EVALUATION REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Interim evaluation report on the Criminal Justice Programme
Date: 2011-05-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU police cooperation, EU programme, European judicial area, criminal record, exchange of information, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, mutual recognition principle, project evaluation, rights of the defence

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 11.5.2011 
COM(2011) 255 final 

EVALUATION REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Interim evaluation report on the Criminal Justice Programme 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 3 

OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT ................................................................................. 3 

OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 3 

BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................... 5 

CURRENT SITUATION............................................................................................. 5 

PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................... 5 

COMMISSION INITIATIVES (PROCUREMENT) .................................................. 5 

GRANTS (CALL FOR PROPOSALS) ....................................................................... 6 

2.2.1.  GRANTS FOR ACTIONS – GENERAL CALL..................................................... 6 

2.2.2.  GRANTS FOR ACTIONS – SPECIFIC CALL...................................................... 8 

2.2.3.  OPERATING GRANTS............................................................................................ 8 

2.2.4.  GRANTS FOR ACTIONS – FRAMEWORK PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT 9 

2.2.5.  GRANTS TO BODIES IN A MONOPOLY SITUATION .................................... 9 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

3.5. 

3.6. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION......................................................................... 10 

RELEVANCE ............................................................................................................ 10 

EFFECTIVENESS..................................................................................................... 11 

EFFICIENCY - COST EFFECTIVENESS ............................................................... 11 

SUSTAINABILITY AND IMPACT ......................................................................... 11 

COHERENCE............................................................................................................ 12 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE................................................................................. 12 

CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................ 13 

PRIORITY SETTING................................................................................................ 14 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE................................................................................. 14 

SIMPLIFICATION OF PROCEDURES................................................................... 14 

PUBLICITY AND VISIBILITY ............................................................................... 14 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT 

On 12 February 20071 the Council adopted Decision 2007/126/JHA establishing for the 
period  2007  to  2013,  as  part  of  the  General  Programme  on  Fundamental  Rights  and 
Justice, the Specific Programme ‘Criminal Justice’. 

Under  Article  16(3)(b)  of  that  Decision,  the  Commission  must  submit  to  the  European 
Parliament and to the Council, not later than 31 March 2011, an interim evaluation report 
on the results obtained and the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the implementation 
of the programme. As stated in Article 16(3)(c) of the Decision, this report will serve as a 
basis for a communication on the continuation of the programme to be drawn up not later 
than 30 August 2012. 

The  interim  evaluation  report  provides  an  overview  of  the  results  obtained  so  far  and 
presents  the  qualitative  and  quantitative  aspects  of  implementation  of  the  programme. 
The  evaluation  was  carried  out  by  the  Commission,  which  analysed  the  strengths  and 
weaknesses of the programme by trying to answer the following questions: 

(1) What improvements can be made to implementation of the programme for the period 
remaining? 

(2)  What  improvements  can  be  made  to  the  design  of  the  programme  with  a  view  to 
drawing up the succeeding programme(s)? 

In particular, the evaluation examined 

(a) the relevance of the programme, assessing how far the programme objectives succeed 
in meeting needs and resolving problems; 

(b) the  effectiveness of the  programme, determining how far the programme objectives 
have been achieved; 

(c) its efficiency, verifying whether the effects were obtained at a reasonable cost.  

1.2. 

OVERVIEW 

The aim of the Criminal Justice Programme is to contribute to consolidating the area of 
freedom, security and justice in the European Union by reinforcing judicial cooperation 
in criminal matters in accordance with the principle of mutual recognition.  

The programme’s four general objectives are the following: 

(a) 

to  promote  judicial  cooperation  with  the  aim  of  contributing  to  the 
creation of a genuine European area of justice in criminal matters based on 
mutual recognition and mutual confidence; 

1 

OJ L 58, 24.2.2007, p. 13. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(b) 

(c) 

to  promote  the  compatibility  in  rules  applicable  in  the  Member  States  as 
may be necessary to improve judicial cooperation, promote a reduction in 
existing legal obstacles to the proper functioning of judicial cooperation in 
order  to  strengthen  the  coordination  of  investigations,  and  increase  the 
compatibility  of  the  existing  judicial  systems  in  the  Member  States  with 
the  European  Union  with  a  view  to  providing  adequate  follow-up  to 
investigations  carried  out  by  law  enforcement  authorities  of  the  Member 
States; 

to improve contacts, exchange of information and best practices between 
judicial  and  administrative  authorities  and  the  legal  professions  (lawyers 
and  other  professionals  involved  in  the  work  of  the  judiciary),  and  to 
foster the training of the members of the judiciary so as to enhance mutual 
trust; 

(d) 

to improve further mutual trust with a view to ensuring protection of rights 
of victims and of the accused. 

