COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the documents Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2014 to 2020 the Justice ProgrammeProposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2014 to 2020 the Rights and Citizenship Programme
Date: 2011-11-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, EU financing, EU programme, European citizenship, children's rights, consumer protection, data protection, drug traffic, fight against crime, freedom to provide services, gender equality, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 15.11.2011 
SEC(2011) 1364 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

 Accompanying the documents  

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing 
for the period 2014 to 2020 the Justice Programme 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing 
for the period 2014 to 2020 the Rights and Citizenship Programme 

DISCLAIMER: This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its 
preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the 
Commission 

{COM(2011) 758 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1365 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 

2 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES....... 2 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

2.4 

Evaluations of the programmes .......................................................................................... 2 

Stakeholder consultation ..................................................................................................... 3 

Consultation of the IA steering group................................................................................ 4 

Consultation of the Impact Assessment Board.................................................................. 4 

3 

THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF FUNDING ..................................................................... 4 

3.1 

3.2 

The structure of the current programs .............................................................................. 4 

Achievements of the current programmes......................................................................... 6 

4 

PROBLEM DEFINITION.............................................................................................. 11 

4.1 

Challenges at policy level................................................................................................... 11 
4.1.1  Obstacles remain in the functioning of a European area of justice, respectful of fundamental 
rights, non-discrimination and equality................................................................................................... 11 
4.1.2  The role of funding in overcoming these obstacles and its added value ................................. 16 

4.2 

Challenges in management and delivery ......................................................................... 18 
4.2.1  Relevance/Scope .......................................................................................................................... 18 
4.2.2  Effectiveness................................................................................................................................. 21 
4.2.3  Efficiency...................................................................................................................................... 23 

5  EU'S RIGHT TO ACT .................................................................................................... 24 

5.1 

5.2 

The EU’s right to act.......................................................................................................... 24 

Subsidiarity principle ........................................................................................................ 24 

6  OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................. 25 

7 

POLICY OPTIONS ......................................................................................................... 27 

7.1 

7.2 

7.3 

7.4 

7.5 

Option 0 – Baseline scenario ............................................................................................. 27 

Option A – 6 programmes – Status quo and improvements at management level ...... 27 

Option B – 2 programmes ................................................................................................. 28 

Option C – 1 programme................................................................................................... 28 

Discarded options............................................................................................................... 29 

8  ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ....................................................................................... 30 

8.1 

8.2 

8.3 

8.4 

Option 0 – Baseline scenario ............................................................................................. 30 

Option A – 6 programmes – Status quo and improvements at management level ...... 30 

Option B – 2 programmes ................................................................................................. 33 

Option C – 1 programme................................................................................................... 36 

9  COMPARISON OF OPTIONS....................................................................................... 37 

10  MONITORING AND EVALUATION ....................................................................... 39 

Annex I .................................................................................................................................... 42 

 
 
 
 
OVERVIEW OF FUNDING UNDER THE CURRENT PROGRAMMES (2007-2010) .... 42 

Annex II................................................................................................................................... 47 

REPORT ON THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON FUTURE FUNDING ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA OF 
JUSTICE, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND EQUALITY .................................................................... 47 

FOR THE PERIOD AFTER 2013 ................................................................................................... 47 

1.  Overview of replies to closed questions ................................................................................ 48 

2.   Overview of replies to open questions .................................................................................. 53 

3.   Full Statistics........................................................................................................................... 56 

EN 

1   

  EN 

 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

During  the  current  financial  perspective  2007-2013  EU-funding  in  the  area  of  justice  and 
rights is provided through the following six programmes:  
- Civil Justice (JCIV),  
- Criminal Justice (JPEN),  
- Fundamental Rights and Citizenship (FRC),  
- Daphne III (DAP),  
- Drug Prevention and Information Programme (DPIP) and by  
-  the  Sections  "Antidiscrimination  and  Diversity"  and  "Gender  Equality"  of  the  Programme 
for Employment and Social Solidarity (PROGRESS).  

In accordance with the Communication on the EU Budget Review1, a fresh look was taken at 
funding instruments and delivery mechanisms in order to streamline funding that supports the 
policy objectives in the justice and rights area, to ensure clear focus on European added value 
and to examine how best to achieve tangible results in delivering benefits to the EU citizens. 
The present document constitutes the impact assessment that will accompany the legislative 
proposals for the future "Justice" and "Rights and Citizenship" programmes. 

2  PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  

2.1  Evaluations of the programmes 

In preparation of the proposals for the new generation of funding programmes for the period 
of  2014-2020  the  results  of  the  current  programmes,  as  well  as  their  overall  impact  were 
evaluated.  

The evaluations of JCIV and JPEN were carried out by the Commission and for FRC, DAP 
and  DPIP  the  Commission  was  supported  by  an  independent  external  evaluator2.  The 
evaluations focused on the results obtained so far by the programmes and the qualitative and 
quantitative aspects of their implementation.  

The  PROGRESS  programme  was  evaluated  by  its  annual  performance  reports3.  These 
findings are also complemented by the interim results of the programme mid-term evaluation, 
as well as by the public consultation on a possible successor instrument to the EU programme 
for  employment  and  social  solidarity  –  Progress  2007-2013.  This  consultation  took  place 
between 4 April 2011 and 27 May 2011. 

1  Communication on the EU Budget Review, COM(2010)700 final of 19.10.2010. 
2  Interim  evaluation  report  on  the  results  obtained  from  and  the  qualitative  and  quantitative  aspects  of  the 

implementation of the Civil Justice financing programme, COM(2011) 351 final of 15.06.2011; 
Interim evaluation report on the Criminal Justice Programme, COM(2011) 255 final of 11.5.2011; 
Report  on  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  Fundamental  Rights  and  Citizenship  Programme  2007  –  2013, 
COM(2011) 249 final of 5.5.2011; 
Report  on  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  Daphne  III  Programme  2007  –  2013,  COM(2011)  254  final  of 
11.05.2011; 
Report on the interim evaluation of the specific Programme Drug prevention and information (DPIP) 2007 – 
2013, COM(2011) 246 final of 5.5.2011. 

3  The PROGRESS Annual Performance Reports for the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 are available online:  
http://ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocuments.jsp?type=0&policyArea=86&subCategory=327&country=0&year=0
&advSearchKey=PerformanceMonitoringReports&mode=advancedSubmit&langId=en  

EN 

2   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
More specifically the evaluations of all programmes assessed:  
(1) The relevance of the programmes;  
(2) The effectiveness of the programmes; 
(3) The efficiency of the programmes.  

2.2  Stakeholder consultation 

A  public  stakeholder  consultation  on  future  funding  activities  in  the  area  of  Justice, 
Fundamental Rights and Equality for the period after 20134 was launched on 20 April 2011 
using  the  on-line  tool  of  Your  Voice  in  Europe  and  was  available  for  two  months  (until  20 
June  2011).  Interested  parties  were  informed  through  the  tools  of  Your  Voice  in  Europe,  
through  the  website  of  DG  Justice  and  through  an  electronic  flyer  which  wassent  to 
beneficiaries, stakeholders and programme committee members. The consultation focused on 
four areas: 
1.  
2. 
3.  
4.  

Objectives and focus of funding after 2013  
Measures of simplification and improvement  
Types of activities  
Delivery mechanisms  

The consultation attracted considerable interest and a total of 187 respondents (37 individuals 
and  150  organisations)  submitted  their  contribution.  The  responses  covered  most  Member 
States  (except  for  Denmark,  Greece  and  Luxembourg).  The  majority  of  respondents  (55%) 
were  NGOs,  but  representatives  from  all  stakeholders,  including  national  and  regional 
authorities, European networks and private companies were represented. The majority of all 
respondents (60%) indicated that they had not received funding from the programmes in the 
area of justice, rights and equality.  

The  respondents  evaluated  positively  the  policy  objectives  of  the  funding  programmes  and 
confirmed the need for funding in the areas covered. The EU added value was acknowledged 
in all areas and no area was identified where funding should be discontinued or decreased.  

The  respondents  expressed  the  need  for  simplification  and  improvement  and  most  of  the 
proposed measures to achieve this received a positive response. In particular measures such as 
the simplification of selection procedures, the simplification of reporting obligations and the 
wider  use  of  IT  tools  were  seen  as  very  appropriate.  The  reduction  in  the  number  of 
programmes  was  also  met  with  approval.  In  the  open  questions  allowing  respondents  to 
further elaborate their replies, the time-consuming and bureaucratic procedures were some of 
the main concerns expressed by stakeholders. 

The  stakeholders  identified  EU  added  value  in  funding  activities  which  aim  to  improve  the 
knowledge  of  the  population  on  their  rights  and  obligations,  to  fight  discrimination,  to 
promote fundamental rights, equality and EU citizenship, to protect vulnerable persons and to 
improve  access  to  justice.  Furthermore,  the  activities  were  seen  as  an  effective  tool  to  help 
eliminate  obstacles  and  reduce  costs  of  cross-border  judicial  proceedings  and  consumer 
transactions, and to reduce drug use and drug related crime.  

4 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/news_consulting_0010_en.htm  

EN 

3   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  proposed  types  of  activities  and  delivery  mechanisms  were  largely  approved  by  the 
respondents. The stakeholders were in favour of funding activities such as exchange of good 
practices,  training  of  professionals,  information  and  awareness  raising  activities,  support  to 
networks, studies etc5. 

2.3  Consultation of the IA steering group 

The  participating  services  in  the  steering  group  were  LS,  SG,  BUDG,  EMPL,  HOME, 
SANCO, COMM, EAC, COMP and MARKT. The first meeting took place on 20 May 2011 
and  focused  on  preliminary  discussions  on  the  state  of  play  of  the  proposals  and  served  as 
sounding board for possible overlap areas.  

The second meeting took place on 25 July 2011 and the services were consulted on the basis 
of the draft text of the impact assessment. Comments and observations of the services were 
taken into consideration and they are reflected in the final version of the impact assessment. 

2.4  Consultation of the Impact Assessment Board 

The  Commission's  Impact  Assessment  Board  (IAB)  was  consulted  on  3  August  2011  and 
delivered its opinion on 14 September 2011. The IAB delivered a positive opinion subject to 
improvements on certain issues. This revised version of the report has introduced a number of 
modifications in order to reflect the recommendations  from  the  IAB:  additional  information 
was included concerning the results of the ongoing programmes, more detailed analysis was 
included concerning the problems on effectiveness and EU added value of the programmes, 
the need for increased focus on policy priorities was further analysed, the analysis of options 
was improved, more detailed information was included concerning impacts on administrative 
burden and length of procedures and a more operational evaluation arrangement was included.  

3  THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF FUNDING 

3.1  The structure of the current programs 

During the ongoing 2007-2013 financial perspective six funding programmes are in place to 
support  EU  policies  of  justice,  rights  and  equality.  All  of  them  are  implemented  via 
centralised  direct  management.  The  following  five  specific  programmes  are  included  in  the 
Framework  Programme  on  Fundamental  Rights  and  Justice6:  Civil  Justice  (JCIV),  Criminal 
Justice  (JPEN),  Fundamental  Rights  and  Citizenship  (FRC),  Daphne  III  (DAP)  and  Drug 
Prevention and Information Programme (DPIP).  

Every  year  each  programme  adopts  its  annual  work  programme,  which  sets  the  funding 
priorities for the year. For the implementation of the annual work programmes three types of 
actions are funded: Specific trans-national projects of EU interest (Action Grants), actions to 
support to the activities of non-governmental organisations or other entities pursuing an aim 
of  general  European  interest  (Operating  Grants)  and  specific  actions  taken  by  the 
Commission,  such  as  studies,  surveys,  conferences,  specific  IT  projects  etc  (Commission 
initiatives).  Approximately  10-13  calls  for  proposals  are  launched  per  year  under  the  five 

5 For further details and full statistics, see Annex II - Report on the public consultation. 
6 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament establishing for the period 
2007-2013 a framework programme on Fundamental Rights and Justice, COM(2005) 122 final of 6.4.2005. 

EN 

4   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
programmes  and  approximately  140  action  grants  and  25  operating  grants  are  concluded. 
Grants account for the biggest part of the programme budgets (on average, about 80%).  

The  objective  of  the  Civil  Justice  Programme  (JCIV)7  is  to  promote  judicial  cooperation 
with the aim of contributing to the creation of a genuine European area of justice in civil and 
commercial matters. The financial envelope allocated to the JCIV programme for the whole 
period (2007-2013) is € 109.5 8 million. In the period 2007-2010 the programme has awarded 
85 action grants and 11 operating grants and it has launched 66 Commission initiatives. 

The  objective  of  the  Criminal  Justice  Programme  (JPEN)  9  is  to  promote  judicial 
cooperation with the aim of contributing to the creation of a genuine European area of justice 
in criminal matters. The financial envelope allocated to the JPEN programme for the whole 
period (2007-2013) is € 199.3 8 million. In the period 2007-2010 the programme has awarded 
181  action  grants,  4  framework  partnership  agreements  and  30  operating  grants  and  it  has 
launched 64 Commission initiatives. 

The  Fundamental  Rights  and  Citizenship  Programme  (FRC)10  aims  to  promote  the 
development of a European society based on European Union citizenship, which is respectful 
of fundamental rights as provided for in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to fight racism, 
xenophobia  and  anti-semitism  and  to  strengthen  civil  society  in  the  field  of  fundamental 
rights. The financial envelope allocated to the FRC programme for the whole period (2007-
2013)  is  €  97.25 8  million.  In  the  period  2007-2010  the  programme  has  awarded  91  action 
grants and 20 operating grants and it has launched 61 Commission initiatives. 

The Daphne III Programme (DAP)11 aims to contribute to the protection of children, young 
people and women against all forms of violence and to attain a high level of health protection, 
well-being and social cohesion. The financial envelope allocated to the DAP programme for 
the whole period (2007-2013) is € 121.43 8 million. In the period 2007-2010 the programme 
has  awarded  167  action  grants  and  33  operating  grants  and  it  has  launched  14  Commission 
initiatives. 

The  Drug  Prevention  and  Information  Programme  (DPIP)12  aims  to  prevent  and  reduce 
drug use, dependence and drug related harm, to contribute to the improvement of information 
on  drug  use  and  to  support  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy.  The  financial 

7   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', OJ L 257/16 of 3.10.2007 

8 These figures are based on the Commission's proposal for the 2012 budget and include both operational and 

administrative support appropriations. 

9   Council  Decision  of  12  February  2007  establishing  for  the  period  2007-2013,  as  part  of  the  General 
programme  on  Fundamental  Rights  and  Justice,  the  Specific  Programme  'Criminal  Justice'  (2007/126/JHA), 
OJ L 58/13 of 24.2.2007. 

10  Council  Decision  of  19  April  2007  establishing  for  the  period  2007-2013  the  specific  programme 
'Fundamental  rights  and  citizenship'  as  part  of  the  General  programme  'Fundamental  Rights  and  Justice' 
(2007/252/EC), OJ L 110/33 of 27.4.2007 and Corrigendum OJ L141 of 2.6.2007. 

11  Decision No 779/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 establishing for the 
period 2007-2013 a specific programme  to prevent and combat violence against children, young people and 
women and to protect victims and groups at risk (Daphne III programme) as part of the General programme 
'Fundamental Rights and Justice', OJ L 173/19 of 3.7.2007. 

12  Decision No 1150/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 September 2007 establishing 
for  the  period  2007-2013  the  Specific  Programme  'Drug  prevention  and  information'  as  part  of  the  General 
programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice', OJ L 257/23 of 3.10.2007. 

EN 

5   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
envelope  allocated  to  the  DPIP  programme  for  the  whole  period  (2007-2013)  is  €  22.35 8 
million.  In  the  period  2007-2010  the  programme  has  awarded  25  action  grants  and  12 
operating grants and it has launched 18 Commission initiatives. 

(PROGRESS).  The 

for  Employment  and  Social  Solidarity 

In addition, funding in the area in question is also provided by two sections of the Community 
Programme 
section 
Antidiscrimination and Diversity supports the effective implementation of the principle of 
non-discrimination  and  promotes  its  mainstreaming  in  all  EU  policies,  whereas  the  section 
Gender  Equality  supports  the  effective  implementation  of  the  principle  of  gender  equality 
and  promotes  gender  mainstreaming  in  all  EU  policies.  These  sections  of  the  PROGRESS 
programme represent 35% of its overall budget and amount to € 241.52 million for the whole 
period  (2007-2013).  They  are  mainly  implemented  through  Commission  initiatives  and 
framework  partnership  agreements  with  institutional  beneficiaries  and  to  a  lesser  extent 
through calls for proposals addressed to Member States (one or two per year). In the period 
2007-2009  55  activities  were  funded  under  the  Antidiscrimination  section  and  46  activities 
were funded under the Gender Equality section.  

Overview of funding per programme (2007-2013)

241.52

121.43

22.35

97.25

199.3

109.5

DAP

DPIP

FRC

JCIV

JPEN

PROGRESS (Anti-
discrimination & Equality)

3.2  Achievements of the current programmes 

The  implementation  of  the  current  programmes  was  evaluated  by  mid-term  evaluations  as 
foreseen by the respective legal acts. Some of the evaluations (JCIV, FRC, DPIP) underline 
that the timing of the evaluation (held three years after the beginning of the programme) was 
premature and did not allow for an in depth analysis and for far-reaching conclusions. This is 
due  to  the  limited  financial  resources  of  the  programmes  in  combination  with  the  limited 
number of finalised actions and the long duration of these projects. As a result, at the time of 
the evaluation only few projects had been completed and could be used as a basis to draw the 
conclusions for the evaluation.  

Besides  these  limitations  the  overall  findings  of  the  evaluations  were  positive  for  all  six 
programmes. They concluded that the programmes are highly relevant to respond to the needs 

EN 

6   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
they were designed to address and they confirmed the importance of their impact for the target 
groups.  They  confirmed  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  all  programmes  and  they 
recommended their continuation.  

