  network  at  EU  level.  Such  a 
network could be open to judges in the field of competition law as well as all those who are 
interested  in  this  field  and  would  provide  necessary  information  on  the  relevant  judgments 
taken at national level. Since the application of EC competition law has been decentralised for 
some  time,  information  on  the  judgments  to  date  has  been  dispersed  or  even  unavailable. 
Therefore,  a  single  tool  that  would  enable  judges  and  other  legal  practitioners  to  access 
information  and  exchange  views,  as  well  as  make  new  contacts  with  judges  from  other 
countries, would be desirable. Due to the increased influence of economics on EC competition 
law such a resource would also be useful for exchanging views and experience in this field. 
The Commission's comments on this recommendation are in italics. 

The  Commission  welcomes  this  recommendation.  The  creation  of  cooperation  networks 
between  national  judges,  which  also  offers  the  possibility  of  an  exchange  of  views  between 
judges, has been one of the main objectives of the training programme from the start (2002) 
and has as such been promoted on an equal footing with the objective of training of national 
judges.  Very  few  proposals  for  the  financing  of  such  a  cooperation  network  have  been 
submitted, though. Nevertheless, it has to be pointed out that the training projects that have 
been  co-financed  also  entail  -  as  one  of  their  aims  -  the  creation  of  networks  between  the 
participating  judges  and  the  support  of  existing  networks.  The  best  example  of  an  existing 
network  whose  activities  have  been  supported  is  the  "Association  of  European  Competition 
Law Judges (AECLJ)", which administers a network of competition law judges from its seat in 
London. 

to 

information  on 

its  website 
With  regard 
(http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/elojade/antitrust/nationalcourts/) where all judgments 
by  national  courts  on  the  application  of  Art.  81/82  EC  are  published.  The  website  is 
constantly updated and provides key data in respect of the judgments rendered as well as the 
non-confidential version of the judgments. 

the  Commission  refers 

judgments, 

to 

9. 

THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS 

In view of the Commission's priorities and in line with the evaluation results, the Commission 
draws  the  following  conclusions  from  the  implementation  of  the  Community  action 
programme to promote bodies active at European level and support specific activities in the 
field of education and training. 

Action 1 – Support for the specified Institutions 

EN 

11 

   EN 

Institutions specialising in European Integration Studies 

The Commission considers that continuing support for the College of Europe, the European 
University  Institute,  the  European  Institute  of  Public  Administration  and  the  Academy  of 
European Law is essential to provide the European population as well as the administrations 
and  policy  makers  of  the  Member  States  and  the  EU  with  the  benefit  of  high-quality 
education,  vocational  training,  research  and/or  policy-relevant  reflection  that  is  the  result  of 
cooperation  in  a  truly  trans-European  framework  and  environment.  For  the  period  between 
2007  and  2013,  support  for  these  institutions  has  been  integrated  into  the  Jean  Monnet 
programme of the Lifelong Learning Programme.3 

The European Inter-University Centre for Human Rights and Democratisation 

In light of the priority attached by the EU to the promotion of democracy and human rights 
worldwide, the Commission considers that it is essential to continue supporting the uniquely 
transnational  European  Inter-University  Centre  for  Human  Rights  and  Democratisation,  in 
particular 
in  Human  Rights  and 
Democratisation. For the period between 2007 and 2013, support for the EIUC is integrated 
into the financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide.4

the  European  Master's  degree  Programme 

for 

The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  European  Agency  for  Development  in  Special  Needs 
Education  fulfils  a  highly  relevant  task  as  a  European  platform  for  collaboration  and 
innovation on special needs education and finds that continuing support for this institution is 
essential.  For  the  period  between  2007  and  2013,  support  for  the  European  Agency  for 
Development  in  Special  Needs  Education  has  been  integrated  into  the  Jean  Monnet 
programme of the Lifelong Learning Programme. 

Action 2 – Support for European Associations active in Education and Training 

The Commission considers it useful to continue support for the creation and consolidation of 
lasting networks and structures between various stakeholder groups in education and training 
with a view to promoting the EU's education and training priorities. For the period between 
2007 and 2013, such support is integrated into the Jean Monnet programme of the Lifelong 
Learning  Programme.  In  light  of  the  priority  to  bring  citizens  closer  to  the  EU,  the 
Commission  considers  it  useful  to  extend  the  scope  of  the  call  for  proposals  under  this 
heading, in particular to European associations active in education and training on the topic of 
European integration.  

Action 3A – The Jean Monnet Action 

The Commission considers it essential to continue support for teaching, research, debate and 
reflection on European integration at higher education institutions worldwide with the aim of 
increasing awareness and knowledge of the EU among European citizens, increasing the EU's 
visibility in the world, and allowing policymakers and civil society to benefit from academic 
reflection on current topics of European integration. For the period between 2007 and 2013, 
such  support  is  integrated  into  the  Jean  Monnet  programme  of  the  Lifelong  Learning 
Programme. The Commission considers that the Jean Monnet network of experts in European 
integration should continue to grow, both within and outside the EU. 

3 

4 

Decision  No  1720/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  November  2006 
establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning, O.J. L 327 of 24.11.2006 
Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on 
establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide, O.J. L 
386 of 29.12.2006. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

  
                                                 
Action 3B – Support for the Open method of Coordination in Education  

The  Commission  considers  it  useful  to  continue  support  for  cooperation  activities  between 
national authorities at European level, including the open method of coordination, with a view 
to  promoting  the  EU's  education  and  training  priorities.  For  the  period  between  2007  and 
2013,  such  support  is  integrated  into  the  transversal  programme  of  the  Lifelong  Learning 
Programme. 

Action 3C – Training for National Judges 

Given  the  important  role  that  national  judges  are  playing  in  the  enforcement  of  EU  law  in 
general and EU competition law in particular, and the objective need for further training and 
networking  among  national  judges  in  these  fields,  the  Commission  considers  it  essential  to 
continue  support  for  the  training  of  national  judges  in  competition  policy.  For  the  period 
between 2007 and 2013, such support is integrated into the specific programme 'Civil Justice' 
as part of the general programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice'.5

5 

Decision  No  1149/2007/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  September  2007 
establishing  for  the  period  2007-2013  the  Specific  Programme  'Civil  Justice'  as  part  of  the  General 
Programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice', O.J. L 257 of 3.10.2007 

EN 

13 

   EN