To achieve these objectives, the programme implements four different types of activity: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

specific  actions  taken  on  the  initiative  of  the  Commission,  which 
are the subject of procurement and cover studies and research and 
the  creation  and  implementation  of  specific  computer  projects  to 
facilitate the exchange and dissemination of information;  

grants  (grants  for  actions)  for  specific  transnational  projects  of 
interest to the whole of the European Union submitted by partners 
involving at least two Member States or at least one Member State 
and  one  acceding  or  candidate  country  and/or  national  projects 
within the Member States under certain conditions; 

support  (operating  grants)  for  the  activities  of  non-governmental 
organisations or other entities pursuing an aim of general European 
interest in the area of criminal justice; 

an  operating  grant  to  co-finance  expenditure  associated  with  the 
permanent  work  programme  of  the  European  Judicial  Training 
Network which trains the judiciary. 

The  planned  total  operational  expenditure  budget  for  the  2007-2013  ‘Criminal  Justice’ 
programme is € 196.85 million. This is the sum of the annual budgets voted from 2007 to 
2011 and the amounts entered in the financial programming for 2012 and 2013. 

Most of the financial support is allocated to grants for actions and grants in general. The 
percentage allocated to grants varies between 75% and 95% over the 5 years. Thus, the 
requirement  in  the  basic  act  that  a  minimum  of  65%  must  be  allocated  to  grants  was 
satisfied. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
1.3. 

BACKGROUND 

The  Criminal  Justice  Programme  (JPEN)  is  the  continuation  of  the  framework 
programme on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (AGIS2) for 2003-2007 
adopted on 22 July 2002 by the European Council.  

In  2005  the  Commission  proposed  the  creation  of  a  new  framework  programme3, 
‘Fundamental  rights  and  justice’,  with  four  specific  objectives,  one  of  which  was  to 
promote judicial cooperation to help create a genuine area of justice in criminal matters. 
This  was  the  logical  follow-up  to  the  Hague  Programme  (November  2004),  which, 
among other matters, emphasised that the creation of a Europe for citizens also implied 
the  establishment  of  a  European  area  of  justice  based  on  the  principle  of  mutual 
recognition;  borders  between  countries  no  longer  constituted  an  obstacle  to  court 
proceedings and the enforcement of decisions. The Criminal Justice Programme was also 
designed  to  enable  the  implementation  of  a  computerised  system  of  exchange  of 
information  on  criminal  records.  The  planned  criminal  justice  budget  represented  the 
most significant part of the framework programme (36%). 

1.4. 

CURRENT SITUATION  

The framework agreement adopted in 2007 was drawn up in accordance with the treaties 
in force at that time, but its structure was designed in such a way as to allow a smooth 
transition  to  the  new  institutional  architecture  when  the  Treaty  of  Lisbon  entered  into 
force  on  1  December  2009.  Thus,  the  legal  basis  of  the  Specific  Programme  ‘Criminal 
Justice’ includes Article 12 on complementarity. Article  12(1) states that synergies and 
complementarity are to be sought with other Union instruments, in particular those which 
come  under  the  Specific  Programme  on  Civil  Justice  and  the  General  Programmes  on 
Security and Safeguarding Liberties and Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows.  

•  From  2007  to  2010,  14  calls  for  proposals  were  launched  for  the  programme,  11  of 
which were concluded by an award decision followed by the signing of agreements. 
These calls were launched in 2007, 2008 and 20094. For 2010, the procedure for calls 
for proposals is still under way and will therefore not be the subject of this report. 

2. 

PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION 

2.1. 