The  stakeholder  consultation  has  also  confirmed  these  overall  findings.  No  policy  area  was 
identified where funding should be decreased or discontinued. On the contrary, the majority 
of the respondents confirmed the need for funding in most of the policy areas. Respectively, 
very  positive  opinions  were  expressed  concerning  the  added  value  of  providing  funding  for 
these areas at EU level. These results are particularly indicative taking into consideration that 
they reflect rather "objective" opinions: 60% of the respondents did not receive funding from 
these programmes13. It should also be flagged that the majority of the action grant managers 
interviewed  for  the  mid-term  evaluations  reported  that  without  EU  funding  their  activities 
would discontinue as it would be impossible to receive any national funding for their causes. 
This  is  more  the  case  in  the  current  times  of  the  financial  constraints  where  these  areas  are 
losing out to the areas influencing directly economic growth. 

Despite  the  management  strains  and  burden  for  the  Commission  the  above  mentioned 
programmes and, in particular FRC and DAP, are among the few EU programmes allocating 
funding mostly (80%) to grants which support activities of grass-root organisations across the 
Member  States  and  to  lesser  extend  to  procurement  transactions,  where  beneficiaries  are 
mainly  research  or  consultancy  organisations.  Thus  they  have  helped  to  create  sustainable 
partnerships  in  the  EU  whereby  on  average  4-5  and  in  some  cases  up  to  15  partner 
organisations  from  different  Member  States  take  part  in  the  implementation  of  a  project. 
Support  to  partnerships  and  to  transnational  cooperation  is  commonly  acknowledged  as 
particularly  relevant  for  the  achievement  of  the  programmes'  objectibes.  The  evaluations  of 
FRC, DAP and PROGRESS highlight the importance of creating and supporting partnerships, 
while JCIV and JPEN acknowledge the need to take additional action to promote them. The 
respondents  to  the  public  consultation  have  also  expressed  clearly  their  agreement  on 
providing funding for the abovementioned activities in the area of justice and rights. 

According  to  the  mid-term  evaluations  the  activities  of  NGOs  or  other  non-profit 
organisations  funded  under  the  action  grants  and  operating  grants  aimed  to  have  impact  on 
national policies and, according to action grant managers, the majority of them achieved this 
objective. Despite being low value, covering only few Member States and not always run by 
professional  project  managers,  these  activities  greatly  contributed  in  advocating  for  justice 
and in respecting fundamental rights.  

However, the drawback of such funding is its competitive nature, which cannot guarantee that 
the  beneficiaries  would  receive  funding  under  the  next  call  for  proposals  to  ensure  the 
continuation  of  their  activities,  the  sustainability  of  the  results  of  their  projects  and  the 
adequate follow-up of the outputs of their projects.  

The chart below presents the volume of the action and operating grants awarded to different 
organisations  under  JCIV,  JPEN,  FRC,  DAP  and  DPIP  programmes  during  the  reporting 
period (as from the start of the programmes until now) and its geographical coverage14. In the 
period 2007-2010 the five programmes have awarded 659 grants.  

13 For more detailed information on the results of the public consultation please refer to Annex II.  
14  The  geographical  allocation  is  based  on  the  country  where  the  coordinating  organisation  of  each  project  is 
officially established. However, in the majority of the cases the projects are implemented by a partnership of 
organisations from different Member States and the funds are divided between all partners of the project.  

EN 

7   

  EN 

 
 
                                                 
Geographical breakdown - Total number of grants

104

66

53

39

36

76

14

4

11

11

7

2

16

11

5

8

14

3

3

13 10 12 11

7

2

2

120

100

94

80

60

40

20

0

24

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SI SK SE UK NO

Series1 24 94 14

4

11 66 11

2

53

7

39 11 16

5 104 8

3

14

3

36 13 10 12 11

2

7

76

2

1

IO
M

1

The  main  activities  implemented  by  these  projects  are  studies  and  researches,  mapping  of 
national  policies  and  legislation,  case  studies,  training  of  practitioners  and  professionals, 
capacity  building,  awareness  raising  events,  conferences  and  seminars.  Some  indicative 
examples of the results achieved by the programmes are mentioned below.  

Information and Awareness-raising  

EU funding is supporting the development of the European e-Justice systems. These systems 
serve to improve citizens' access to justice, to facilitate procedures within the EU and to make 
the  resolution  of  disputes  or  the  punishment  of  criminal  behaviour  more  effective.  They 
ensure better access to justice and strengthen cooperation between administrative and judicial 
authorities.  The  most  visible  part  of  European  e-Justice  is  the  European  e-Justice  Portal, 
which provides concrete benefits to citizens and businesses. Citizens can get answers on how 
the 27 EU countries' legal systems function. The Portal helps them find relevant information 
when dealing with events such as divorce, death, litigation or even moving house. Businesses 
can find links to  insolvency and  land registers and information on cross-border proceedings 
and the laws that apply. 

The European Day of Civil Justice is celebrated yearly on 25 October. The central event co-
organised  by  the  Council  of  Europe  and  the  European  Commission  is  supported  by  EU 
funding. These yearly events aim to bring justice closer to citizens, to inform them on their 
rights  through  simulation  of  procedures  and  information  sessions  open  to  students, 
professionals of justice and general public and also through open doors to their courts.  

National  and  European  awareness-raising  activities  have  been  implemented  in  all  supported 
policy areas. An indicative example is the EU-wide campaign on the gender pay gap, which 
included among others national events, advertising in EU press, 47 examples of national good 
practices,  mapping  of  pay  gap,  a  campaign  toolkit  etc.  Some  other  examples  are:  the 
development  and  maintenance  of  websites  in  areas  of  Justice,  Rights  of  the  Child  and 
Consular protection; the development and broadcasting of video clips on multiple aspects of 
Roma  life  by  a  partnership  of  Bulgarian,  Slovak,  Hungarian  and  Romanian  organisations, 

EN 

8   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
which  encouraged  a  more  nuanced  coverage  of  Roma  issues,  greater  participation  of  Roma 
journalists  in  mainstream  media  operations,  and  encouraged  inter-cultural  dialogue  and 
mutual understanding; the development of awareness raising actions targeting children at risk 
and  victims  of  trafficking  by  a  partnership  of  Bulgarian,  Danish,  Italian  and  Romanian 
organisations,  using  their  specific  knowledge  and  expertise  in  the  field  of  trafficking, 
children’s rights and the use of new information technologies and the involvement of children 
themselves; a European information campaign on the 116000 telephone number for missing 
children implemented in 10 Member States, etc. 

These  activities  have  been  complemented  by  different  debates  and  platforms  (for  example, 
European  Platform  for  Roma,  the  Forum  on  the  Rights  of  the  Child)  initiated  by  the 
Commission in the field of antidiscrimination, rights and equality to enhance knowledge and 
awareness  of  the  problems  within  the  circles  of  politicians,  professionals,  lawyers,  public 
officials. In 2009 EU funding has supported across the Member States more than 130 high-
quality and participatory debate events in the area of antidiscrimination and gender equality, 
reaching a total estimated audience of more than 12,000 politicians, public officials, lawyers, 
educational institutions and NGOs, and similar target groups.15  

Training 

Judicial training has been provided by the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN), which 
covers all Member States. It develops training standards and curriculum, coordinates judicial 
training  exchanges  and  programmes  and  fosters  cooperation  between  EU  national  training 
bodies.  Since  2005  over  3817  participants  have  taken  part  in  exchange  visits  ranging  from 
group study visits to short (up to 1 month) and longer term exchanges (1 year). Additionally 
to  the  EJTN  activities  39  grants  were  given  to  promote  judicial  training  in  more  than  10 
Member  States.  Other  activities  in  the  area  of  judicial  training,  include  indicatively  training 
initiatives  to  promote  alternative  dispute  resolution,  cross  border  mediation,  promoting 
mediation  techniques  for  the  European  practitioners  of  justice,  etc.  The  participants  were 
judges  and  legal  professionals  from  different  Member  States.  The  added  value  of  these 
activities lies both in informing and training the professionals who have to apply EU law and 
in promoting communication between them as a tool for the development of mutual trust.  

EU funding is also provided to support the development of training modules and the delivery 
of  training  to  other  professionals.  Some  indicative  examples  of  funded  activities  are:  the 
development of material and training on health symptoms caused by violence (post-traumatic 
health disorder –PTSD) through the implementation of four successive grants, which allowed 
for the adaptation and dissemination of the material in all Member States; the development of 
training pact for professionals working with abusive and violent high risk families; etc.  

Cooperation on enforcement 

The  European  e-Justice  Portal  provides  concrete  benefits  to  lawyers  and  judges  with  cross-
border  legal  questions  and  boosts  mutual  understanding  of  different  legal  systems  by 
contributing to the creation of a single European area of justice. Through the e-Justice Portal 
lawyers,  notaries  and  judges  have  access  to  legal  databases,  contact  colleagues  through 
judicial  networks  and  find  information  on  European  judicial  training.  Another  e-Justice 

15 Progress Annual Performance Monitoring Report 2009, p. 48. 

EN 

9   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
system, is the e-CODEX (e-Justice Communication via Online Data Exchange), which aims 
to find solutions to challenges such as e-ID and e-Signature.  

The European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) was established to achieve an 
efficient exchange of information on criminal convictions between EU countries. Eleven EU 
countries  (Belgium,  the  Czech  Republic,  France,  Germany,  Spain,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  the 
Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia and the UK) already exchange information on criminal records 
electronically  in  the  framework  of  the  'Network  of  Judicial  Registers'  pilot  project.  This 
system  is  implemented  through  awarding  grants  to  Member  States  in  order  to  set  up  the 
appropriate systems to allow the electronic interconnection of their national criminal records 
databases.  

Moreover,  the  Commission  further  enhances  the  European  judicial  atlas,  an  online  database 
available  in  all  EU  languages.  The  purpose  of  the  tool  is  to  provide  user-friendly  access  to 
information relevant for judicial cooperation in civil matters. It enables professionals and the 
general  public  to  easily  identify  which  authorities  to  contact  and  is  particularly  useful  for 
finding  courts  with  territorial  jurisdiction,  serving  documents,  taking  evidence,  enforcing 
judgments  etc.  Another  database  developed  by  the  Commission  is  JURE,  which  contains 
information on the case law of the European Court of Justice and Member States' courts, on 
the  interpretation  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  44/2001  of  22  December  2000,  on 
jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial 
matters,  and  on  the  interpretation  of  the  1968  Brussels  Convention  and  the  1988  Lugano 
Convention. Currently it includes case law of more than 2000 national cases16. 

Other examples of the supporting cooperation between Member States include the support for 
putting in place child alert systems, the operation of the 116000 hotline for missing children, 
activities  for  the  coordination  of  operational  and  cross-border  anti-drug  co-operation,  the 
development of methodology for the assessment of the human rights impact of anti trafficking 
laws and measures, etc. 

Networks 

Funding in the area of justice, rights and equality supports the development of Europe-wide 
networks  of  organisations,  which  aim  at  sharing  experiences,  exchanging  information  and 
good  practices,  cooperating  in  promoting  policies,  coordinating  their  work  in  research  and 
gathering information. The EU wide cooperation gives clear added value to the work of these 
networks  and  at  the  same  time  helps  the  organisations  in  each  country  to  learn  from  each 
other  and  improve  their  capacity.  A  number  of  networks  are  supported  in  the  areas  of 
antidiscrimination, violence against women, equality, children's rights, victim support, etc.  

Research and analysis 

In  addition  to  the  above  the  Commission  itself  has  contributed  significantly  in  attaining  the 
programmes'  objectives  through  funding  for  Commission  initiatives.  It  allocates  funding  for 
the  implementation  of  opinion  polls,  researches  and  surveys,  formulation  of  methodologies, 
collection of data and statistics, studies and impact assessment. These activities assist in the 

16  The  case  law  is  available  to  judges  and  legal  practitioners  throughout  EU  in  the  original  language  and  in 

summary in three languages. 

EN 

10   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
development of policies and legislation and their main aim is to ensure evidence-based policy 
making.  

4  PROBLEM DEFINITION  

As confirmed by the Stockholm Programme, the development of an area of freedom, security 
and  justice  remains  a  priority  for  the  European  Union.  Although  significant  progress  has 
already been achieved in this field, Europe still faces challenges, which should be addressed 
in  a  comprehensive  manner.  The  Stockholm  programme  sets  the  political  priorities  for  the 
period 2010-2014. Most of these priorities will continue to be relevant beyond this timeframe. 
In addition to this, tackling social, economic and legal injustices, inequalities and imbalances 
at  local,  regional  and  European  level  is  perpetual  objective  of  the  EU.  The  promotion  of 
citizenship and fundamental rights as well as the  achievement  of a European area of justice 
significantly  contribute  to  attaining  this  objective  and  thus  will  remain  at  the  heart  of  EU 
activity in the next decade. Funding, in addition to legislation, is identified as one of the tools 
to be used for the achievement of these objectives.  

The  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  became  very  prominent  only  recently  and  is 
currently dominating the EU agenda. This is linked to the creation of the Schengen area and 
the  current  challenges  posed  by  migration  flows,  the  abolishment  of  the  Third  Pillar  in  the 
Treaties and the binding character of the Fundamental Rights Charter. Although new policies 
and corresponding legislation in the area of justice are being conceived expeditiously, due to a 
short  lead  time  they  cannot  yet  show  their  desired  effects.  Moreover,  the  promotion  of 
fundamental  rights,  equality  and  non-discrimination  is  a  long-term  objective  and  its 
responsiveness to legislation is relatively low. Therefore it requires long-term and persistent 
non-legislative  efforts  in  order  to  deliver  its  objectives.  In  this  context  the  non-legislative 
measures implemented with the help of funding are appropriate tools to continue and further 
pursue and implement EU policies.  

4.1  Challenges at policy level 

4.1.1  Obstacles remain in  the functioning of a European area of justice, respectful of 

fundamental rights, non-discrimination and equality  

As a prerequisite for the realisation of a European area of justice, justice systems should have 
faith in each others' standards of fairness and justice, whereby the principles of mutual trust 
and mutual recognition of judicial decisions are essential elements. Due to limited legislation 
and  policy  instruments,  obstacles  remain  in  the  proper  functioning  of  cross-border  judicial 
proceedings. Judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters is insufficient.  

According to the Special Eurobarometer on civil justice in 201017 56% of Europeans believe 
that  access  to  civil  justice  in  another  Member  State  is  'difficult'.  Their  main  difficulties  are 
that  they  don’t  know  the  applicable  legislation  (42%)  or  the  appropriate  procedures  (38%). 
The awareness of the existing three European cross-border procedures is relatively low: 12% 
for legal aid, 8% for small claims and 6% for the European payment order.  

17 Special Eurobarometer 351on Civil Justice, published in October 2010, 

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_351_en.pdf  

EN 

11   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Access  to  justice  should  become  a  reality,  as  EU  citizens  need  to  have  confidence  that  the 
same level of minimum rules will be applied should they travel or live abroad. This becomes 
more important as the mobility of EU citizens within the EU area increases. The total number 
of EU citizens who live in the territory of another EU Member State is 11.3 million people 
(2.3 % of the EU population). This number has increased by 55% between 2001 and 2008. In 
2008, 90% of 1.4 billion journeys by Europeans were within the EU18. 

Since  56%  of  EU  GDP  is  based  on  consumer  spending,  consumer  confidence  is  very 
important  for  the  EU  economy19.  Consumer  protection  can  give  consumers  the  necessary 
confidence  to  fully  participate  in  the  internal  market.  The  development  of  today's  online 
marketplace and the growing importance of digital goods call for bringing up to date the EU 
consumer legislation. At present, 36% of Europeans do not feel knowledgeable as consumers 
and  40%  do  not  feel  protected  by  consumer  law  when  purchasing  goods  and  services.20 
Indeed,  the  outdated  legislation  causes  significant  detriment  for  consumers.  For  example,  it 
has  been  estimated  that  the  consumer  detriment21  in  the  area  of  dynamic  travel  packages22 
amounts  to  more  than  €1  billion  annually 23  and  the  consumer  detriment  for  digital  content 
products amounts to approximately €64 billion 24. Consumer rights are however of little value 
if  consumers  are  not  aware  of  them  and  if  they  are  not  enforced  in  practice.  The  recent 
Eurobarometer  on Consumer Empowerment shows that only 2% of consumers  were able to 
answer correctly seven basic questions concerning their main consumer rights.25 

Differences  in  contract  law  between  Member  States  create  a  barrier  to  trade  within  the 
internal  market  (i.e.  additional  transaction  costs,  increased  legal  uncertainty  for  businesses 
and lack of consumer confidence). It has been estimated that each year those companies that 
do export into new Member State markets face unnecessary entry (transaction) costs of about 
€1 billion. The value of trade foregone each year  between Member States (due to differences 
in contract law), amounts to some tens of billions of euro. The complexity of different foreign 
laws also impacts negatively on consumer confidence in cross-border shopping. Data show26 
that  the  potential  for  cross-border  trade  is  still  largely  untapped  and  that  the  persistence  of 

18 Eurostat,  Citizens  of  the  European  countries  account  for  the  majority  of  the  foreign  population  in  EU-27  in 
2008,  Statistics  in  focus  94/2009;  Communication  on  Europe,  the  world's  No  1  tourist  destination  –  a  new 
political framework for tourism in Europe, COM(2010)352 final of 30.06.2010.  

19 Commission Staff Working Paper on Consumer Empowerment in the EU, SEC(2011)469 final, of 7.4.2011. 
20 Special Eurobarometer 342 on Consumer Empowerment, published in April 2011, 

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_empowerment/docs/report_eurobarometer_342_en.pdf  

21 The consumer detriment is understood as the negative outcomes that consumers experience when using certain 

products or services including financial and time loss. 

22 A “dynamic travel package” is when two or more services for a single holiday or trip (such as flights, hotel or 
car  rental)  are  bought  at  the  same  time  and  from  the  same  supplier,  or  from  different  suppliers  that  are 
commercially linked (such as airlines, hotel chains and car rental companies), and are put together according 
to the consumer's specific needs.  

23  Study  on  Consumer  Detriment  in  the  area  of  Dynamic  Packages,  The  European  Commission  Health  and 

Consumers DG, prepared by London Economics, November 2009. 

24  Digital  Content  Services  for  Consumers:  Assessment  of  Problems  Experienced  by  Consumers-  LOT  1,  not 

published. 

25 Special Eurobarometer 342 on Consumer Empowerment, published in April 2011, 

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_empowerment/docs/report_eurobarometer_342_en.pdf 

26 According to the Eurobarometer on business attitudes towards cross-border sales and consumer protection, the 
additional  costs  of  compliance  with  different  consumer  protection  regulations  is  the  third  most  important 
obstacle  to  B2C  cross  border  trade  (60  %  consider  it  a  very  or  fairly  important  obstacle).  See  flash 
Eurobarometer  224  on  business  attitudes  towards  cross-border  sales  and  consumer  protection,  published  in 
July 2008,  http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/docs/fl224%20_eurobar_cbs_analrep.pdf  

EN 

12   

  EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
legal  (next  to  administrative,  cultural  and  technical)  barriers  is  one  of  the  main  reasons  for 
businesses' and consumers' reluctance to buy on-line and/or across borders27. 

The internal market in data protection is not fully achieved. There are too large variations in 
the transposition of the current directive, and Data Protection authorities do not have the same 
powers  nor  take  consistent  decisions  across  the  EU.  This  creates  unnecessary  costs  and 
administrative  burden  within  the  internal  market.  There  is  no  appropriate  coordination 
mechanism to ensure consistency across the internal market. There are weaknesses as regards 
the protection of Individual's Data subject rights, for instance in the online world where rights 
such as deletion of one's own data (the "right to be forgotten") are not easily enforced. Data 
Protection  authorities  lack  coordination  mechanisms  and  enforcement  powers  in  order  to 
enforce  the  rights  of  individuals  online.  Europe  lacks  coordination  mechanisms  in  order  to 
guarantee  effectively  the  data  protection  rights  of  individuals  in  a  globalized  and  online 
environment. 

According to Eurostat data, roughly 15% of the EU's population suffers directly from serious 
crime every year: around 30 million serious offences, excluding minor crimes, were recorded 
in 2007, and most crimes are never reported. Many of these offences involve more than one 
victim and those close to the victim also suffer indirectly from the crimes28. 

To  prevent  criminals  from  taking  profit  from  the  abolition  of  borders  in  the  EU,  12 
instruments have been adopted by the EU legislator to ensure that criminal procedures do not 
stop  at  borders,  based  on  the  principles  of  mutual  recognition  of  judicial  decisions  and  on 
direct  cooperation  between  the  judicial  authorities  of  the  Member  States.  However,  there  is 
widespread  recognition  that  implementation  of  these  third  pillar  instruments  has  been  very 
poor,  since  under  the  former  Treaty  the  Commission  did  not  have  enforcement  powers  and 
therefore  could  not  start  infringement  procedures  against  Member  States  who  did  not 
implement them at all or implemented them badly. Only one instrument, the European Arrest 
Warrant, has been implemented satisfactorily and on time.  

Recent  impact  assessments29  show  that  a  main  obstacle  to  mutual  recognition  and  judicial 
cooperation is the lack of trust in the judicial systems of other Member States. This lack of 
trust  relates  both  to  the  level  of  procedural  safeguards  benefitting  to  persons  suspected  or 
accused of having committed a crime as well as to quality of treatment that victims receive in 
the aftermath of crime and during the criminal proceeding that follow. 

the  prevention  of  drug-related  crime  requires  a 

integrated  and 
Also 
multidisciplinary  approach.  The  study  on  developments  in  the  global  illicit  drugs  market30
found no evidence of any improvement in the recent period. In some countries the problem 

long-term, 

27 See also the Special Eurobarometer 342 on Consumer Empowerment, published in April 2011, 

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_empowerment/docs/report_eurobarometer_342_en.pdf  

28  Eurostat, Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, Statistics in focus, 36/2009. 
29 Impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a Framework Decision on the right to interpretation and to 

translation in criminal proceedings, SEC(2009) 916 of 8.7.2009; 
 Impact  assessment  accompanying  the  communication  for  a  proposal  of  a  directive  establishing  minimum 
standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime and for proposal for a regulation on mutual 
recognition of protection measures in civil matters, SEC(2011) 580 final of 18.5.2011; 
Impact  assessment  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a  directive  on  the  rights  of  access  to  a  lawyer  and  of 
notification of custody to a third person in criminal proceedings, SEC(2011) 686 final of 8.6.2011. 

30  Study  on  Detailed  analysis  of  the  operation  of  the  world  market  in  illicit  drugs  and  of  policy  measures  to 

curtail it, not published. 

EN 

13   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
diminished,  but  in  others  it  worsened,  in  some  cases  sharply.  At  the  same  time  every  year 
6.400  to  8.500  individuals  die  in  the  EU  because  of  drug  overdose  and  for  the  first  time  in 
years the number of fatalities is going up31. The need for action in this area remains high as 
the  Member  States  are  unable  to  sustainably  tackle  the  cross-border  drugs  problem  on  their 
own. They would struggle individually to control the emergence and spread of new drugs on 
the EU market, the prevention of drug trafficking across borders and to ensure the provision 
of quality treatment and care. 

EU  citizenship  rights  are  now  firmly  anchored  in  primary  EU  law  and  substantially 
developed  in  secondary  law.  However,  the  EU  Citizenship  Report  201032,  as  well  as  the 
Report on progress towards effective EU Citizenship 2007-201033 concluded that EU citizens 
still  encounter  difficulties  when  exercising  their  citizenship  rights.  The  most  recurrent 
complaints include difficulties, additional bureaucratic requirements and unacceptable delays 
in the administrative procedures for registration and for issuance of residence cards. These are 
attributed  to  a  certain  extent  to  excessive  bureaucracy,  but  also,  partly,  to  the  incorrect 
interpretation and implementation of relevant EU rules by the national authorities. In October 
2010, there were 63 infringement proceedings launched against Member States in the area of 
free movement and residence of EU citizens. Obstacles are identified regarding the exercise 
of electoral rights34 and the effectiveness of EU citizens' right to consular protection remains 
to be proven35. At the same time the EU citizens are not fully aware of their rights. Almost 
half of European citizens (48%) indicate that they are not well informed about their rights as 
Union  citizens36.  Lack  of  information  is  considered  by  EU  citizens  as  one  of  the  most 
important  barriers  to  cross-border  commuting37  and  to  exercising  their  right  to  free 
movement38. 

The 2010 Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights39 found that 
people’s interest in and expectations about the enforcement of the Charter are high. However, 
the  Charter  does  not  apply  to  all  situations  in  which  fundamental  rights  are  at  issue  in  the 
European Union. In 2010, the Commission received more than 4.000 letters from the general 
public  regarding  fundamental  rights.  Approximately  three  quarters  of  these  concerned  cases 
outside the remit of EU law. This reflects a frequent misunderstanding about the purpose of 
the Charter and the situations where the Charter applies or does not apply.  

31 2010 Annual Report on the state of the drugs problem in Europe, EMCDDA, November 2010,  
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_120104_EN_EMCDDA_AR2010_EN.pdf . 

32 EU Citizenship Report 2010, COM(2010) 603 final of 27.10.2010. The report was based on the large number 
of  complaints  and  enquiries  the  Commission  receives  every  year,  on  recent  Eurobarometer  surveys,  on 
discussions  with  stakeholders,  on  the  outcome  of  a  public  consultation  concluded  on  15  June  2010  and  a 
conference on ‘EU citizens’ rights-the way forward’ that took place on 1 and 2 July 2010. 

33 Report on progress towards effective EU Citizenship 2007-2010, COM(2010) 602 final of 27.10.2010. 
34 EU Citizenship Report 2010 COM (2010) 603 final of 27.10.2010; Report on the election of Members of the 
European Parliament (1976 Act as amended by Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom) and on the participation of 
European Union citizens in elections for the European Parliament in the Member State of residence (Directive 
93/109/EC), COM(2010) 605 final of 27.10.2010.  

35 EU Citizenship Report 2010 COM (2010) 603 final of 27.10.2010; Communication on Consular protection for 

EU citizens in third countries: State of play and way forward, COM(2011) 149 final of 23.3.2011. 

36 Flash Eurobarometer 294 on European Union Citizenship, published in October 2010, 

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_294_en.pdf  

37 Scientific Report on the Mobility of Cross-Border Workers within the EU-27/EEA/EFTA Countries, January 

2009. 

38 Eurobarometer  Qualitative  study  "European  Citizenship  –  Cross-border  mobility"  Aggregate  Report  of  

August 2010, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/quali/5823_citizenship_en.pdf  

39 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/rights/docs/report_EU_charter_FR_2010_en.pdf  

EN 

14   

  EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
The specific area of the Rights of the Child also suffers from a general lack of awareness. 
The results of two Eurobarometer surveys of 2008 and 200940 showed that 76 % of children 
interviewed were not aware of having rights and 79 % did not know who to contact in case of 
need.  When  asked  what  action  the  EU  should  take  to  promote  and  protect  the  rights  of  the 
child, 88 % of respondents indicated that the EU should provide more information to children 
about their rights in an accessible way.  

Despite  remarkable  advances  towards  equality  between  women  and  men  in  the  past  few 
decades  significant  inequalities  persist  at  global  and  EU  level  and  there  are  still  significant 
gender  gaps,  in  both  quantitative  and  qualitative  terms41,  which  are  incompatible  with  the 
fundamental  goals  of  the  Union.  The  current  context  is  characterised,  for  instance,  by  an 
unequal participation of women and men in the labour market, an EU average gender pay gap 
of  17.5%,  an  unbalanced  representation  of  women  and  men  in  decision-making  (the 
proportion  of  female  members  of  national  parliaments  is  approximately  24%)  and  the 
enduring violation of fundamental rights such as gender-based violence. The Eurobarometer 
conducted at the end of 2009 shows that 62% of the respondents perceive gender inequality as 
a  widespread  phenomenon  and  violence  against  women  and  the  gender  pay  gap  are 
considered as the two main priorities for action42.  

According  to  the  special  Eurobarometer  on  discrimination  in  the  EU  in  200943,  16%  of 
Europeans  reported  experiencing  discrimination  in  2009.  This  percentage  is  much  higher  if 
we consider the interviewees declaring themselves as belonging to a minority group (33% of 
disabled  people,  25%  of  people  having  a  different  ethnic  background).  Only  1  out  of  3  of 
Europeans  are  aware  of  their  rights  should  they  become  a  victim  of  discrimination  or 
harassment.  The  figures  show  also  a  strong  increase  in  the  perception  of  the  existence  of 
discrimination based on age and disability compared to 2008. There is a strong link between 
the  economic  crisis  and  the  increased  perception  of  age  discrimination.  The  advent  of  the 
economical crisis has lowered confidence that European governments will continue to address 
issues of discrimination with the same level of funding and sense of priority.  

Furthermore, the EU has become a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities in January 2011 and 18 Member States have ratified it while the rest are in the 
process of doing so. The Convention is the first international human rights instrument that the 
EU adheres to. However persons with disabilities are not yet able to fully enjoy the rights and 
fundamental  freedoms  enshrined  in  the  Convention.  Recent  data  shows  for  example  a 
considerable gap between persons with disabilities and those without disabilities in relation to 

40 Flash Eurobarometer 235 on The Rights of the Child, published in April 2008,  

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_235_en.pdf; 
Flash Eurobarometer 273 on The Rights of the Child, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_273_en.pdf. 
41  Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  Background  document  accompanying  the  Strategy  for  Equality 

between Women and Men 2010-2015, SEC(2010) 1080 final of 21.9.2010. 

42  Special Eurobarometer 326 on Gender equality in the EU in 2009, published in February 2010, 

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_326_en.pdf  
See  also  Special  Eurobarometer  344  on  Domestic  Violence  against  Women,  published  in  September  2010, 
where 87% of the respondents agreed that action should be taken at EU level.  
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_344_en.pdf  

43 Special Eurobarometer 317 on Discrimination in the EU in 2009, published in November 2009,  

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_317_en.pdf  

EN 

15   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
access to employment, education and risk of poverty44 representing a challenge to achieve the 
Europe 2020 headline targets. Furthermore, it is important to mention that the Convention is a 
wide  instrument  that  mainstreams  disability  matters  in  a  wide  range  of  EU  policies.  To 
address  those  challenges  the  Commission  issued  a  European  disability  strategy  2010-2020 
proposing a wide number of actions. 

4.1.2  The role of funding in overcoming these obstacles and its added value  

The  EU  is  addressing  the  challenges  mentioned  above  by  developing  a  strong  set  of 
legislative and policy measures and by promoting their coherent implementation.  

The role of funding is to support the EU legislative and policy activity and to provide concrete 
solutions  to  specific  problems  that  are  common  in  all  policy  fields  analysed  above.  The 
specific problems to be addressed by funding activities are summarised below: 

- Insufficient knowledge of the EU acquis and of EU policies by the persons who derive 
rights from it.  

-  Insufficient  knowledge  of  the  EU  acquis  and  of  EU  policies  by  the  relevant 
practitioners, leading to inconsistent and insufficient application of EU law and policies. 

- Insufficient cooperation and exchange of information at transnational level and lack of 
mutual trust between authorities, such as judicial authorities. 

-  Need  for  concrete  information,  evidence,  research  and  good  practices  concerning  the 
situation  and  the  needs  on  the  ground,  in  order  to  feed  to  the  development  of  EU 
legislation and policies.  

Funding therefore is an essential tool:  

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

to bridge the period until legislation is prepared and adopted and to help to prepare 
state-of-art legislation,  
to  enhance  the  quality  implementation  and  application  of  the  adopted  legislation 
and  
to bridge the gap where legislation alone might appear to be ineffective.  

In this context the role of funding is to provide adequate support in an effective and efficient 
manner.  Its  focus  has  to  be  on  activities  with clear added value that can  produce maximum 
benefit  in  addressing  policy  challenges.  The  added  value  of  the  activities  funded  under  the 
current programmes was confirmed by the evaluations. More specifically:  

Funding should enhance the effectiveness of legislation by supporting: 

44 On the basis of the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) from 2008, it is estimated that the 
percentage of persons with disabilities having completed tertiary education or equivalent in the age group 30-
34 is around 19%, while for those without disabilities the figure is around 31%. The employment rate (from 
the same source) among those between 20-64 years old with disabilities is 45 % compared to 73% for persons 
without  disabilities.  The  poverty  risk  for  persons  with  disabilities  older  than  sixteen  years  is  21%  while  for 
those without disabilities it is about 15%.  

EN 

16   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(cid:131)  Information  and  public  awareness  raising,  including  support  for  national  and 
European campaigns to inform people of their rights, as guaranteed under EU law;  

(cid:131)  Training  and  capacity  building  for  legal  professionals  (such  as  judges  and 
prosecutors) and other practitioners, to equip them with the tools to effectively put 
EU rights and policies into practice. 

These types of activities contribute to increasing knowledge, awareness and capacity 
of  citizens,  professionals  and  stakeholders.  Only  action  at  EU  level  can  provide 
coordinated activities that can reach all EU Member States and consistently contribute 
to developing mutual understanding and reducing the barriers that citizens face in their 
mobility within the internal market.  

Funding has a central role in promoting cooperation at transnational level, through: 

(cid:131)  Strengthening networks, i.e. EU-wide organisations to assist with the preparation of 
future  initiatives  in  this  area,  as  well  as  to  promote  their  consistent  implementation 
across Europe;  

(cid:131)  Cross-border  cooperation  on  enforcement,  for  example  establishing  missing  child 
alert systems, coordination of operational and cross-border anti-drug co-operation;  

These  types  of  activities  promote  networking,  mutual  cooperation  and  mutual  trust 
among the participants. Their EU added value lies mainly in generating, sharing and 
disseminating  information,  data,  and  knowledge  between  the  numerous  stakeholders 
concerned.  Without  EU  support,  these  stakeholders  would  tend  to  address  similar 
problems  in  a  fragmented  and  disconnected  way.  Collaboration  and  networking 
between them lead to the dissemination of best practices, in particular innovative and 
integrated approaches in different Member States. The participants in these activities 
can act as multipliers in their respective professional activities and disseminate wider 
the best practices within their Member State. Furthermore, support of cooperation in 
enforcement  not  only  improves  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  cross-border 
actions  and  the  speed  with  which  they  can  be  carried  out,  but  also  benefits  directly 
Member States at national level. 

Additionally, funding should support:  

(cid:131)  Research, analysis and other support activities, to provide to the legislator clear and 

detailed information on the problems and the situation on the ground.  

The results of these activities feed into the development and the implementation of EU 
policies  and  ensure  that  they  are  evidence-based,  well  targeted  and  well  structured. 
This type of research, analysis and support activities can only be funded at EU level in 
order  to  obtain  comprehensive  information  covering  all  Member  States.  Funding  at 
national  level  would  not  provide  the  same  results,  but  would  result  in  a  fragmented 
and limited approach. 

EN 

17   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2  Challenges in management and delivery 

Besides  the  positive  role  of  funding  and  the  achievements  of  the  ongoing  programmes,  the 
mid-term  evaluations  identified  also  key  areas  where  improvement  is  needed  in  order  to 
maximise the results and impact of the programmes. The issues identified are to a great extent 
common for the five programmes and some of them apply also to PROGRESS. The analysis 
below  is  structured  on  the  basis  of  the  key  areas  where  common  problems  are  identified. 
Additional  reference,  where  applicable,  is  made  to  problems  faced  by  each  specific 
programme. 

4.2.1  Relevance/Scope 

The  mid-term  evaluations  of  all  programmes  did  not  put  in  question  the  content  of  the 
programmes. They concluded that the programmes are highly relevant to respond to the needs 
they were designed to address and they confirmed the importance of their impact for the target 
groups.  They  confirmed  the  need  for  funding  in  the  respective  areas  and  acknowledged 
that the funded activities contribute to the achievement of the foreseen objectives. In terms of 
scope, some recommendations were made, but the issues raised did not put in doubt the need 
for the continuation of funding. 

The same view was expressed by the respondents in the public consultation, who confirmed 
the  relevance  of  the  programmes'  scope.  The  overwhelming  majority  of  the  respondents 
agreed that funding should be maintained and acknowledged the EU added value in allocating 
funding in these areas.  

The  area  of  justice  and  rights  has  a  developing  and  very  dynamic  policy  agenda.  An 
indication of this is that issues related to this area make up 14% of the Commission’s overall 
work  programme.  Within  this  context  funding  has  to  address  two  challenges:  to  provide 
support to the development of a wide policy area and to ensure that this support can also focus 
on  specific  needs  of  the  ongoing  policy  developments.  This  approach  is  consistent  with  the 
goals set by the Commission in the EU Budget Review and in the Budget for Europe 202045. 
In practice it means that the structure of the budget has to ensure flexibility.  