COMMISSION INITIATIVES (PROCUREMENT) 

The annual work programme describes the actions on the initiative of the Commission to 
be  financed  out  of  the  annual  budget.  It  covers  a  range  of  subjects,  such  as  studies, 
research, the creation of a common computerised system of exchange of information on 
criminal records, conferences and expert meetings, analytical and evaluation activities. 

2 
3 

4 

Council Decision 2002/630/JHA (OJ L 203, 1.8.2002, p.5). 
COM(2005)  122,  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament, 6.4.2005. 
The grant agreements are signed in the year following the publication of the calls for proposals. 
The dates indicated in the report are the dates of conclusion of the operating grants and grants for 
actions. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
From 2007 to 2010 the Commission financed the following actions: 

•  Development  of  the  European  e-Justice  Portal,  information  campaigns  on  the  Portal 

and feasibility studies relating to European e-Justice. 

•  Organisation  (in  the  context  of  the  Justice  Forum)  of  the  Crystal  Scales  of  Justice 
Prize. The prize is awarded jointly by the European Commission and the Council of 
Europe in an effort to identify and promote innovative and effective practices either in 
court organisation or in the conduct of judicial proceedings in the courts. 

•  Organisation and regular meetings of the Justice Forum5, created in 2008 to provide a 
mechanism for consulting the parties concerned on EU justice policies and practice, to 
promote  best  practice  and  enhance  mutual  trust  and  understanding  between  the 
European Union’s legal practitioners. 

•  Studies and IT development with a view to the European interconnection of criminal 
records  and  the  exchange  of  information  between  judicial  authorities  on  previous 
convictions, including support for software development in the Member States and the 
improvement  of  interconnection  software  (common  reference),  and  in-house  support 
for  the  Commission.  This  also  covers  all  the  preparations  for  introducing  ECRIS  in 
2012. 

Contracts  were  also  concluded  for  other  studies  and  seminars  on  topical  issues  in 
criminal law between 2007 and 2010.  

A total of 64 contracts were signed amounting to €8.3 million, out of a planned budget of 
€13.8 million, meaning that 60% of the allocated amounts were used.  

2.2. 

GRANTS (CALL FOR PROPOSALS) 

2.2.1.  GRANTS FOR ACTIONS – GENERAL CALL 

Between  2008  and  2010  grant  agreements  were  signed  for  an  average  of  31 
projects per year, or 94 projects over the three-year period.  

The  overall  rate  of  budget  utilisation  was  81.42%  for  the  three-year  period, 
which is quite satisfactory for a relatively new programme in a field viewed with 
a  certain  amount  of  wariness  by  the  Member  States.  The  average  amount 
awarded  annually  varied  between  € 170 000  and  € 260 000.  A  third  of  the 
projects received funding of less than € 100 000.  

The  actions  ran  for  an  average  of  18  to  24  months.  85%  of  the  projects  from 
2008 have now been completed. The remainder will end in 2011. For 2009, the 
equivalent figure is 55%. 

5 

Communication from the Commission (COM(2008) 38 final, adopted on 4.2.2008) on the creation 
of a Forum for discussing EU justice policies and practice. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

BY PRIORITY 

The  table  below  gives  the  breakdown  by  priority.  It  shows  a  marked 
concentration of funding in the priority relating to cooperation and exchange of 
good  practice,  which  accounted  for  63%  of  funding.  However,  this  does  not 
fully reflect the situation, because the amounts awarded to the European Judicial 
Training  Network  (discussed  below),  which  receives  funding  of  € 800 000  per 
year,  should  be  added  to  the  figure  for  judicial  training,  bringing  its  share  of 
funding to 23% of the programme total. 

Priorities  –  Year  of 
commitment 

2008 

2009 

2010 

Total 

% 

No  Amount 

No  Amount 

No  Amount 

No  Amount 

Judicial training 

7 

1 488 060 

3 

307 554 

7 

821 574 

17 

2 617 188 

13.59 

of 

Exchange 
practice/  cooperation 
criminal matters 

good 
in 

25 

4 722 286 

19 

4 225 843 

20 

3 259 102 

64 

12 207 231 

63.38 

Victim support 

5 

1 093 185 

2 

599 962 

3 

794 363 

10 

2 487 510 

12.91 

Exchange of information 

1 

1 376 364 

2 

573 395 

3 

1 949 760 

10.12 

Total 

Budget 

37 

7 303 531 

25 

6 509 724 

32 

5 448 434 

94 

19 261 689 

8 000 000 

6 800 000 

8 900 000 

23 700 000 

• 

BY TYPE OF BENEFICIARY 

The main beneficiaries of project funding are the Member States’ Ministries of 
Justice and university research departments (83% of the total).  

However,  NGOs  account  for  an  average  of  30%  of  all  funding  awarded  under 
calls for proposals for grants for actions and operating grants. 

•  GEOGRAPHICAL BREAKDOWN 

(1) 

(2) 

During  the  period  studied,  160  proposals  were  submitted  and  94 
approved, which is quite a low percentage (60%). 

Six  Member  States  did  not  submit  any  proposals  at  all:  Cyprus, 
Denmark,  Ireland,  Lithuania,  Slovakia  and  Sweden.  A  more  detailed 
evaluation  should  be  able  to  pinpoint  the  reasons  for  their  lack  of 
interest. 

(3) 

Despite  several  attempts,  four  Member  States  have  never  obtained 
funding (Finland, Greece, Luxembourg and Poland). 

Six  Member  States  are  particularly  active,  having  submitted  64%  of  all 
proposals  and  accounting  for  68%  of  the  projects  funded.  These  are,  in 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
descending  order:  Spain,  United  Kingdom,  Italy,  Germany,  Belgium  and  the 
Netherlands.  

The  number  of  proposals  submitted  and  proposals  receiving  funding  remained 
more or less stable over the three-year period. 

2.2.2.  GRANTS FOR ACTIONS – SPECIFIC CALL  

In  the  period  2008-2010  the  programme  supported  the  implementation  of  specific 
projects linked to the interconnection of national criminal records in the European Union. 
The project grants linked to the specific e-Justice call for proposals launched in 2010 will 
not be evaluated here, because they did not start until 2011. 

Improving the mechanisms for transmitting judicial information concerning convictions 
in the EU means ensuring that this information is exchanged between Member States as 
quickly  as  possible,  in  particular  by  creating  a  computerised  information  system. 
Between 2008 and 2010 a total of €32 million was budgeted for co-financing in this field, 
with  the  aim  of  improving  national  criminal  records  systems  to  enable  the  electronic 
exchange of these records between Member States. 

Only national authorities designated under Article 1 of Council Decision 2005/876/JHA 
of 21 November 2005 on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record6 
may submit proposals for the priority ‘Interconnection of national criminal records’. 

In  the  period  2007-2009,  22%  of  the  budget  earmarked  for  criminal  records  systems 
could  not  be  spent.  Thus  over  three  years  a  total  of  €7  million  th at  could  have  gone 
towards criminal justice remained unused. Three Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria and 
Denmark) did not submit any proposals in this field, while 52% of the funding went to 
just five countries: Austria, Lithuania, Romania, the United Kingdom and Hungary. 

In  2010  this  priority  was  incorporated  into  the  general  call  for  proposals  and  it  is 
therefore no longer the subject of a specific call. 

2.2.3.  OPERATING GRANTS  

Unlike  grants  for  actions,  which  are  intended  to  co-finance  projects  to  promote  the 
achievement of an objective which is part of an EU policy, operating grants are intended 
to  co-finance  the  operation  of  bodies  or  networks  serving  a  goal  of  general  European 
interest  or  an  objective  that  is  part  of  an  EU  policy,  the  underlying  idea  being  for  the 
Commission  to  finance  the  creation  of  European  networks  working  to  promote  EU 
policies.  

An  operating  grant  is  awarded  to  support  the  existence  and  operation  of  a  body  for  a 
period equivalent to its financial year, in return for the inclusion by that body of certain 
activities in its annual work programme. 

•  Experience between 2007 and 2010 shows that this type of funding is not generating 
the  expected  interest  among  the  target  audience.  Despite  three  calls  for  European 

6 

OJ L 322, 9 December 2005, p. 33. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
proposals, it has only been possible to fund  18  organisations  and  to  commit  51%  of 
the planned budget.  