The  existence  of  six  different,  small-scale  funding  programmes  in  this  policy  area  does  not 
support  flexibility,  but  rather  presents  a  fragmented  and  rigid  approach.  Each  programme 
focuses  only  on  a  specific,  limited  policy  area,  setting  a  small-scale  scope  for  its  activities 
(e.g.  Criminal  Justice,  Civil  Justice,  Violence  against  women,  children  and  young  people, 
Drug  Prevention  and  Infromation).  This  means  in  practice  that  six  sub-areas  of  funding  are 
maintained.  

In  this  context  horizontal  and  cross-cutting  issues  cannot  be  addressed  in  a  comprehensive 
way or they are only partially addressed within the specific scope of each programme. Greater 
flexibility  in  the  allocation  of  funds  between  programmes  in  order  to  adapt  to  policy 
developments and needs is not possible. From  a policy perspective this fragmentation poses 
substantial  limitations  to  the  use  of  funding  as  a  tool  for  the  development  of  a  strong  and 
coherent policy area. This situation is clearly evident in the area of criminal and civil justice, 
as  each  programme  partially  covers  issues  such  as  judicial  training  or  e-Justice,  while  a 
comprehensive approach is missing.  

45 Communication on A Budget for Europe 2020, COM(2011) 500 final of 29.06.2011. 

EN 

18   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In addition to this fragmentation a number of overlaps can be identified among the different 
programmes,  as  they  address  interlinked  issues  with  common  aspects.  Some  indicative 
examples are presented below: 

- 

- 

- 

In the area of promoting judicial cooperation, funding can be obtained from two different 
programmes, Civil Justice or Criminal Justice, depending on the objective of the action. 
However,  horizontal  issues  such  as  e-justice  or  judicial  training  can  be  addressed  only 
partially by these programmes, either from the criminal justice or the civl justice point of 
view.  

In  the  area  of  children’s  rights,  child  protection  and  prevention  of  violence  against 
children  the  Fundamental  Rights  and  Citizenship  programme  overlaps  with  the  Daphne 
programme. 

In preventing drug addiction and violence between young people, Daphne and the Drugs 
Prevention  and  Information  programme  overlap,  whereas  some  aspects  could  also  be 
relevant to the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship programme.  

-  Non-discrimination  is  within  the  scope  of  both  Fundamental  Rights  and  Citizenship 

programme and PROGRESS/Non-discrimination. 

-  Violence against women is the focus of Daphne programme, but it has also strong links 
with  PROGRESS/Gender  Equality,  with  Fundamental  Rights  and  Citizenship  and  with 
Criminal Justice. 

The overlaps between programmes allow beneficiaries to submit similar funding applications 
under  several  programmes  or  to  choose  the  programme  for  submitting  their  application  not 
based on thematic relevance, but based on the average success-rate under a given programme. 
As a result, different programmes could fund similar activities, which have not been evaluated 
against each other. This duplication of activities reduces the cost-effectiveness and the impact 
of funding.  

The  fragmentation  and  overlaps  between  the  programmes  are  evident  also  while  comparing 
the  annual  priorities  of  the  programmes46.  The  overlaps  in  the  scope  between  some  of  the 
programmes, as indicated above, have often as consequence overlaps in their annual priorities. 
For  example,  the  annual  priorities  of  both  FRC  and  DAP  cover  issues  related  to  children's 
rights. This problem was pointed out by the mid-term evaluations of the programmes, which 
recommended that the focus of the programmes should be improved. It should be noted that 
the recommendations of these mid-term evaluations aim to improve the implementation of the 

46   For the allocation of funding in different policy areas the setting of objectives and the setting of priorities 
take  place  at  different  points  in  time.  The  general  and  specific  objectives  are  identified  in  the  legal  act, 
which  provides  the  general  legal  framework  for  the  implementation  of  the  programme.  These  objectives 
cannot be changed throughout the duration of the programme and thus they should be formulated in a way 
that would remain valid until the end of the programme's duration. They define the scope of the programme. 
In addition there are the annual priorities which are set on an annual basis in the annual work programmes 
for each programme. These are more operational and determine the focus of funding for the coming year. 
The annual priorities are within the scope of the general and specific objectives and depend on and reflect 
the current developments. 

EN 

19   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ongoing  programmes  and  propose  solutions  compatible  within  the  current  programme 
structure.  In  these  terms  and  since  the  objectives  of  the  ongoing  programmes  cannot  be 
changed,  the  solution  proposed  by  the  mid-term  evaluations  was  to  improve  the  focus  by 
identifying the annual priorities carefully. However the root cause of the overlaps lies in the 
definition  of  the  programmes’  scope,  which  is  a  problem  to  be  addressed  at  the  stage  of 
designing the structure of the funding programmes.  

The  fragmentation  of  the  funds  in  this  area  under  six  different  small-scale  programmes 
compromises also the ability of the programmes to align their annual priorities with the policy 
needs. For example, addressing priorities concerning judicial cooperation can only be partly 
covered by JCIV and only to the extent that it relates to civil justice. Mirror priorities referring 
to criminal justice should be foreseen under the JPEN programme in order to ensure coverage 
of the whole justice area. This split approach does not allow the flexible allocation of funds 
according  to  the  annual  needs  and  prevents  the  development  of  one  comprehensive  and 
coherent  approach  on  horizontal  issues,  such  as  e-justice.  In  this  respect  the  current  small-
scale approach does not present an effective tool to address the emerging wider-scale policy 
needs of a quickly developing policy area.  

Furthermore,  the  fragmentation  and  overlaps  result  in  a  dilution  of  the  programmes'  funds. 
Relatively  small  amounts  are  allocated  to  separate  programmes  which  are  implemented  in 
parallel but without a common approach. This situation prevents the creation of economies of 
scale and does not allow funding to be used annually in a focused way in order to produce its 
maximum impact.  

Complementarity and synergies with funding programmes in other areas of EU policy 

The  scope  of  the  current  funding  activities  has  certain  common  aspects  with  funding 
programmes  in  other  areas  of  EU  policy.  Overlaps  between  small-scale  programmes  within 
the same policy area result in the deficiencies described above. On the other hand, overlaps 
between programmes in different policy areas have the potential of increased impact as they 
can  provide  a  complementary  approach  to  problems.  Within  this  context  the  funding 
objectives  of  the  area  of  justice  and  rights  are  complementary  to  the  funding  objectives  of 
specific other EU policies:  

- Home Affairs policies 
The  Home  Affairs  and  Justice  policies  form  an  integral  part  of  the  EU  policies  for  the 
development  of  an  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  as  set  out  in  the  Stockholm 
Programme.  Funding  in  the  area  of  Home  Affairs  policies  aims  to  enhance  the  effective 
management  of  migration  flows  to  the  EU  and  to  enhance  EU's  internal  security.  In  these 
terms  it  has  a  different  angle  than  the  policies  on  justice  and  rights.  Examples  of  funding 
synergies in these two areas are the support to victims of different crimes, the prevention of 
sexual crimes and combating drug-related crimes.  

- Citizenship 
Both the current Fundamental Rights and Citizenship programme (FRC) and the Europe for 
Citizens  programme  (EfCP)  deal  with  'citizenship  issues'.  However,  the  term  'citizenship'  is 
used with a different meaning and the programmes follow different objectives. Whereas FRC 
addresses  the  issue  of  the  'Union  citizenship'  in  the  sense  of  the  EU  treaty  (e.g.  free 
movement,  participation  in  European  and  local  elections  in  the  Member  State  of  residence, 
consular  protection,  citizenship-related  obstacles  to  EU  citizens'  rights),  EfCP  addresses  the 

EN 

20   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
participatory  dimensions  of  citizenship,  referring  to  a  sense  of  belonging  and  of  ownership, 
general/institutional issues, values, (so-called 'active citizenship').  

- Employment and Social policies  
The  policies  on  equality  and  anti-discrimination  have  close  links  both  to  the  policies  on 
justice  and  rights  and  to  the  policies  on  employment  and  social  policies.  Funding  in  these 
areas is currently included in the PROGRESS programme, but managed by DG Justice. The 
integration of funding for these two areas in the future programmes of the area of justice and 
rights  is  necessary  in  order  to  present  a  clear  solution,  consistent  with  the  policy 
developments.  Synergies  with  the  employment  and  social  policies  would  be  continued  and 
further developed.  

- Consumer Protection  
The funding needs of the consumer protection policies are currently covered by the Consumer 
Programme. However, a number of consumer protection issues are addressed within the scope 
of civil law and rights of citizens. The Consumer Programme and its likely successor focus on 
the safety and empowerment of consumers via fostering consumer education and information, 
enhancing  safety  of  products,  supporting  consumer  organisations  and  enforcing  consumer 
rights through networks of enforcement authorities. Funding in the area of justice and rights, 
on the other hand, would aim to cover the preparation and quality implementation of a major 
part  of  consumer  legislation,  namely  contract,  marketing  and  unfair  commercial  practices 
legislation,  as  well  as  related  information,  redress  and  enforcement  activities.  In  practical 
terms this means that funding must be targeted to support the alignment of the existing legal 
framework to the technological developments, to enhance public awareness and knowledge of 
EU law in this area and to support its implementation and application by the Member States. 
As a result, target groups and beneficiaries of funding are different.  

4.2.2  Effectiveness  

The  mid-term  evaluations  have  confirmed  the  overall  effectiveness  of  the  programmes.  The 
programmes’  objectives  and  the  annual  priorities  are  fully  addressed  by  the  awarded  grants 
and  the  Commission  initiatives.  When  evaluating  the  impact  of  the  programmes  as  a  whole 
(i.e.  the  full  impact  of  all  funded  activities),  the  mid-term  evaluations  confirmed  that  the 
programmes are effective in reaching their objectives. However, when evaluating the impact 
of  separate  activities,  the  mid-term  evaluations  have  identified  a  number  of  problems  to  be 
addressed. 

A  dilution  of  funds  ('saupoudrage')  has  been  identified  within  the  five  programmes:  the 
funds  are  divided  among  many  rather  small-scale  projects.  Due  to  the  low  upper  funding 
ceilings  per  project,  the  applicants  can  only  design  and  submit  applications  for  small-scale 
projects, i.e. projects with limited number of partners, projects covering only a few Member 
States,  projects  developing  only  a  limited  set  of  activities.  As  an  example,  under  FRC  the 
average  partnership  per  project  is  4.5  organisations  from  at  least  two  Member  States,  with 
average funding of € 341.000 per project and an av erage duration of 21 months. The result of 
this allocation is that each organisation would receive in average less than € 50.000 per year 
in order to implement the project activities. This scale of funding is evidently small-scale and 
in consequence the impact of each project is relatively small-scale. The effectiveness of the 
programmes as a whole is not severely compromised by this problem, as it is boosted by the 
combined implementation of a multitude of projects (111 projects were funded by FRC during 
2007-2010).  However,  since  at  implementation  stage  many  different  projects  develop  their 

EN 

21   

  EN 

 
 
  
 
 
activities in parallel, overlaps and duplication among them cannot be excluded. Through this 
model, although each awarded action has a clear impact within its scope of activities, the fact 
that the scope of each project is limited prevents the programmes themselves from achieving 
economies of scale and aiming strongly for Europe-wide large-scale impact.  

The small-scale partnerships and the small-scale projects have led the mid-term evaluations to 
recommend  that  the  awarded  projects  should  have  a  stronger  EU  dimension.  The  vast 
majority  of  the  funded  projects  are  not  national  projects,  but  they  are  implemented  by 
transnational partnerships. This cooperation between organisations promotes mutual learning 
and  exchange  of  good  practices  and  contributes  to  improved  and  more  coherent 
implementation of policies and legislation. In these terms there is clear EU added value for a 
project  when  it  reaches,  e.g.  3  Member  States.  However  this  EU  added  value  can  be 
strengthened by the cooperation of a wider partnership of organisations, from more Member 
States working together for the implementation of a single action. 

Despite  the  fact  that  funding  is  allocated  to  a  multitude  of  projects,  there  is  no  balanced 
geographical  spread  among  the  organisations  which  receive  funding.  This  imbalance  is 
evident in the relevant statistics and is pointed out both by the mid-term evaluations and by 
respondents to the public consultation, in particular those from the new Member States. This 
is the result of a number of factors, such as the extent of the problem in each Member State, 
the awareness of and interest in the problem, the lack or the existence of similar national or 
other  funding  mechanisms,  the  experience  of  organisations  in  submitting  applications  or 
managing projects, the willingness of organisations to undertake the management of a project 
or to participate only as a partner etc. 

The  results  of  all  mid-term  evaluations  agree  that  more  should  be  done  to  improve  the 
dissemination and use of the results and outputs of the funded activities. Dissemination to 
a wider public is identified as key element for ensuring better impact for the five programmes 
(JCIV, JPEN, FRC, DAP, DPIP). Also the interim results of the mid-term evaluation and the 
annual performance monitoring reports of PROGRESS confirm that despite continued efforts 
in  the  last  years,  visibility  and  dissemination  of  the  programme's  results  deserve  further 
improvement to ensure sustainability and the long-term exploitation of funded projects.  

Improvement in dissemination goes hand in hand with improvement in the evaluation and 
monitoring.  Different  evaluation  and  monitoring  systems  have  been  used  by  the  six 
programmes.  The  five  specific  programmes  of  the  Framework  Programme  on  Fundamental 
Rights  and  Justice  (JCIV,  JPEN,  FRC,  DAP,  DPIP)  foresee  only  a  mid-term  and  a  final 
evaluation. The evaluation and reporting for these programmes focuses more on quantitative 
aspects  (number  of  projects  and  beneficiaries  funded,  etc)  and  highlights  management 
problems.  The  lack  of  a  stronger  link  between  the  project  results  and  their  impact  on  the 
relevant  policies  is  identified  as  a  deficiency  of  the  evaluation  and  monitoring  system 
currently in place. The monitoring and evaluation system of PROGRESS includes in addition 
annual  activity  reports,  focusing  on  the  results  of  the  programme.  This  annual  reporting 
allows better monitoring to ensure that project outputs reach policy objectives. This method of 
evaluation  proved  to  be  successful  in  demonstrating  the  programme’s  achievements  and 
added value, as well as in enhancing the EU’s accountability and the preliminary findings of 
its mid-term evaluation recommend maintaining this approach. The comparison between the 
two systems shows the added value of the results-based management and the annual reporting 
cycle.  A  limited  additional  administrative  burden  would  be  linked  to  complying  with  the 

EN 

22   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
requirements of this system and this would need to be accommodated within the management 
resources of the future programmes. 

4.2.3  Efficiency 

As  already  noted  in  the  Budget  for  Europe  202047  the  complexity  of  programme  structures 
and  the  multiplication  of  programmes  hamper  the  impact  of  EU  spending  and  create 
administrative  burden  for  applicants.  In  the  EU  budget  there  are  too  many  separate 
programmes and instruments serving similar or complementary objectives, to which different 
management rules apply. An indicative example of this fragmentation is funding in the area of 
justice and rights, as already analysed above.  

Both  the  mid-term  evaluations  and  the  public  consultation  note  the  complex  and 
bureaucratic procedures that the applicants are facing. Each year prospective applicants 
for a grant must keep track of approximately 10-13 different calls for proposals (one or more 
calls for action grants and one call for operating grants under each programme) and have to 
work through different priorities, eligibility, selection and award criteria, different supporting 
documents and different deadlines for submission. During the implementation of a project the 
rules  governing  the  different  programmes  are  similar,  but  there  are  deviations  which  can 
confuse  and  mislead  the  beneficiaries.  Similarly,  after  the  end  of  a  project  the  reporting 
documents  and  the  reporting  obligations  have  many  similarities,  but  are  not  uniform  for  all 
programmes.  The  difficult  and  complicated  procedures  are  identified  by  the  respondents  of 
the  public  consultation  as  an  important  obstacle  that  may  discourage  and  prevent  potential 
applicants from submitting an application and receiving EU funding. It is indicative that 79% 
of the respondents in the public consultation confirm that there is need for simplification and 
improvement of the programmes. 

From  the  administrative  point  of  view  the  multiplication  of  the  same  procedures  for  the 
different  programmes  imposes  high  administrative  burden  on  the  Commission.  The 
differences  between  the  six  programmes  require  an  equal  number  of  annual  work 
programmes, calls for proposals, selection procedures and award decisions. Human resources 
are dispersed among the different programmes and extra time and effort is needed to ensure 
coordination and coherence and to avoid overlaps and duplication. This results in allocating 
significant resources to the financial management, although the budget for this area is only a 
small part of the overall EU budget (approx. 0,1%). The heavy workload obliges the resources 
to focus on management tasks at the expense of tasks that can improve the effectiveness of the 
programmes,  such  as  dissemination  of  results  and  result-based  monitoring  and  evaluation. 
Also  the  dilution  of  funds  among  many  rather  small-scale  projects  and  the  corresponding 
heavy workload for their management do not present a good case of cost effectiveness for the 
Commission  (small-scale  impact  –  significant  resources)  and  steps  for  improvement  are 
required.  

The multiplication of procedures and the high administrative burden contribute to increasing 
the length of procedures. The period between the submission of applications and the start of 
the selected projects cannot be very short due to the procedural requirements imposed by the 

47 Commission Staff Working Paper, A Budget for Europe 2020: the current system of funding, the challenges 
ahead, the results of stakeholders consultation and different option on the main horizontal and sectoral issues, 
SEC(2011)  868  final,  Accompanying  the  Communication  on  A  Budget  for  Europe  2020,  COM(2011)  500 
final of 29.6.2011. 

EN 

23   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
basic  act  (consultation  of  the  Member  States  and  the  right  of  scrutiny  of  the  European 
Parliament).  The  high  administrative  burden  for  the  Commission  to  finalise  six  different 
procedures  with  the  challenges  that  are  noted  above  prolongs  this  period  further.  The 
available  human  resources  are  dispersed  in  implementing  the  procedures  for  the  different 
programmes and any effort to accelerate work is equally fragmented within each programme, 
preventing a considerable improvement.  