•  It is often the same organisations that apply for and obtain funding each year, and the 
number of new beneficiaries coming forward is quite small. In this sense, the goal of 
supporting the creation of organisations has not yet been attained.  

•  The  low  rates  of  participation  and  success  are  linked  to  the  difficulty  which  the 
participating organisations have in demonstrating a genuine European dimension.  

2.2.4.  GRANTS FOR ACTIONS – FRAMEWORK PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT 

In order to implement some of the priority areas of the Criminal Justice Programme the 
Commission departments decided in 2007 to conclude framework partnership agreements 
with key actors in the judicial training sector who were interested in regular cooperation 
with the Commission in the specified fields in order to establish a long-term cooperation 
framework. Such partnerships imply that the Commission and its partners have a mutual 
interest and shared objectives. They will involve actions that are defined and approved on 
a regular and stable basis and a network comprising a number of beneficiaries. 

After  a  call  for  proposals,  framework  partnership  agreements  were  signed  with  the 
Academy of European Law (ERA), the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) and 
the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA). These agreements will expire in 
July 2011. 

The  intention  was  to  award  up  to  €8.9  million 
in  the  form  of  framework  partnership 
agreements between 2007 and 2009, but in fact total commitments have been less than €2 
million.  

•  The partnership procedure does not offer any added value compared to general calls 
for proposals. Nor has it helped to establish a network of key partners with whom the 
Commission  could  maintain  a  regular,  stable  relationship  for  delivering  judicial 
training  effectively.  Judicial  training  is  currently  the  subject  of  a  specific  evaluation 
intended to identify more appropriate instruments and funding arrangements.  

2.2.5.  GRANTS TO BODIES IN A MONOPOLY SITUATION  

In the light of the experience of the exchange programme for the judiciary in 2004, 2005 
(pilot  project)  and  2006  (preparatory  action)  and  the  cooperation  with  the  European 
Judicial Training Network (EJTN), which had until then been responsible for organising 
exchanges and meetings between judicial training establishments, the Council decided to 
include the EJTN in the basic legal act of the Criminal Justice Programme. Article 4(d) 
of  that  act  allows  for  the  provision  of  an  operating  grant  to  co-finance  expenditure 
associated  with  the  permanent  work  programme  of  the  European  Judicial  Training 
Network.  

EJTN is an international non-profit making organisation (AISBL) under Belgian law, set 
up  in  2000,  which  comprises  the  majority  of  European  judicial  training  institutions  for 
judges  and  public  prosecutors.  The  EJTN  currently  has  as  members  the  authorities 
responsible for judicial training in all 27 Member States.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
The grant is awarded in response to an application from EJTN and after ensuring that the 
organisation  is  not  covered  by  one  of  the  exclusion  criteria  and  that  its  proposal  is 
consistent  with  the  judicial  training  objective  pursued  by  the  Criminal  Justice 
Programme. The award is formalised by a grant agreement.  

The  programmes  involve  exchanges  of  judicial  authorities  aimed  at  enhancing  their 
knowledge of each other’s judicial procedures and their sense of belonging to a common 
judicial area. 

Between 2007 and 2010 EJTN received € 7 152  071.31 out of a planned annual budget of 
up  to  €9.5  million,  i.e.  75%  of  the  funds  a llocated.  Since  2007,  667  judges  and  public 
prosecutors have benefited from short- and long-term exchange programmes.  

3. 

RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION 

3.1. 

RELEVANCE 

To what extent do the programme objectives correspond to the needs that have to 
be met and the problems that have to be solved? 

The  interim  evaluation  shows  that  the  programme  has  contributed  to  the  creation  and 
development  of  the  European  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  by  promoting 
practical cooperation in the field of criminal justice based on mutual recognition.  

The  activities  funded  promote  the  systematic  exchange  of  information  by  electronic 
means, improve cross-border judicial training for criminal law professionals, encourage 
Member States to share best practice and promote victim support. 