The administrative and control procedures in the financial management cycle are designed to 
ensure  sound  financial  management,  prevention  of  fraud  and  protection  of  the  financial 
interests of EU, as well as the necessary consultation within the EU institutions. Within the 
context of these procedures, the high number of programmes and the differences in approach, 
structure,  rules  and  requirements  of  each  different  programme  complicate  additionally  the 
funding  procedures  for  potential  applicants  and  beneficiaries  and  impose  additional 
administrative burden.  

An  important  step  in  overcoming  the  problems  of  efficiency  was  the  introduction  of  the 
electronic grant management system. The procedures were somewhat simplified and unified, 
some  Commission  resources  (especially  in  terms  of  administrative  tasks  related  to  the 
physical handling and registering of the applications) were freed and there was some, but not 
a significant acceleration of the procedure. However, the root cause of the problems described 
above  remains  the  high  number  of  programmes  and  the  need  for  duplication  of  the  same 
procedures for each programme.  

5  EU'S RIGHT TO ACT 

5.1  The EU’s right to act 

The EU’s right to act derives from different legal bases both within and outside Title V of Part 
Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.  

Within Title V:  

(cid:198)  Judicial cooperation in civil matters (Article 81(1) and (2) TFEU); 
(cid:198)  Judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Article 82(1) TFEU); 
(cid:198)  Crime prevention (Article 84 TFEU). 

Outside Title V: 

(cid:198)  Non-discrimination (Article 19(2) TFEU); 
(cid:198)  EU citizenship (Article 21(2) TFEU); 
(cid:198)  Internal Market (Article 114 TFEU); 
(cid:198)  Public health (Article 168 TFEU); 
(cid:198)  Consumer protection (Article 169 TFEU); 
(cid:198)  Administrative cooperation (Article 197 TFEU); 

5.2  Subsidiarity principle 

To overcome the issues identified above, action at EU level is necessary and produces clear 
benefits compared to action at the level of Member States alone. The creation of a European 
area  of  justice  and  rights  requires  transnational  cooperation  mechanisms  and  networking 

EN 

24   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
opportunities for the professionals concerned, which can typically not be achieved by Member 
States  acting  alone.  Mutual  trust  between  Member  States  cannot  be  satisfactorily  developed 
without incentives at EU level. Moreover, Member States are not in the best position to ensure 
consistent  interpretation  and  coherent  application  of  legislative  instruments  throughout  the 
EU. 

Action at EU level allows for objectives to be pursued consistently across the EU, and brings 
economies of scale and synergies. Moreover, the European Union is in a better position than 
Member  States  to  ensure  that  people  and  businesses  are  made  aware  of  their  rights  in 
particular  in  cross-border  situations,  to  promote  transnational  cooperation  and  networking, 
and to support the consistent implementation of EU law by training the judiciary and judicial 
staff on EU law. A few examples: 

In the area of justice, the key principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition of judicial and 
extra-judicial  decisions  can  be  supported  more  efficiently  by  action  at  EU  level.  Member 
States  judicial  authorities  generally  don’t  have  a  tradition  of  cooperating  or  exchanging 
information  with  each  other,  and  will  tend  to  have  bi-lateral  contacts  rather  than  to  work 
within EU-wide networks. Access to justice in cross-border cases can also be facilitated more 
efficiently by action at EU level. 

In  the  area  of  data  protection,  the  lack  of  a  consistent  enforcement  of  EU  rules  and  of 
cooperation mechanisms between Member States can only be addressed satisfactorily by EU-
level action. 

In  many  areas,  such  as  consumer  law,  equality  and  non-discrimination  or  citizenship, 
individuals  are  protected  by  European  legislation,  but  are  not  sufficiently  aware  about  their 
rights.  Only  awareness-raising  actions  at  EU  level  can  ensure  that  persons  in  all  Member 
States are reached, and that a consistent message is passed on. Moreover, action at EU level 
such as a EU-wide campaign will bring economies of scale compared to action at the level of 
Member  States.  The  same  is  true  for  professionals  who  have  to  apply  the  law,  be  it  legal 
advisors,  judges  or  public  authorities.  Information  material  or  training  modules  on  EU 
legislation or EU instruments developed at EU level with the aim to be used in all Member 
States are more efficient than to have all Member States developing their own material, if at 
all.  

6  OBJECTIVES 

The Budget for Europe 2020 aims to support in practice the objectives for smart, sustainable 
and inclusive growth as set out by the Communication on Europe 202048. Funding in the area 
of  justice  and  rights  supports  the  flagship  initiatives  of  Europe  2020:  Developing  a  well-
functioning area of justice, promoting fundamental rights and gender equality and combating 
discrimination are crucial aspects in achieving sustainable and inclusive growth, in improving 
skills, in ensuring social cohesion and increasing levels of employment and in fighting social 
exclusion  and  poverty.  Concretely,  the  funding  in  the  area  of  civil  law  contributes  to 
sustainable  growth  by  ensuring  that  national  legal  orders  allow  economic  operators  and 
consumers to take full advantage of the internal market and by putting in place a system of 
laws designed to remove obstacles and facilitate the expansion of cross-border activities. The 
development  of  contract  and  consumer  law  provides  practical  solutions  for  businesses  and 

48 Communication on Europe 2020, COM(2010) 2020 final of 3.3.2010. 

EN 

25   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
consumers  to  address  the  bottlenecks  in  the  internal  market.  Achieving  gender  equality  and 
combating discriminations is also crucial for the EU’s growth and exit of the crisis, and for 
achieving full employment and social cohesion objectives. The objective of reducing poverty 
implies fighting against discrimination and reducing women's poverty. Education and training 
of  all  are  essential  to  the  development  of  Europe  as  a  “knowledge-based  society”,  which  is 
one of the key components for a sound and competitive economy. 

General objective:  

The general objective of all funding activities in the area of justice and rights is:  

•  To provide focused, effective and efficient support to the development of a European area 

of justice, respectful of rights and equality 

Specific and operational objectives:  

The following specific and operational objectives are identified in line with the objectives of 
the Communication for A Budget for Europe 2020:  

•  Ensure that the scope of each programme is appropriate to provide support to the policies 

and to be responsive to the annual policy priorities  

(cid:190)  Ensure flexibility in the allocation of funds within this area of funding  

(cid:190)  Reduce overlaps and fragmentation between the programmes  

•  Focus  funding  on  specific  areas  of  action  which  have  clear  added  value  and  are 

responsive to the annual policy priorities 

(cid:190)  Enhance public awareness and knowledge of EU law and policies  

(cid:190)  Support the implementation of EU law and policies in Member States  

(cid:190)  Promote cooperation and build up mutual knowledge and mutual trust 

(cid:190)  Improve  knowledge  and  understanding  of  potential  issues  affecting  the  smooth 
functioning of a European area of justice, the exercise of rights guaranteed by the 
Treaty, by the Charter of Fundamental Rights or by secondary EU legislation, with 
view to ensuring evidence-based policy making 

•  Improve the effectiveness and performance-orientation of the programmes 

(cid:190)  Prevent dilution of funds  

(cid:190)  Ensure better geographical coverage 

(cid:190)  Improve dissemination and use of the results 

(cid:190)  Improve monitoring and evaluation of the programmes  

•  Improve the efficiency of the programmes (simplification) 

EN 

26   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(cid:190)  Simplify  the  (application,  monitoring,  reporting)  procedures  for  applicants  and 

beneficiaries  

(cid:190)  Reduce the administrative burden for the Commission 

(cid:190)  Take action to minimise the length of procedures 

7  POLICY OPTIONS  

7.1  Option 0 – Baseline scenario 

The baseline scenario would be that the current situation continues and no action is taken to 
address the identified problems.  

7.2  Option A – 6 programmes – Status quo and improvements at management level 

Under this option the current number of programmes would be maintained.  

The  problems  in  scope  would  be  addressed  through  changes  in  the  objectives  of  the 
programmes. The programmes would be structured on the following basis:  

The  legal  act  of  each  programme  would  provide  a  broad  but  structured  framework, 
identifying: 
- broad general and specific objectives, in order to cover fully the relevant policy area, and  
- concrete areas of action focused on the types of funding that can be of specific assistance to 
policy as identified above under 6.  
The general and specific objectives would be different for each programme, while the areas of 
action would be the same for all programmes. 

The  additional  improvement  would  be  the  development  of  strong  synergies  between  the 
programmes  at  the  stage  of  identifying  the  priorities  of  their  annual  work  programmes. 
Through  close  cooperation  at  this  stage  the  programmes  would  aim  to  reduce  the  overlaps 
between them and to achieve more focus on the relevant policy priorities. 

However  for  the  implementation  of  the  programmes  multiple  and  separate,  programme-
specific  procedures  (annual  work  programmes,  calls  for  proposals,  selection  procedures, 
award decisions) would still be necessary. 

Under this option the main tool to address the challenges in effectiveness and efficiency would 
be the harmonisation and streamlining of the procedures during the annual management cycle 
of the programmes. More specifically the following actions would be envisaged:  

-  Removing the maximum limit of EU funding for each project: this action would invite 
applications  for  bigger  projects,  in  order  to  address  the  dilution  of  funds;  and  at  the 
same time it would encourage a wider geographical coverage of each project; 

- 

Identifying  Member  States  with  low  rates  of  participation  in  the  programmes  and 
organising  information  or  support  activities  to  stimulate  interest  and  improve  their 
participation, aiming at improving the geographical coverage of the programmes; 

-  Prioritising the dissemination of results by actively using the programme websites; 

EN 

27   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  Developing  an  improved  system  for  monitoring  projects  and  focusing  on  a  results-

based approach and performance orientation;  

-  Developing uniform documents, rules and procedures for all stages of the project life-
cycle  (application,  implementation,  reporting)  and  applicable  to  all  programmes, 
aiming to simplify the procedures for applicants; 

-  Full or partial externalisation of the programme management to an executive agency.  

7.3  Option B – 2 programmes  

The current six programmes would be merged into two programmes, a "Justice Programme" 
and a "Rights and Citizenship Programme".  

In  terms  of  scope,  the  measures  of  option  A  would  be  applicable  also  under  option  B:  the 
general  and  specific  objectives  of  each  programme  would  define  the  relevant  policy  area. 
They would be limited in number and clearly focus on their respective area, in order to avoid 
overlaps  with  programmes  of  other  EU  policy  areas.  The  areas  of  action  of  the  two 
programmes would be formulated in a horizontal way, encompassing all identified areas with 
clear added value.  

Additionally,  the  reduction  in  the  number  of  programmes  would  have  direct  impact  on 
addressing  the  problems  of  scope,  i.e.  the  need  for  flexibility  and  for  increased  focus  on 
priorities. Each programme would cover a wider policy area and within this wider scope, the 
programmes would be by definition more responsive and adaptable to annual policy priorities: 
e.g. no further fragmentation would be needed between Criminal and Civil Justice or between 
fundamental  rights  and  anti-discrimination.  At  the  same  time  the  risk  of  overlaps  would  be 
reduced.  

As a result of the merge into two programmes all procedures (annual work programmes, calls 
for proposals, selection procedures, award decisions) would need to be implemented only for 
two  (and  not  anymore  for  six)  programmes.  This  would  have  direct  impact  both  on  the 
effectiveness and the efficiency of the programmes. 

In  addition  all  measures  foreseen  under  Option  A  in  terms  of  addressing  the  problems  of 
effectiveness and efficiency would be applicable and they would be fully implemented under 
this option.  

7.4  Option C – 1 programme  

Under  this  option  only  one  programme  would  be  implemented  in  the  area  of  justice  and 
rights.  

The aim of implementing  this  option is to  address  fully all problems of  scope, effectiveness 
and efficiency that are linked with the implementation of multiple programmes and to achieve 
the maximum possible simplification.   

Each  procedure  (annual  work  programmes,  calls  for  proposals,  selection  procedures,  award 
decisions) would have to be implemented only once. In addition all measures foreseen under 

EN 

28   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
options A and B in terms of addressing the problems of effectiveness and efficiency would be 
applicable and they would be fully implemented under this option.  

However, the implementation of this option in the area of justice and rights would not achieve 
this maximum impact due to the legal constraints of the Title V TFEU. It would imply that 
funding  would  cease  for  one  of  the  two  identified  policy  areas.  A  choice  would  have  to  be 
made  and  funding  would  be  provided  under  either  a  "Justice  Programme"  or  a  "Rights  and 
Citizenship Programme". Funding for the other area would not be provided and consequently 
it would not be possible to address sufficiently the policy priorities and needs. 

7.5  Discarded options 

In  aiming  for  streamlining  and  simplification  a  theoretical  option  could  be  to  change  the 
management mode of the programmes and possibly abandon centralised direct management. 
A  change  from  centralised  management  to  shared  management  (management  of  the  budget 
directly by the Member States) is discarded due to the small amount allocated to this area of 
funding. The available budget is €  911 million for a 7 year period for the whole scope of this 
area. A simple division of the yearly amount among the 27 Member States would result in an 
amount  of  approximately  €  4.8  million  per  Me mber  State  per  year.  Such  limited  amount 
would result in activities with small-scale impact and limited or no EU added value. It would 
lead  to  an  additional  fragmentation  and  dilution  of  funds  among  the  Member  States  and  it 
would prevent funding from focusing on areas with clear added value and mutual benefits and 
from developing economies  of  scale. Thus for such limited funding the shared management 
mode  is  not  an  appropriate  option  as  it  is  not  possible  to  achieve  results  with  a  significant 
impact and a clear EU added value. Its impact would be more limited than the impact of the 
centralised management mode of the current programmes.  

A moderate change of the centralised direct management mode would be to insert objectives 
supporting  justice,  rights  and  equality  policies  into  other  EU  funding  programmes.  This 
option  is  discarded,  because  it  would  not  provide  adequate  support  to  the  policies.  The 
objectives of this policy area would be spread across different other policy areas and different 
programmes. The fragmentation of the current funding programmes would not be addressed, 
but  would  be  rather  amplified,  and  all  identified  problems  would  remain.  Furthermore,  the 
achievement of the objectives of justice, rights and equality would be more difficult, as they 
would be adjacent and secondary to the primary aims of each funding programme. Under this 
option  funding  would  become  a  very  ineffective  tool  and  its  usefulness  for  this  policy  area 
would be doubtful.  

Discontinuing funding in this area is also a discarded option. As demonstrated above, funding 
is  a  substantial  tool  for  supporting  the  development  and  implementation  of  EU  policies  and 
for providing information and raising awareness in this field. The Commission has – and will 
continue  to  –  put  forward  many  legislative  proposals  in  the  area  of  justice,  based  on 
strengthened  provisions  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty.  Within  this  context  discontinuing  funding 
activities  would  pose  an  obstacle  to  the  development  and  implementation  of  legislation. 
Furthermore  it  should  be  noted  that  besides  its  support  to  legislation,  funding  has  been  an 
important tool for policy-making in a number of areas, such as children’s rights or combating 
violence. Discontinuing funding in these areas, where no hard law is adopted, would stop the 
relevant  EU  policy  and  it  would  deprive  the  relevant  fields  from  substantial  support  in  the 
promotion of their work and agenda. 

EN 

29   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
8  ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

8.1  Option 0 – Baseline scenario 

The  impact  of  this  option  would  reflect  the  current  situation  and  the  problems  that  were 
identified  above,  especially  under  section  4.2,  would  remain.  The  programmes  would 
continue  to  achieve  an  overall  successful  implementation,  but  their  deficiencies  would  still 
prevent  them  from  developing  the  full  scale  of  their  potential.  These  deficiencies  are  even 
more  important  in  an  area  of  funding,  where  the  overall  amount  of  the  available  budget  is 
rather limited and where maximum efforts should be concentrated on the efficient allocation 
and management of each available fund, in order to achieve tangible results. 

The lack of flexibility in the funding instruments would be an ever increasing problem in this 
rapidly developing policy area. Especially in cases where funding would be needed to support 
horizontal and cross-cutting issues the limitations due to fragmentation could potentially delay 
or hinder the efficient development of policy.  

The current state of play does not suggest that – in the absence of any action of improvement 
–  there  could  be  a  substantial  change  in  the  scope  and  the  impact  of  the  problems  due  to 
external parameters. However, the policy agenda is very dynamic, aiming to address a wide 
set of challenges and it will require the most effective financial tool to support its activities. In 
this sense, the need for flexibility and effectiveness in funding will be of high importance. 

It should also be noted that the current financial crisis has the potential to increase the demand 
for  EU  funding.  An  increase  in  the  number  of  applicants  for  the  same  funds  would  further 
increase the need for efficient management of the procedures and effective implementation of 
the  programmes.  In  a  funding  area  where  overlaps  and  fragmentation  allows  applicants  to 
submit applications to different programmes the increase in applications would have an even 
heavier  impact  on  the  administration  (more  procedures  to  manage,  each  including  an 
increasing  number  of  applications).  In  such  a  case  the  administrative  burden  for  the 
administration and consequently the delays in the procedures for the beneficiaries would have 
a more negative impact on the efficiency of the programme. 

8.2  Option A – 6 programmes – Status quo and improvements at management level 

The  main  differences  between  this  option  and  the  baseline  scenario  would  be  the 
identification of concrete areas of action and the harmonised management of the programmes. 
The aim would be to develop maximum synergies between the six programmes. The foreseen 
impacts are described in detail below:  

Scope & 
Focus on areas of action, which are responsive to the annual policy priorities 

Funding  would  be  available  for  all  areas  and  all  activities  that  are  covered  by  the  current 
programmes. 

The programmes would continue to deliver results in all areas of action (enhancing awareness 
and  knowledge,  supporting  the  implementation  of  law  and  policies,  promoting  cooperation 
and  improving  knowledge  and  understanding).  There  would  be  some  improvement  in 
achieving these results due to the focus of the programmes on these areas identified for their 

EN 

30   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
larger-scale 

EU added value and due to the improved effectiveness which would result from the measures 
described below. The impact on all areas would be similar: in practical terms, funding bigger 
projects  with 
improved 
dissemination  of  project  results  and  the  improved  monitoring  and  evaluation  would  directly 
imply that the awareness raising activities would be more focused and would reach a wider 
audience; the support to EU law and policies would be more comprehensive; the transnational 
cooperation would be wider and of higher quality; and the results of the analytical activities to 
improve knowledge and understanding would achieve higher quality.  

impact  and  better  geographical  coverage, 

the 

However, the lack of flexibility would not be sufficiently addressed. The route cause of this 
problem  lies  in  the  existence  of  multiple  programmes.  Maintaining  the  number  of 
programmes  and  introducing  harmonisation  measures  would  not  have  an  effect  on  this 
problem. The impact of this option would be the same as the baseline scenario. The support to 
EU law and policy would be more comprehensive, but it would remain fragmented.   