The  number  of  applications  for  grants  for  actions  is  steadily  increasing,  indicating 
growing interest in the programme, which has certainly not reached its ideal size. Indeed, 
some countries are poorly represented or not represented at all and offer important scope 
for development. Further efforts need to be made to promote the programme and create 
tools  to  help  improve  the  quality  of  proposals.  An  information  day  attended  by  almost 
100 participants was organised in April 2010.  

After  three  years  of  operation  it  is  clear  that  the  operating  grants  and  partnership 
agreements are not having the success that was hoped for, raising questions about their 
relevance to and suitability for the programme’s objectives.  

In the case of the operating grants this is because they finance the organisation’s running 
costs,  unlike  grants  for  actions  which  co-finance  a  one-off  action  with  a  specific  time 
frame and budget independent of the requesting organisation’s other activities. From the 
financial  point  of  view,  it  is  therefore  essential  for  the  purposes  of  monitoring  and 
auditing these two types of operation subsidised in different ways (work programme and 
action) that the organisation has the administrative and accounting tools that are needed 
to manage this situation reliably and verifiably. The costs incurred by the beneficiary in 
implementing its different activities will have to be entered against either the operating 
budget or the budget of the particular action, depending on the purpose they serve. 

Synergies  should  be  sought  with  other  programmes  promoting  similar  activities  (Civil 
Justice, Prevention of and Fight against Crime, Daphne). 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
3.2. 

EFFECTIVENESS 

To what extent have the programme objectives been met? 

During  the  period  under  consideration  the  proportion  of  projects  financed  compared  to 
the  available  budget  was  unsatisfactory.  However,  this  trend  was  reversed  in  2010 
because of a doubling of the number of applications for action grants compared to 2009. 
Several factors explain the programme’s lack of effectiveness: a lack of familiarity with 
the  programme;  a  level  of  contribution  deemed  to  be  too  low  and  requiring  too  high  a 
percentage  of  co-financing;  over-complex  implementation,  leading  to  legal  uncertainty 
and administrative delays.  

The recent upturn in the number of applications for funding is undoubtedly the result of 
publicity  campaigns  by  the  Commission  in  2009  and  2010  to  raise  awareness  of  the 
programme in the Member States.  

It  can  also  be  attributed  to  the  better  funding  terms  (the  advance  payment  has  been 
increased  from  70%  to  80%  and  the  percentage  of  co-financing  required  has  been 
reduced  from  30%  to  20%  or  even  10%  in  the  particular  case  of  the  e-Justice  call  for 
proposals in 2010).  

The  introduction  of  a  new  on-line  system  of  electronic  registration  and  evaluation  of 
proposals  (PRIAMOS)  has  made  it  much  easier  to  access  the  programme  and  has 
speeded up the evaluation procedure.  

3.3. 

EFFICIENCY - COST EFFECTIVENESS 

Were the results obtained at a reasonable cost? 

During  the  period  under  consideration,  11  calls  for  proposals  were  completed  and  155 
grants  awarded,  making  an  average  of  14  grants  per  call  for  proposals.  This  efficiency 
rate is low compared with other programmes of the same size. The Daphne programme, 
for example, funded 43 projects in 2009 having published only a single call for proposals 
covering two financial years.  

The  time  lag  between  the  decision  to  award  the  grant  being  taken  by  the  authorising 
officer and the entry into force of the grant agreements is long (on average 5-6 months), 
compared with other programmes.  

The  average  individual  grant  during  the  period  under  consideration  was  € 380 000  for 
grants  for  actions  and  € 128 000  for  operating  grants.  In  future,  this  relatively  small 
average  amount  is  likely  to  increase  because  of  the  growing  proportion  of  grants  for 
costly IT projects to improve the exchange of information between Member States.  

3.4. 

SUSTAINABILITY AND IMPACT 

What are the long-term effects of the programme and are they sustainable? 

The  Criminal  Justice  Programme  is  recent  and  it  is  difficult  to  measure  its  long-term 
impact.  However,  it  has  made  it  possible  to  implement  and  strengthen  the  activities  of 
some  important  organisations  in  the  field  of  European  criminal  justice  and  particularly 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
the  European  Judicial  Training  Network.  It  has  also  enabled  the  Member  States  to 
finance part of the costs of interconnecting their registers and criminal records systems, 
thereby fostering cooperation in the longer term. Putting the e-Justice Portal online and 
continuously updating it helps to promote the emergence of a European judicial area and 
enrich its content. 

The  objectives,  organisations  and  types  of  action  funded  by  the  Criminal  Justice 
Programme  are  very  similar  to  those  of  the  Civil  Justice  Programme7.  This  can  lead  to 
duplication,  unnecessary  competition  between  the  two  programmes  and  potentially 
unequal  treatment.  The  abolition  of  the  Third  Pillar  will  undoubtedly  help  to  make  the 
programme  more  comprehensible.  It  is  no  longer  necessary  to  separate  the  civil  and 
criminal justice programmes according to their different legal bases. 

There is a need for greater cooperation on judicial matters between the different parties 
involved  in  the  programme.  Proposals  promoting  a  partnership  between  two  or  more 
Member  States  serve  this  purpose.  The  Commission  should  take  active  steps  to 
encourage  such  partnerships  by  improving  the  design  of  the  internet  site,  updating  it 
more quickly and issuing regular bulletins on the latest developments in the programme.  

3.5. 

COHERENCE 

To  what  extent  do  the  funded  projects  help  the  Commission  to  achieve  the 
objectives of its justice policy?  

The Commission ensures that the proposals selected are consistent with the priorities set 
out  in  its  Annual  Work  Programme.  However,  the  link  between  each  proposal  and/or 
contract  and  the  priority  for  which  it  receives  financial  support  has  not  yet  been 
systematically  established.  Steps  should  be  taken  to  improve  monitoring  of  the  match 
between  proposals  and  priorities  so  that  the  priorities  of  future  Annual  Work 
Programmes  can  be  better  defined  and  the  financial  support  allocated  to  them  assessed 
more  effectively.  From  this  point  of  view  better  use  could  be  made  of  the  PRIAMOS 
online application and evaluation system as a statistical tool, because it allows the level 
of response per priority to be evaluated.  

3.6. 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE 

To  what  extent  do  the  programme  and  projects  funded  provide  added  value  over 
and above what would have been achieved through national measures in this field in 
the Member States? 

The need for European action in the area of criminal justice was not obvious when the 
basic  instrument  was  drafted,  but  is  now  becoming  more  apparent.  The  number  of 
organisations taking part in the programme is increasing and the involvement of NGOs 
remains constant. In the specific area of criminal justice the concept of European added 
value  remains  vague  and  it  is  difficult  to  determine  what  the  right  level  of  EU 
intervention  is.  The  various  stakeholders  need  to  discuss  these  two  concepts  more 
thoroughly.  

7 

Decision 1149/2007/EC of 25 September 2007, OJ L 257, 3.10.2007, p. 16. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
European added value is one of the award criteria for proposals, but it is not interpreted 
consistently  in  the  different  programmes  operated  by  DG  Justice.  The  Daphne8, 
Fundamental Rights9 and Civil Justice Programmes, for example, all require proof of an 
active presence in a significant number of countries in order to qualify for an operating 
grant. This is not the case for the Criminal Justice Programme.  

The weight accorded to European added value in the evaluation of the award criteria is 
low (15% of the award criteria as a whole) and could be increased.  

One  of  the  eligibility  criteria  explicitly  requires  that  proposals  be  submitted  by  at  least 
two Member States or by at least one Member State and one other country, which may be 
either an acceding country or a candidate country, the idea being to promote partnerships, 
cross-border  cooperation  and  the  exchange  of  good  practice.  Nearly  80%  of  the  grants 
awarded  go  to  transnational  projects.  The  programme  also  accepts  ‘national’  projects 
under  certain  conditions,  but  it  is  understood  that  all  projects  must  have  a  European 
dimension.  

4. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  Criminal  Justice  Programme  has  made  it  possible  to  support  155  projects  and  64 
contracts  since  its  creation  in  2007.  The  evaluation  of  the  programme  concludes  that 
there is a need to continue this funding, insofar as the actions supported tackle specific 
and genuine problems and make a positive contribution to and complement the national 
measures implemented in this field. 

However, it has also identified several weaknesses that need to be addressed if European 
actions are to be even more effective. 