A harmonised procedure in defining the annual priorities of the programmes would bring only 
limited improvement  in addressing  the overlaps among them. The scope of all annual work 
programmes would be defined and accepted in parallel and this coordinated procedure would 
ensure  that  the  annual  priorities  of  each  policy  area  are  neither  duplicated,  nor  omitted. 
However, the small-scale focus of the programmes would not be addressed. Maintaining this 
small-scale focus prevents from achieving considerable positive impact in terms of avoiding 
overlaps. In practical terms all overlapping areas as described under 4.2.1 would remain: e.g. 
the  scope  of  both  FRC  and 
actions  on  anti-discrimination  would  still  fall 
PROGRESS/Antidiscrimination  and  every  year  while  the  annual  priorities  are  identified, 
caution should be taken so that funding is not duplicated. Through the coordinated work and 
the uniform areas of action, horizontal and cross-cutting issues would be mutually covered by 
the  programmes  (e.g.  coordinated  priorities  on  judicial  training  in  both  JCIV  and  JPEN 
programmes) and the fragmentation could be addressed only partially. However, the general 
objectives for each programme would maintain the fragmentation of the wider policy area.  

in 

This coordinated approach in identifying annual priorities would be applied also in respect to 
programmes  in  other  EU  policy  areas  with  close  links  to  the  area  of  justice  and  rights.  The 
coordination at the level of annual programming would make sure that there is no duplication 
of funding and that funds are used in a complementary way, to the best interest of public. 

In achieving the annual policy priorities this option would present only limited improvement 
in  comparison  to  the  baseline  scenario:  it  would  be  possible  to  address  the  annual  policy 
priorities  through  each  programme,  however  the  small-scale  and  fragmented  angle  of  the 
approach would not be addressed. 

Effectiveness 

The  harmonisation  of  management  and  the  focused  objectives  would  have  a  clear  positive 
impact on the effectiveness of the programmes in comparison to the baseline scenario. 

Removing the maximum limit of EU contribution for each project would invite applications 
for more substantial projects: projects with more partners from more Member States, projects 
with  a  wider  scope  of  activities,  projects  with  more  possibilities  for  dissemination,  i.e. 
projects  with  increased  potential  to  achieve  a  considerable  impact.  This  measure  aims  to 
address the dilution of funds and at the same time it fosters partnerships. The availability of 

EN 

31   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
funding  for  bigger  projects  would  contribute  substantially  to  the  development  of  wider 
partnerships and to providing substantial support to their work. In the absence of a maximum 
limit  of  EU  funding  the  partnerships  would  not  be  obliged  to  scale  down  their  activities  to 
match the available funds, but they would be rather encouraged to develop projects with the 
maximum  potential  for  impact  on  the  ground.  It  should  be  noted  that  funding  bigger-scale 
projects has received a considerable percentage of negative replies from the respondents to the 
public  consultation.  However,  the  explanations  added  by  the  respondents  lead  to  the 
conclusion that the objection is actually not to the bigger-scale projects per se, but it focuses 
primarily on the difficulties of small organisations to handle larger budgets. The objections of 
the  respondents  do  not  take  into  consideration  that  this  measure  does  not  compromise  the 
current  situation,  but  it  only  opens  up  the  additional  opportunity  to  promote  wider 
partnerships.  The  impact  of  this  option  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  programmes  would  be 
substantial, as it would prevent the dilution of funds and it would promote and support wider 
and  stronger  partnerships.  At  the  same  time  there  would  be  no  substantial  difference  in  the 
allocation of funds to the final beneficiaries: all current beneficiaries would be able to receive 
funding, but they would be urged to coordinate their efforts in wider partnerships and bigger 
and  more  participative  programmes.  It  would  be  possible  to  fund  projects  of  8-10  partners, 
rather  than  of  4-5  partners,  and  this  would  correspond  to  higher  impact  at  EU  level.  This 
cooperation would promote the development and growth of civil society, as the organisations 
would have additional benefits from the considerably wider networking and mutual learning 
possibilities.  

The  unbalanced  geographical  spread  among  beneficiaries  would  be  addressed  by  funding 
larger-scale  projects  and  consequently  promoting  wider  partnerships  of  organisations  from 
more  Member  States,  as  explained  above.  Additional  management  measures  would  be  the 
identification of Member States with low rates of participation in the programmes in order to 
organise tailor-made information or support activities.  

The improvement in the evaluation and monitoring of the programmes is closely linked to 
the identification of focused, specific objectives which would be aligned for all programmes. 
The system would use results-based management and performance measurement on the basis 
of pre-identified indicators and annual reporting, as described below under 10. However, the 
fragmentation  in  many  programmes  and  different  areas  would  require  the  allocation  of 
additional human resources to this task.  

The improvement in the evaluation and monitoring of the programmes is closely linked to the 
dissemination  and  use  of  results.  The  harmonised  management  and  the  focused  objectives 
would contribute to improving the dissemination and use of results. A coordinated approach 
for  all  programmes  would  create  the  necessary  economies  of  scale  in  order  to  address  this 
issue. It would also be possible to create a uniform system for all programmes, which would 
facilitate  the  access  and  understanding  for  beneficiaries,  potential  applicants  and  interested 
public. However, it should be noted that this task would also require the allocation of human 
resources to it.  

Efficiency-Simplification 

The  development  and  application  of  uniform  documents,  rules  and  procedures  for  all 
programmes  would  contribute  to  simplifying  to  some  extent  the  complex  and  bureaucratic 
funding procedures. Through harmonisation and coordination at management level it would 
be  possible  to  streamline  procedures  and  templates  focusing  on  the  similarities  between 

EN 

32   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
programmes.  However,  separate,  programme-specific  procedures  (calls  for  proposals, 
selection  procedures  and  award  decisions)  would  still  be  necessary  and  would  have  to 
duplicate  the  common  template  adjusting  or  modifying  it  according  to  the  objectives  and 
specificities  of  each  programme.  The  applicants  and  beneficiaries  would  still  have  to  deal 
with  many  different  procedures  and  the  only  improvement  would  be  that  these  procedures 
would  be  as  similar  as  possible.  In  these  terms  the  uniformity  in  templates,  rules  and 
obligations would be welcomed by the beneficiaries, but maximum improvement would still 
not be achieved.  

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  administration  the  focus  on  bigger  projects  would  limit  the 
administrative burden at the implementation and evaluation stage (fewer projects to manage). 
At the same time, as explained under Effectiveness, additional resources would have to focus 
on  dissemination,  information  activities  and  monitoring.  It  can  be  argued  that  this  kind  of 
reallocation of resources would improve the cost-effectiveness of the Commission's work, as 
the  impact  and  the  effectiveness  of  the  whole  programme  would  be  improved,  shifting  the 
focus  towards  more  qualitative  and  result-oriented  activities.  However,  although  on  the  one 
hand this benefit would be achieved in terms of effectiveness, on the other hand in terms of 
administrative burden no substantial improvement would be achieved.  

In order to shorten the length of procedures it is necessary that both abovementioned aspects 
affecting  efficiency,  i.e.  complexity  of  procedures  and  administrative  burden,  would  be 
improved. Under this option there is some improvement to be found in the simplification of 
procedures, but no improvement in terms of administrative burden. In this context and in the 
absence of any other measure that would address directly the length of procedures, the impact 
of this option would be the same as the baseline scenario.  

8.3  Option B – 2 programmes  

This option builds on option A and incorporates fully all measures described under option A. 
In addition, it would allow that measures are not only taken at management level (as in Option 
A), but also at the stage of designing the programmes. The number of programmes would be 
limited to the extent possible, by merging the current programmes into two thematic entities. 
Two  programmes  would  be  envisaged  under  this  option:  one  programme,  the  Justice 
programme, would merge the current Civil Justice, Criminal Justice and Drug Prevention and 
Information  programmes  and  a  second  programme,  the  Rights  and  Citizenship  Programme, 
would  merge  the  current  Fundamental  Rights  and  Citizenship  programme,  the  Daphne 
Programme  and  the  Gender  Equality  and  Antidiscrimination  sections  of  the  PROGRESS 
programme. The design of this option takes into consideration the specificities of the Lisbon 
Treaty in these policy areas: the first programme would cover all policies under Title V and 
the second one would encompass the policies outside Title V. 

This  option  builds  on  option  A  and  includes  additional  measures  in  order  to  address  the 
problems that could not be addressed to a great extent by option A. Consequently its impact 
would include all benefits of option A and the aim would be to maximise them and to ensure 
improvement in the remaining areas.  

Scope 

Funding  would  be  available  for  all  areas  and  all  activities  that  are  covered  by  the  current 
programmes. 

EN 

33   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  additional  measures  of  this  option  would  maximise  the  benefits  in  terms  of 
fragmentation and overlaps: The limited number of programmes and the clear identification 
of general and specific objectives would define two wide, clearly defined and comprehensive 
funding areas, where horizontal issues would be easily addressed. Policies with close links to 
each  other  would  be  addressed  under  the  same  programme  (e.g.  civil  justice  and  criminal 
justice) and no problems of overlaps would exist among them. Streamlining between the two 
programmes  and  synergies  with  other  Commission  programmes  would  be  possible  through 
the identification of annual priorities during the annual management cycle. 

In  terms  of  flexibility  this  option  is  a  considerable  development  in  comparison  to  option  A. 
The scope of each programme would cover a wide policy area. Within this structure it would 
be possible to identify each year the necessary priorities in order to promote and support the 
ongoing  annual  policies.  This  structure  would  allow  funding  to  be  more  responsive  to  the 
annual  policy  needs  and  to  produce  its  fullest  potential.  Furthermore,  the  reduction  in  the 
number  of  programmes  would  be  reflected  in  the  number  of  budget  lines  associated  with 
them,  which  in  turn  would  further  simplify  the  administrative  procedures  related  to  budget 
implementation. 

Focus on areas of action, which are responsive to the annual policy priorities 

As  in  option  A,  under  option  B  results  would  be  achieved  in  all  areas  of  action  (enhancing 
awareness  and  knowledge,  supporting  the  implementation  of  law  and  policies,  promoting 
cooperation  and  improving  knowledge  and  understanding).  However  the  results  achieved 
under option B would be improved in comparison to the results achieved under option A. This 
improvement reflects the improved effectiveness of the programmes, which is a result of the 
measures  discussed  below  under  Effectiveness.  Furthermore,  an  additional  positive  impact 
under this option is that it would be more responsive to the annual policy priorities. Reducing 
the  number  of  programmes  would  allow  greater  flexibility  in  allocating  funds  among  the 
topics covered by each programme and would therefore enable to focus funding annually on 
the  areas  of  greater  priority.  This  would  result  in  more  focused  activities  in  terms  of 
awareness raising, of promoting cooperation and in improving knowledge and understanding, 
which would reflect more directly the annual needs and priorities of the policy area.  

Effectiveness 

As already stated above, the measures under option A would achieve a clear improvement in 
all aspects of effectiveness. The combination of these measures with the additional measures 
of option B would increase this impact and support their sustainability.  

The reduction in the number of programmes and their focused objectives would improve the 
effective  use  of  funds  and  prevent  the  dilution  of  funds.  The  implementation  of  two 
programmes in two clearly different areas would have as a result that all projects with similar 
objectives would be grouped under only one programme and would be evaluated against each 
other. It would allow a better overview of the applications and of the funded projects and it 
would prevent dispersing funds by funding in parallel similar activities with similar objectives 
under different programmes. This would result in additional positive impact in comparison to 
option A.  

EN 

34   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Additionally, as it was already mentioned under option A, the improvement in the evaluation 
and  monitoring  of  the  programmes  and  in  the  dissemination  of  results  would  require  the 
allocation  of  additional  human  resources.  The  same  applies  also  for  the  implementation  of 
information  and  support  activities  to  Member  States  with  low  participation,  which  would 
improve the geographical coverage of the programmes. The impact of option B would be to 
achieve  considerable  improvements  in  terms  of  administrative  burden  (see  below).  These 
resources  could  then  be  allocated  to  tasks  that  would  improve  effectiveness  and  thus  they 
would  support  the  sustainability  of  these  measures.  Option  B  permits  the  allocation  of 
additional human resources for the improvement of the programmes' effectiveness and thus it 
would result in improved impact in comparison to option A.  

Efficiency-Simplification 

In terms of efficiency the merge of the programmes would facilitate the implementation and 
increase the benefits of the measures presented under A.  

Receiving  funding  from  two  rather  than  six  programmes  would  simplify  the  funding 
procedures  for  applicants  and  beneficiaries.  Due  to  the  merge  of  the  funding  areas  in  two 
major funding areas the beneficiaries would not need to do "programme-shopping" in order to 
identify the most appropriate of the six programmes for their application. The number of calls 
and  selection  procedures  would  be  limited,  more  comprehensive  and  focused.  At  the  same 
time  the  merge  of  programmes  would  result  in  a  merge  of  the  funding  envelopes,  which 
would not lead to limiting the available funds for beneficiaries. Uniformity in templates, rules, 
procedures  and  obligations  would  be  more  straightforward  when  only  two  programmes  are 
involved. Thus the level of complexity for applicants and beneficiaries would be considerably 
reduced.  

In  terms  of  administrative  burden  option  B  would  present  a  considerable  improvement  in 
comparison  to  the  limited  benefits  of  option  A.  The  substantially  smaller  number  of 
procedures  would  require  substantially  fewer  human  resources  and  this  would  add  to  the 
benefits brought by the management improvements of option A. The changes would result, in 
particular, in a reduction of the number of annual work programmes/financing decisions from 
currently 6 to 2 and therefore fewer adoption processes to be managed. The number of calls 
for proposals would be reduced at the same time and through economies of scale, this would 
both allow for greater efficiency throughout the processes and reduce by half the members of 
staff dedicated to the management of the calls. 

Subsequently  this  improvement  could  further  boost  the  improvements  in  dissemination  of 
results,  monitoring  and  evaluation  and  information  activities  through  the  reallocation  of 
resources. Thus from the point of view of administration the benefits would combine reduced 
administrative burden and increased cost-efficiency of the administrative work.  

The  improvements  in  the  complexity  of  the  procedures  and  in  the  administrative  burden 
would  result  in  speeding  up  the  funding  procedures.  This  would  reduce  substantially  the 
delays between submitting applications and receiving the results from a current average of up 
to 9 months to an approximate 6 months and this would leave applicant organisations with a 
shorter  interval  of  uncertainty.  This  would  bring  the  further  added  advantage  of  projects 
starting  much  shorter  after  their  conception  and  therefore  it  would  respond  much  more 
effectively to the concrete needs they seek to address in line with EU policy priorities. 

EN 

35   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8.4  Option C – 1 programme  

Option  B  presents  a  considerable  improvement  in  the  areas  of  scope,  effectiveness  and 
efficiency  in  comparison  to  the  baseline  scenario.  However,  providing  funding  through  two 
programmes would still be subject to limitations: the funding area would be split in two and 
thus  it  would  be  still  fragmented  and  not  completely  flexible,  simplicity  would  not  be 
achieved  for  beneficiaries  as  more  than  one  procedure  would  be  necessary  and  the 
administration would be burdened by duplicating procedures for the two programmes. Thus 
option C would aim to achieve maximum simplification through the implementation of only 
one programme. The actual impact of this option when applied in this policy area would be 
the following:  

The  merge  of  all  areas  under  one  programme  would  require  that  legal  bases  of  Title  V  are 
combined  in  the  same  legal  act  with  legal  bases  outside  Title  V.  This  combination  is 
impossible due to the specific voting modalities of Title V which are incompatible with the 
voting modalities of the rest of the Treaty. Thus the option of one comprehensive programme 
covering the whole scope of this policy area would not be possible due to legal constraints. 

Due to these legal constraints Option C would practically mean that only activities of one area 
would be covered: either activities in the area of justice or activities in the area of rights and 
citizenship. This would mean full coverage in terms of objectives for the selected area and no 
coverage (discontinuing funding) for the other area.  

Scope 

In terms of fragmentation, overlaps and flexibility the area which would be supported would 
have maximum positive impact in comparison to option B. As only one programme would be 
implemented,  no  problems  concerning  fragmentation  and  overlaps  would  arise.  The  impact 
would be the maximum also in terms of flexibility within this programme, as potentially more 
funds would be allocated to it and could be used for its objectives.  

However  for  the  other  area  the  impact  would  be  entirely  negative  as  no  funds  would  be 
available to support it.  

Focus on areas of action, which are responsive to the annual policy priorities 

The overall impact of Option C on achieving the objectives and addressing policy priorities 
would be negative. The objectives and activities which would fall under the area receiving no 
funding  would  not  be  implemented  at  all.  This  would  reduce  substantially  the  funding 
activities  in  this  area  and  it  would  compromise  the  development  and  the  implementation  of 
the relevant policies.  

Effectiveness/Efficiency-Simplification 

Similarly the impact of option C in the funded area would be the same as the impact of option 
B  as  far  as  dilution  of  funds,  coverage,  dissemination,  simplification  of  procedures  are 
concerned.  Additional  impact  would  be  identified  in  terms  of  efficiency,  especially 
concerning administrative burden and length of procedures. The limited scope of the activities 
and the maximum simplification of the procedures would free additional resources and speed 
up the procedures.  

EN 

36   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
However,  the  impact  on  the  non-funded  area  would  be  entirely  negative:  potential 
beneficiaries would have no access to funding for supporting their activities and the relevant 
policies  that  were  supported  by  the  current  programmes  would  need  to  identify  different 
sources of funding or would have to cease.  

9  COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

The following table presents an overview of the impact analysis for all options. Based on the 
assessment  of  impacts  as  analysed  above,  the  impact  of  each  option  is  measured  against 
Achievement of objectives, Scope, Effectiveness and Efficiency.  

The evaluation under  each  objective  has been scored on the basis of the following scale, in 
order to identify the preferred option:  

0 
- 
+ 
++ 
++/-- 

++/n.a. 

No impact - Equal to Baseline scenario 
Negative Impact 
Positive Impact  
Significant Positive Impact 
Significant Positive Impact in one policy area  
& Significant Negative Impact in the other policy area 
Significant Positive Impact in one policy area.  
Analysis of impact in the other policy area is not applicable.  

+++/--  Maximum Positive Impact in one policy area  

& Significant Negative Impact in the other policy area 

+++/n.a.  Maximum Positive Impact in one policy area.  

Analysis of impact in the other policy area is not applicable.  

EN 

37   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Baseline 
scenario 
Option 0 

6 
programmes
Status quo 

Option A 

Option B 

Option C 

6  
programmes 
+ management 
improvements 

2 
programmes 

1 
programme 

Scope 
- Ensure flexibility 
- Avoid overlaps & fragmentation  
Focus on areas of action which have 
clear added value and are responsive 
to the annual policy priorities 
Enhance public awareness and 
knowledge on EU law and policies  
Support the implementation of EU law 
and policies in Member States 
Promote cooperation and build up 
mutual knowledge and mutual trust 
Improve knowledge and understanding 
of potential issues affecting the smooth 
functioning of a European area of 
justice, the exercise of rights guaranteed 
by the Treaty, by the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights or by secondary EU 
legislation, with vies to ensuring 
evidence-based policy making 
Effectiveness 
- Prevent dilution of funds 
- Ensure better geographical coverage 
- Improve dissemination and use of 
results 
- Improve monitoring and evaluation 
Efficiency-Simplification 
- simple and transparent, procedures for 
applicants and beneficiaries 
- reduce the administrative burden for 
the Commission  
- minimise the length of procedures 

OVERALL IMPACT 

0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 
+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

0 

+ 

+ 
++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 
++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+++/-- 
+++/-- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

++/-- 
++/-- 

++/n.a. 

++/n.a. 

++/-- 

++ 

+++/n.a. 

++/-- 

As regards the objectives of the programmes, options A and B would provide full support for 
the  development  of  all  policies  where  funding  at  EU  level  delivers  added  value.  On  the 
contrary, option C would be unable to deliver this support to all the areas where it is needed. 
This presents a crucial shortcoming of option C.  

Option  A  presents  an  improvement  of  the  baseline  scenario.  Its  benefits  would  be  focused 
mainly on effectiveness. Whereas on scope and efficiency some benefits could be achieved, 
the multiplicity of programmes would not allow them to develop their full potential.  

Option B is a considerable improvement of option A. Benefits would be achieved to address 
all problems, whereas no negative impacts would result from it.  

EN 

38   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  scope  of  option  C  would  be  limited  and  this presents a crucial  shortcoming, as already 
stated  above.  In  addition  to  this,  option  C  does  not  present  any  considerable  management 
benefits,  which  would  overcome  this  crucial  shortcoming:  its  impact  in  the  areas  where  it 
would provide funding would not exceed the impact of option B. Clear additional benefit in 
comparison  to  option  B  would  only  be  identified  in  terms  of  reducing  the  administrative 
burden  and  shortening  the  procedures  for  the  beneficiaries  who  would  still  have  access  to 
funding. However, this benefit is not sufficient to justify the limitation of EU support for areas 
where funding is needed and delivers added value. Due to the absence of a balanced approach 
option C cannot be the preferred option.  

The preferred option 

The  preferred  option  on  the  basis  of  this  analysis  is  therefore  the  implementation  of  two 
programmes which would cover the full scope of the current funding programmes (option B). 
This  option  encompasses  all  possible  benefits  and  no  shortcomings  in  comparison  to  the 
baseline scenario. Compared to option A, its greater efficiency should mean that it will deliver 
better  value  for  money.  This  option  can  guarantee  the  maximum  benefit  in  terms  of 
simplification,  efficient  and  effective  management  and  developing  synergies.  At  the  same 
time it can provide full support for the development of all policies where funding at EU level 
delivers added value. 

10  MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Both programmes will foresee the obligation for the Commission to provide to the European 
Parliament and the Council with:  

(a)  an  interim  evaluation  report  on  the  achievement  of  the  programmes'  objectives,  the 
efficiency of the use of resources and the programmes' European added value, not later than 
mid-2018,  with  a  view  to  determining  whether  funding  in  the  areas  covered  by  the 
programmes should be renewed, modified or suspended after 2020. The evaluation will also 
address  the  scope  for  any  simplification  of  the  Programme,  its  internal  and  external 
coherence, as well as the continued relevance of all objectives. It will take into account results 
of ex-post evaluations of the programmes mentioned in Article 13;  

(b)  an ex post evaluation report on the longer-term impacts and the sustainability of effects of 
the Programme, to feed into a decision on a subsequent programme.  

This  corresponds  broadly  to  the  evaluation  requirements  of  the  current  programmes.  The 
timing of the interim evaluation in particular has proven useful to feed into the preparation of 
the future programmes, even though the number of finalised projects was still small when the 
evaluations  were  carried  out.  Any  later  date  would  bear  the  risk  that  the  interim  evaluation 
could  not  anymore  be  taken  into  account  for  decision-making  on  the  next  generation  of 
programmes post-2020. 

The  results  of  the  programmes  at  policy  level  will  be  measured  regularly  on  the  basis  of 
indicators identified by the programmes. Such indicators would be, inter alia, the European 
perception of access to justice and of the respect and exercise of rights, the number of cases of 
trans-border cooperation, the number of complaints etc. 

EN 

39   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
At  operational/annual  level,  the  evaluation  and  monitoring  of  the  programmes  will  be 
enhanced by building on the good practices of annual reporting that are currently in place in 
the PROGRESS Programme. These annual evaluations will also then be able to feed directly 
into the dynamic process of policy focus and the setting of annual priorities for the following 
years. 

A table of areas of action/operational objectives and indicators is attached below:  

Area of action/Operational objective 
Enhance public awareness and knowledge of 
EU law and policies and support the 
implementation of EU law in Member States 

Promote cooperation and build up mutual 
knowledge and mutual trust, in particular by 
way of networking, identification, exchange 
and dissemination of information, good 
practice and innovative approaches to 
common issues 

Indicator 

(1)  Number  and  percentage  of  persons  in 
target  group  reached  by  awareness-raising 
activities (broken down by sex); 

(2)  Number  and  percentage  of  persons  in 
target  group  reached  by  training  activities 
(broken down by sex); 

(3) Geographical coverage of those reached; 

Increase 

(4) 
in  public  awareness  and 
knowledge on EU law and policies within the 
group  of  trained  addressees,  in  comparison 
with  both  the  entire  target  group  and  a 
control group; 

(5)  Similar  initiatives  which  have  been 
developed  at  national  or  European  level  not 
supported  by  EU 
their 
(expected) results (EU added value); 

funding,  and 

(6) Advantages and/or disadvantages of EU 
funding in comparison with national funding 
for this type of activity (EU added value);  

(7) Level of funding in relation to the effects 
achieved (efficiency); 

(8)  Possible  administrative,  organisational 
and/or  structural  obstacles  to  a  smoother, 
more  effective  and  efficient  implementation 
of the programme (scope for simplification). 

(1)  Number  of  stakeholders  participating 
inter  alia  in  networking,  exchanges,  study 
visits (broken down by sex); 

trans-border 
(2)  Number  of  cases  of 
cooperation, including via the use of IT tools 
and European procedures; 

(3)  Geographical  coverage  of  cooperation 
and networking activities; 

EN 

40   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
(4)  Participants’  views  on  the  cooperation 
efforts  and  their  (expected)  sustainability, 
and  the  programme’s  contribution  thereto 
(broken down by sex); 

(5)  Similar  initiatives  which  have  been 
developed  at  national  or  European  level  not 
their 
supported  by  EU 
(expected) results (EU added value); 

funding,  and 

(6) Advantages and/or disadvantages of EU 
funding in comparison with national funding 
for this type of activity (EU added value); 

(7) Level of funding in relation to the effects 
achieved (efficiency); 

(8) Possible administrative, organisational 
and/or structural obstacles to a smoother, 
more effective and efficient implementation 
of the programme (scope for simplification). 

(1) Policy initiatives designed on the basis of 
evaluations, impact assessments and drawing 
on comprehensive stakeholders’ and experts’ 
consultations; 

impact 
(2)  Number  of  evaluations  and 
assessments  carried  out  as  a  result  of  the 
implementation of the programme; 

(3) Quality of the evaluations and impact 
assessments carried out, in the light of 
existing guides and standards; 

(4) Level of funding in relation to the effects 
achieved (efficiency); 

(5) Possible administrative, organisational 
and/or structural obstacles to a smoother, 
more effective and efficient implementation 
of the programme (scope for simplification). 

Improve knowledge and understanding of 
potential issues affecting the smooth 
functioning of a European area of justice, the 
exercise of rights guaranteed by the Treaty, 
by the Charter of Fundamental Rights or by 
secondary EU legislation, with view to 
ensuring evidence-based policy making 

EN 

41   

  EN 

 
  
OVERVIEW OF FUNDING UNDER THE CURRENT PROGRAMMES (2007-2010) 

Annex I 

Grants  account  for  the  biggest  part  of  the  programme  budgets  (on 
average,  about  80%)  for  the  implementation  of  the  five  specific 
programmes  of  the  framework  programme  on  Fundamental  Rights 
and Justice. Two types of grants are funded:  

•  Specific transnational projects of EU interest (Action Grants) 

•  Support  to  the  activities  of  non-governmental  organisations  or 
other  entities  pursuing  an  aim  of  general  European  interest 
(Operating Grants)  

Additionally  the  JPEN  Programme  has  concluded  to  conclude 
framework  partnership  agreements  in  order  to  establish  a  long-
term cooperation framework with key actors in the judicial training 
sector.  In  implementation  of  these  agreements  a  limited  number  of 
grants have been awarded by JPEN.  

The  volume  of  grants  varies  between  programmes  as  shown  in  the 
chart:  

Total Grants per programme

JPEN - 215

DAP - 200

DPIP - 37

JCIV - 96

FRC - 111

DAP
DPIP
FRC
JCIV
JPEN

EN 

42   

  EN 

 
 
 
More concretely the following table shows the allocation of grants between programmes: 

2007 

2008 

2009-2010 

JCIV 
JPEN 
FRC 
DAP 
DPIP 
TOTAL  155 

AG  OG
2 
28 
5 
59 
3 
18 
9 
41 
0 
9 
19 

TOTAL 
per year  AG  FPA OG 
3 
20 
6 
43 
7 
26 
12 
42 
5 
6 
33 
137 

30 
64 
21 
50 
9 
174 

2 

2 

TOTAL 
per 
year 
23 
51 
33 
54 
11 
172 

FPA 
2009
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 

FPA 
2010
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 

OG 
2009 
3 
12 
4 
7 
4 
30 

OG 
2010
3 
7 
6 
5 
3 
24 

AG 
37 
79 
47 
84 
10 
257

TOTAL 
both 
years 
43 
100 
57 
96 
17 
313 

TOTAL 
AG 
85 
181 
91 
167 
25 
549 

TOTAL 
FPA 
0
4
0
0
0
4

TOTAL 
OG 

11
30
20
33
12
106

TOTAL
96
215
111
200
37

% 
14.57% 
32.63% 
16.84% 
30.35% 
5.61% 
659 100.00% 

The current funding programmes are particularly popular with beneficiaries. In the interviews held by the mid-term evaluations of DAP, DPIP 
and FRC programmes the majority of coordinators and partners confirmed that funding from these programmes is particularly important, as it is 
very difficult to receive funding from other sources. The popularity of the programmes is shown in the table below, which presents the numbers 
of received and awarded applications. 

JCIV 

JPEN 

FRC 

Number of awarded action 
grants 
Number of awarded 
operating grants 

Proposals received AG 
Percentage of success 

Proposals received OG 
Percentage of success 

85 

11 

158 
53.80% 

19 
57.89% 

181 

30 

323 
56.04% 

58 
51.72% 

91 

20 

415 
21.88% 

62 
32.26% 

DAP 

167 

33 

697 
23.96% 

112 
25.90% 

DPIP 

25 

12 

164 
15.24% 

39 
30.77% 

All  EU  Member  States  have  received  funding  by  the  five  programmes.  However  the  amounts  allocated  vary  between  countries  and  between 
programmes. The table below shows the allocation of amounts per country and per programme for the period 2007-2010. 

EN 

43   

  EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JCIV 

AG  OG  TOTAL 
5
1 
21
6 
1
0 
0
0 
3
0 
14
0 
0
0 
0
0 
11
0 
0
0 
8
2 
1
0 
3
0 
0
0 
12
1 
1
0 
0
0 
4
0 
0
0 
2
0 
1
0 
0
0 
3
0 
2
0 
0
0 
2
0 
2
1 
0
0 
96
11 

4 
15 
1 
0 
3 
14 
0 
0 
11 
0 
6 
1 
3 
0 
11 
1 
0 
4 
0 
2 
1 
0 
3 
2 
0 
2 
1 
0 
85 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
ES 
FI 
FR 
GR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SI 
SK 
SE 
UK 
NO 
Total 

JPEN 

FPA  OG 
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
1
0
0
8
0
30

0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 

AG 

4 
13 
4 
1 
4 
20 
0 
2 
22 
2 
10 
2 
6 
1 
21 
3 
1 
8 
3 
9 
4 
8 
7 
3 
1 
1 
21 
0 
181 

FRC 

DAP 

DPIP 

TOTAL   AG  OG TOTAL  AG  OG  TOTAL  AG  OG  TOTAL 
2
4
1
0
0
5
0
0
4
0
2
0
0
0
8
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
7
0
37

4
24
4
1
5
21
0
2
23
2
11
2
6
2
24
3
1
8
3
14
5
8
7
4
1
1
29
0
215

2
16
3
0
3
6
4
0
4
1
10
3
5
1
24
2
1
1
0
5
2
1
0
3
1
2
11
0
111

11
30
5
3
0
20
7
0
11
4
8
5
2
2
36
1
1
1
0
13
5
1
2
1
0
2
27
2
200

4 
15 
0 
0 
0 
1 
4 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
7 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
33 

1
11
3
0
3
3
4
0
4
1
6
3
5
0
24
2
1
1
0
5
2
1
0
3
1
1
6
0
91 

2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
12

0
3
1
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
25

1
5
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
20

7
15
5
3
0
19
3
0
11
3
8
5
2
2
36
1
1
1
0
6
4
1
2
1
0
2
27
2

167

TOTAL 
AG 

16
57
14
4
10
61
7
2
50
6
30
11
16
3
98
8
3
14
3
24
11
10
12
10
2
6
59
2
549

TOTAL 
FPA 
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4

TOTAL 
OG 

8 
36 
0 
0 
1 
4 
4 
0 
3 
1 
9 
0 
0 
2 
6 
0 
0 
0 
0 
11 
2 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
17 
0 
106 

EN 

44   

  EN 

% 
TOTAL 
3.64% 
24 
95  14.42% 
2.12% 
14 
0.61% 
4 
1.67% 
11 
66  10.02% 
1.67% 
11 
0.30% 
2 
8.04% 
53 
1.06% 
7 
5.92% 
39 
1.67% 
11 
2.43% 
16 
0.76% 
5 
104  15.78% 
1.21% 
0.46% 
2.12% 
0.46% 
5.46% 
1.97% 
1.52% 
1.82% 
1.67% 
0.30% 
1.06% 
76  11.53% 
0.30% 

8 
3 
14 
3 
36 
13 
10 
12 
11 
2 
7 

2 

659  100.00% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In terms of outputs the activities implemented by the beneficiaries of these grants include studies and researches, mapping of legislation, case 
studies, training of practitioners and professionals, capacity building, awareness raising events, conferences and seminars. These activities are 
implemented by a high number of partnerships throughout the EU area. This results in a multitude of activities, deliverables and respondents 
in implementation and support of EU policies.  

The duration of the activities implementation by these programmes vary from 12-36 months. Within this margin the duration of the majority of 
the projects is longer than 20 months. As a result of this long duration and of the additional time required for reporting and evaluation activities it 
is currently difficult to give specific information on the impact of the funded projects.  

An estimation of the impact can be derived on the basis of the indicative table below. It includes information relating to the outputs of projects 
funded by DAP, FRC and DPIP programmes on the basis of the mid-term evaluation analysis. Only very few projects were finalised and could 
be analysed by the mid-term evaluation reports. More specifically:  
- 19 action grants and 18 operating grants funded by the Daphne III Programme; 
- 17 action grants and 8 operating grants funded by the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme; 
- 3 action grants funded by the Drugs prevention and information Programme. 
These 49 action  grants and 26  operating grants represent only a small sample of the projects funded by the five programmes (9% of 
action grants and 32% of the operating grants).  
However the high numbers of outputs and participants show the wide dissemination and impact of the respective funding activities. 