Separate  implementation  of  the  civil  justice,  criminal  justice  and  other  programmes 
means  that  they  do  not  maximise  real  synergies  and  may  even  create  unnecessary 
overlaps. 

In  pursuit  of  the  objective  of  promoting  judicial  cooperation,  the  programme  should 
group together measures supporting cooperation in civil and criminal matters, to ensure 
better coordination between these two areas of law, particularly following the entry into 
force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009, which abolished the pillar structure. Other 
links  could  be  considered  with  other  DG  Justice  programmes,  particularly  Daphne  and 
Fundamental Rights.  

It is not clear from the evidence that the programme is the most appropriate instrument 
for supporting projects involving the purchase of equipment for interconnecting criminal 
records systems. Given that such projects are expensive and are national in nature, they 
could be funded more effectively through the Structural Funds. 

The following list of recommendations can be drawn up on the basis of the comments in 
this report: 

8 
9 

Decision 779/2007 of 20 June 2007. 
Decision 2007/252/JHA of 19 April 2007, OJ L 110, 27.4.2007, p. 33. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.1. 

PRIORITY SETTING 

Monitoring of annual priorities  should be improved by  increased use  of  the  PRIAMOS 
online  application  registration  and  evaluation  system  which  enables  proposals  to  be 
classified by priority and specific needs on the ground to be identified as a result. This 
statistical information can be used to help set annual priorities.  

4.2. 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE 

The  study  showed  that  there  are  a  growing  number  of  projects  with  European  added 
value in the field of criminal justice. However, this criterion is still one of the hardest for 
participating organisations to satisfy. It is not interpreted in the same way throughout DG 
Justice, and it has a low weighting compared with other award criteria (15%).  

The Commission plans to encourage a debate to define this criterion more clearly and to 
determine how much of a role it should play in relation to national funding instruments. 
The  European  added  value  criterion  could  be  given  greater  weight  in  the  selection 
procedure.  

4.3. 

SIMPLIFICATION OF PROCEDURES 

In order to make the programme more effective without any extra human resources, the 
Commission plans to continue to harmonise and simplify the guidelines (a practical guide 
for applicants will be updated annually), the grant application forms and the evaluation 
criteria.  

The provisional timetables of calls for proposals should be published sufficiently well in 
advance, and the Commission should ensure that all the deadlines are met.  

Grant  applicants  should  also  be  informed  clearly  and  in  good  time  about  the  current 
procedures and given sufficient time to prepare their proposals.  

In order to increase the number of projects funded per call for proposals, the Commission 
should plan to publish only one call for proposals for grants for actions every two years.  

It  should  consider  no  longer  using  operating  grants  because  they  have  not  proved 
effective. 

In the interests of economies of scale, the Commission should try to channel its financial 
support towards larger projects.  

In  the  interests  of  harmonisation  with  other  DG  Justice  programmes  and  efficient 
management, certain tasks should be outsourced (e.g. evaluation of the award criteria). 

4.4. 

PUBLICITY AND VISIBILITY 

The  programme’s  internet  site  should  be  improved  to  give  it  greater  visibility,  for 
example  by  sending  messages  to  alert  the  programme's  natural  partners  (former 
beneficiaries, members of the programme committee, active networks, etc.). This would 
be a way of disseminating more widely the results of calls for proposals, announcements 
of new calls and the list of organisations eligible to take part in the project.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Special  efforts  (e.g.  information  sessions,  FAQs)  should  be  targeted  at  Member  States 
that are under-represented in the programme (CY, DK, IR, LT, SK, SE, EE, FI, GR, LU 
and  PL),  to  raise  awareness  about  the  programme  and  help  improve  the  quality  of  the 
proposals.  

In order to promote the emergence and resilience of a civil society in the field of criminal 
law, this awareness-raising campaign should focus on NGOs, which are not sufficiently 
involved in the programme.  

Closer  links  with  other  DG  Justice  programmes  should  be  sought  in  order  to  ensure  a 
bigger critical mass and hence greater visibility. 

Other types of cooperation through partnership or joint management should be envisaged 
with  organisations  with  an  established  reputation  in  the  field,  such  as  the  Council  of 
Europe and OECD. 

EN 

15 

   EN