Number of activities 

Number of respondents/participants 

FRC 

DAP 

DP
IP 

TOTAL 

FRC 

DAP 

DPIP 

TOTAL 

Research 

Networks 

Surveys 
Case studies/ 
monitoring/mapping 
Networks and 
partnerships 
Large events - 
Conferences/semin
ars / Congresses  

Training  and 

Training to 

EN 

AG  OG AG  OG  AG  AG  OG 
5 
13 

46 

29 

4 

9 

4 

both 
55 

AG 
3,613 

28 

24 

8 

62 

2 

29 

27 

17 

1 

2 

37 

86 

123 

n/a* 

31 

46 

77 

n/a* 

8 

n/a* 

OG 
75 

20 

AG 
16 

35 

OG 
48 

18 

12 

AG 
30 

0 

14 

AG
3,659

35

14

OG 
123 

38 

20 

both 
3,782 

73 

34 

18 

80 

15 

57 

14 

47 

137 

184 

309 

243 

319 

499 

253 

881

742 

1,623 

36 

5 

6 

36 

3 

45 

41 

86 

176 

60 

n/a* 

70 

54 

230

130 

360 

45   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Capacity 
Building 

Information 
and 
Awareness 
Raising  

practitioners 
Workshops for 
practitioners 
Workshops for 
target groups 
Training of target 
groups 
Helpline/guidance 
or counselling 
service 
Focus groups / 
panel discussions 
with target group 
Events for target 
groups (e.g. field 
trips, tournaments, 
competitions) 
Information 
campaigns 
Print media (e.g. 
leaflets /posters/ 
newsletters)  

Website or blog  
Other media: e.g. 
DVD, video, 
film/documentary  
Directories / 
databases 

0 

7 

0 

14 

30 

182 

2 

0 

2 

13 

0 

0 

3 

4 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

21 

44 

183 

0 

0 

5 

6 

21 

44 

0 

25 

138 

n/a* 

0 

30 

60 

0 

n/a* 

42 

0

210

85 

0 

85 

210 

188 

990 

100 

n/a* 

1,000 

6 

0 

n/a* 

0 

50 

0 

0 

990

1,100 

2,090 

0

50 

50 

43 

0 

8 

0 

5 

56 

0 

56 

808 

0 

73 

n/a* 

32 

913

0 

913 

39 

1 

0 

6 

0 

39 

7 

46 

3,062 

60 

0 

n/a* 

21 

9 

30 

9,872 

200 

50 

n/a* 

0 

0 

3,062

60 

3,122 

9,922

200 

10,122 

0 

0 

0 

14 

3 

11 

56 

14 

32 

5 

5 

5 

5 

7 

0 

9 

3 

7 

6 

3 

4 

4 

1 

11 

59 

70 

10,500 

n/a* 

12,950 

47,160 

n/a* 

23,450

47,160 

70,610 

23 

10 

45 

2 

14 

9 

9 

6 

32 

54,150 

8,021 

190,000 

n/a* 

n/a* 

244,150

8,021 

252,171 

54 

n/a* 

n/a* 

n/a* 

n/a* 

n/a* 

0

0 

0 

20 

10,000 

n/a* 

n/a* 

90,000 

n/a* 

10,000

90,000 

100,000 

* The entries with the reference n/a* (not available) indicate mainly activities which will develop their results after the finalisation of the project. 
Thus no concrete comparative information could be indicated. 

EN 

46   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex II 

REPORT ON THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON FUTURE FUNDING ACTIVITIES IN THE 
AREA OF JUSTICE, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND EQUALITY  
FOR THE PERIOD AFTER 2013 

In  the  preparations  for  a  new  generation  of  funding  programmes  in  the  area  of  Justice, 
Fundamental  Rights  and  Equality  a  public  stakeholder  consultation  was  launched  on  20  April 
2011  using  the  on-line  tool  of  "Your  Voice  in  Europe".  Although  other  possible  means  of 
consultation including selective targeting of existing stakeholders was envisaged, it was preferred 
to  open  the  consultation  to  a  wider  audience  in  order  not  to  limit  the  opinions  reflected  in  the 
outcome of the consultation to a known group of existing stakeholders, but also to open the floor 
to contributions form all other interested parties. 

The consultation was announced and published on DG Justice's website, "Your Voice in Europe" 
and  an  electronic  flyer  was  widely  distributed  amongst  existing  beneficiaries,  stakeholders, 
networks  and  through  the  Member  States'  representatives  in  the  programme  committees  of  the 
existing funding programmes, in order to ensure reaching a diversified target audience. 

Structure of the consultation 

The consultation consisted of a total of 52 questions grouped under 7 headings: 

1.  The respondent 

2.  Evaluation and feedback on the current programmes 

3.  Objectives and focus of funding 2013 

4.  Simplification and improvement 

5.  Activities 

6.  Delivery mechanisms  

7.  General feedback. 

A majority of the questions were "closed", allowing only a predefined range of answers from 
very positive to very negative, to be given in order to allow for the extraction of comprehensive 
and comparable statistics.  

In  addition  to  these,  a  number  of  "open"  questions  were  included,  allowing  respondents  to 
comment more extensively and to elaborate further on answers given to the "closed questions"  

The open questions were: 

1.  The most important deficiencies of the current funding activities of DG Justice 

2.  Funding levels to be increased, maintained, decreased or discontinued for specific policy 

areas. 

EN 

47   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  The EU added value in allocating EU funding to achieve specific objectives for the area 

of Justice. 

4.  Additional measures to be undertaken to achieve simplification and improvement. 

5.  Measures to be undertaken to improve the dissemination of results and to strengthen the 

link between policy and funding activities. 

6.  Additional activities which should be supported by DG Justice. 

7.  Additional comments (on delivery mechanisms) 

8.  General feedback on any aspect of the consultation 

The consultation was available for two months (until 20 June 2011) and interested parties were 
requested to only use the on-line questionnaire in order to submit their contribution, which was 
largely respected.  

Overall,  the  level  of  replies  was  high,  with  just  over  12  %  of  questions  across  the  different 
headings  being  left  with  the  "no  opinion"  reply.  Equally,  over  half  of  the  respondents  chose  to 
further elaborate on their replies or to add comments regarding specific areas of interest. 

1. 

Overview of replies to closed questions 

1.1. Respondents 

The consultation counted a total of 187 respondents, consisting of 37 individuals and 150 
organisations,  covering  the  EU  MS  (with  the  exception  of  Denmark,  Greece  and 
Luxembourg).  
As to be expected, with many networks and secretariats of international NGOs based in 
Brussels, Belgium had the highest response level with 17% and a total 6% of respondents 
came from third countries.  

The  majority  of  respondents  (55%)  were  representing  NGOs,  while  a  significant  15  % 
represented  national  authorities  at  central  level.  The  majority  of  the  respondents  (60%) 
did not receive DG JUST funding before. 

1.2. Evaluation and feedback on the current programmes 

Considering  the  effectiveness  of  the  current  funding  a  high  percentage  of  respondents 
(45%) thought there was room for improvement. 

30%  of  respondents  believed  that  the  effectiveness  and  appropriateness  of  the  current 
funding activities could be improved and 15% thought that it should be improved whereas 
only  11%  thought  that  the  current  funding  was  very  effective.  17%  thought  it  effective 
with minor deficiencies and 20% did not offer an opinion on this matter. 

1.3. Objectives and focus of funding after 2013 

1.3.1. Level of funding 

EN 

48   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policies  which  scored  highest  on  the  question  if  the  current  level  of  funding  should  be 
increased after 2013 were:  

Desireable Funding increase per policy area

EU Citizenship

Gender Equality

Non Discrimination

Violence against
women and children

Fundamental Rights

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

All  the  other  policies  scored  below  30%.  A  similar  order  of  preference  was  observed 
when combining the answers where current funding should be increased or maintained:  

Policy areas to continue recieving funding

Consumer and marketing law  

Data protection

Criminal justice

Anti-drugs policy

Civil justice 

EU citizenship

Non-discrimination

Gender equality

Violence against w omen and children

Fundamental Rights

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

The 3 policy areas scoring lowest on this issue, are also the three policies with the largest 
number of "no opinion" replies (contract law (39%), consumer and marketing law (34%) 
or relatively high - eg data protection (25%)) which reflects a degree of specialisation in 
these areas and the different target groups concerened. 

EN 

49   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Considering  if  policies  should  be  decreased  or  discontinued,  there  was  in  general  a  low 
agreement percentage with 12% as the highest agreement percentage. The policies scoring 
highest  under  this  question  are  criminal  justice  policies  (12%)  followed  by  non 
discrimination,  including  Roma  policies  (10%),  data  protection  (9%),  contract  law  (9%) 
and gender equality (8%). 

1.3.2. EU added value 

82% of respondents believed that there is EU added value through funding when it comes 
to awareness raising and knowledge improvement of the population on their rights. 

The  added  value  through  funding  for  the  individual  policies  was  ranked  by  the 
respondents as follows: 

Greatest EU added value by policy area

Drug prevention and
reduction

Improving access to
justice

Protection of
vulnerable persons 

Fighting
discrimination 

Gender equality

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

1.4. Simplification and improvement 

1.4.1. The need for simplification and improvement 

79% of respondents believe there is a need to simplify and improve the funding activities. 

1.4.2. Measures for simplification/improvement of funding activities 

Only  50%  of  respondents  agree  that  providing  funding  under  one  single  programme 
would simplify or improve funding activities. 

Even  fewer  respondents  (26%)  believe  that  a  focus  on  bigger  projects  with  greater  EU 
added value would lead to a simplification or improvement. 

However,  respondents  are  strongly  in  favour  of  simplifying  the  selection  procedures 
(78%) and even more in favour of simplifying the reporting obligations (80%). 

EN 

50   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
67% of respondents were in favour of the use of IT tools at the selection, implementation 
and reporting phases.  

1.5. Activities 

Respondents ranked as the most important activities to receive funding as follows: 

Type of activities to be funded

Research and studies

Information and
awareness-raising

Development of
specialised networks

Training of
professionals

Exchange of good
practices

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

1.6. Delivery mechanisms 

1.6.1. Appropriate actors/organisations to receive funding by DG Justice 

As most appropriate recipients were seen: 

Type of organisations to be funded

National authorities at
central level

International
organisations

National authorities at
regional/local level 

Universities and
research institutes

NGOs

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

EN 

51   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Only  18%  of  respondents  consider  private  companies  as  appropriate  receivers  of  DG  Justice 
funding. 

1.6.2. Appropriate types of funding 

The most appropriate type of funding was identified as: 

Type of funding to be privileged

Procurement contracts 

Operating Grants 

Setting-up networks

Specific projects

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EN 

52   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
2.  

Overview of replies to open questions  

The  "open  questions"  provided  a  wide  array  of  replies,  ranging  from  a  few  vaguely  Justice- 
related mission statements of NGOs, over concerted efforts by various members of a European 
network promoting funding  in very specific areas, and Member States emphasizing the need to 
rationalise and simplify procedures to allow a more cost-effective delivery, to general statements 
of agreement and appreciation of the current funding priorities.  

Below is a collection of the most frequent replies under the open questions, which show a strong 
belief  in  the  value  of  EU  funding  in  the  area  of  Justice,  Rights  and  Equality  and  a  very  clear 
reflection of the added value this funding constitutes.  

They  also  show  the  general  agreement  that  a  simplification  and  improvement  of  programming, 
selection procedures and project management are a welcomed, with in some cases very specific 
recommendations as to what form these should take. 

These are summaries of the replies given by the respondents and do not represent the view of the 
Commission on the different issues at hand. 

1.  The most important deficiencies of the current funding activities of DG Justice 

(Analysed  together  with  4.  Measures  to  be  undertaken  to  achieve  simplification  and 
improvement) 

2.  Funding  levels  to  be  increased,  maintained,  decreased  or  discontinued  for  specific 

policy areas. 

(cid:131)  Need for increased funding on Fundamental Rights inside EU 

(cid:131)  Better identification and targeting of EU funding towards areas, where there is a real 

EU added value 

(cid:131)  Need to focus on most vulnerable groups (children, immigrants, victims, disabled) 

3.  The EU added value  in  allocating EU  funding to achieve specific objectives for the 

area of Justice. 

(cid:131)  Rising inner EU mobility and continuing immigration emphasise the need to reinforce 
non-discrimination, combating racism and protecting vulnerable (including children) 

(cid:131)  Awareness of rights (empowerment of vulnerable people, children) will help children 

reach their full potential  

(cid:131)  With economic crisis and high unemployment putting further strain on racial tensions 
as well as creating poverty and breeding grounds for violence and directing national 
funding towards "saving banks and the economy" funding for Fundamental Rights and 
against Discrimination and Social Exclusion is more crucial than ever before. 

(cid:131)  Although  a  lot  of  work  has  been  done  on  disability,  discrimination  and  social 
exclusion  remain  strong  as  well  as  the  huge  disparities  between  Member  States. 
Continuing Advocating best practices is essential. 

EN 

53   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(cid:131)  Need for strong victims support. Statistics show only 16% of victims who request it 

actually get support in the EU. 

(cid:131)  The  complexity  and  incompatibility  of  national  jurisdictions  and  administrative 
processes  hinder  businesses  and  individuals  and  ultimately  growth.  Further  stimulus 
for mutual understanding and streamlining for cross-border cases is vital for the EU. 

(cid:131)  Gender equality may have become a more common topic, but discourse and reality are 

worlds apart. The gender gap must be closed. 

(cid:131)  Less and less national funding is available for the social sector (both government and 
NGOs), especially for international cooperation, which is the first area where cuts are 
made. EU funding programmes are often the only possibility to maintain exchange of 
best practices across borders  

(cid:131) 

Increased  mobility  of  the  workforce  in  the  EU  is  a  requirement  for  its  economic 
growth  and  survival.  With  this  any  issues  regarding  citizens  rights,  cross-border 
cooperation,  mutual  recognition  and  anti  discrimination  are  essential  to  ensure 
Europe's future. 

4.  Measures to be undertaken to achieve simplification and improvement. 

(cid:131)  Better integration and visibility, less fragmentation of funding opportunities. 

(cid:131)  Reduce complication and administrative burden. 

(cid:131)  Award grants for longer time-frames 3-5 years to limit administration costs (only one 

time application) and ensure enough time to build sustainable projects.  

(cid:131)  Reporting  on  projects  should  continue  beyond  their  funding  period  to  measure  true 

impact and sustainability. 

(cid:131) 

Improving  IT  tools  (application)  to  be  used  as  information  tools  and  databases  for 
project partner search. 

(cid:131)  Better coordination with other funding instruments needed (EAC, EMPL, etc.) 

(cid:131)  Need  for  common  core  aims  and  a  harmonised  strategic  approach  across  all  DG 

Justice programming. 

(cid:131)  Reducing  the  number  of  priorities  per  year  to  have  concerted  efforts  of  all  projects 

with political EU priorities. 

(cid:131)  There should  be a common approach to inclusion of EEA third  countries (Currently 
they  are  eligible  to  apply  for  Daphne  funding,  but  not  for  Fundamental  Rights  and 
Citizenship funding).  

(cid:131)  Set clear funding rules which would not be changed until the end of the programmes 

(cid:131)  Reducing  high  administrative  costs  by  simplifying  application  procedure  and 

introducing lump sums and flat rates to ease accounting burden. 

(cid:131)  Reducing the documentary requirements at the stage of application. It takes months to 
obtain official documents directing attention, energy and time away from preparing a 
solid project. 

EN 

54   

  EN 

 
 
 
5.  Measures to be undertaken to improve the dissemination of results and to strengthen 

the link between policy and funding activities. 

(cid:131)  Need  for  increased  visibility  of  successful  and  unsuccessful  applicants  in  order  to 

build a network of potential project partners 

(cid:131) 

Invest  more  money  and  work  in  dissemination  tools,  establishing  websites  for  best 
practice examples, on-line training for efficient project management. 

(cid:131)  Better dissemination of results of projects. 

6.  Additional comments on delivery mechanisms 

(cid:131)  Better  focussed  objectives  should  be  favoured,  not  bigger  projects,  which  will  put 

small NGOs in need of funding out of contention 

(cid:131)  No funding for private companies. 

(cid:131) 

Increase funding for training activities. 

(cid:131)  Active  support  to  capacity  building  of  small  NGOs,  preparatory  workshops  towards 

EU cooperation and running EU projects. 

(cid:131) 

Improving  efficiency  of  project  support  from  the  Commission,  reducing  delays  in 
replying, improving precision (and consistency) of replies. 

(cid:131)  Two strands of funding: small NGOs (low grants), Large NGOs + authorities etc (big 

grants) 

(cid:131)  More capacity building funding for specific organisations outside project context 

(cid:131)  Co-funding in the form of "in-kind contribution" to ease the access of "poor" NGOs  

(cid:131)  Reduce co-funding requirements (5-10% maximum) 

EN 

55   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
3.  

Full Statistics 

Response statistics for Public consultation on future funding activities in 
the area of Justice, Fundamental Rights and Equality for the period 
after 2013 

Status : Active 

Date open :  

End date : 2011-06-20 

There are   187 responses matching your criteria of a total of   187 records in the current set of data.  

I. THE RESPONDENT  

I.1. Do you reply as:  

an individual 
an organisation 

Number of 
requested 
records 
37 
150 

% Requested 
records(187)   

19,79% 
80,21% 

% of 
total number 
records(187)   
19,79% 
80,21% 

I.3. Which is your country of residence/ the country where your organisation is established? 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 

Number of 
requested 
records 
4 
33 
5 
2 
3 
0 
3 
5 
8 
14 
0 
4 
7 
7 
3 
5 
0 
4 
6 
5 
9 
14 
1 
6 

% Requested 
records(187)   

2,14% 
17,65% 
2,67% 
1,07% 
1,60% 
0,00% 
1,60% 
2,67% 
4,28% 
7,49% 
0,00% 
2,14% 
3,74% 
3,74% 
1,60% 
2,67% 
0,00% 
2,14% 
3,21% 
2,67% 
4,81% 
7,49% 
0,53% 
3,21% 

% of 
total number 
records(187)   
2,14% 
17,65% 
2,67% 
1,07% 
1,60% 
0,00% 
1,60% 
2,67% 
4,28% 
7,49% 
0,00% 
2,14% 
3,74% 
3,74% 
1,60% 
2,67% 
0,00% 
2,14% 
3,21% 
2,67% 
4,81% 
7,49% 
0,53% 
3,21% 

EN 

56   

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Spain 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Non EU country 

6 
4 
18 
11 

3,21% 
2,14% 
9,63% 
5,88% 

3,21% 
2,14% 
9,63% 
5,88% 

I.4. Please indicate the type of organisation that you represent: 

NGO (non-governmental 
organisation) 
National authority at regional or 
local level 
National authority at central level 
University/Research institute 
Private company 
International organisation 
Other 

Number of 
requested 
records 
103 

% Requested 
records(187)   

55,08% 

% of 
total number 
records(187)   
55,08% 

6 

28 
12 
4 
4 
30 

3,21% 

3,21% 

14,97% 
6,42% 
2,14% 
2,14% 
16,04% 

14,97% 
6,42% 
2,14% 
2,14% 
16,04% 

I.5. Is your organisation registered in the EU Register of Interest Representatives? 

Yes 
No 

Number of 
requested 
records 
37 
150 

% Requested 
records(187)   

19,79% 
80,21% 

% of 
total number 
records(187)   
19,79% 
80,21% 

I.6. All responses to this public consultation may be published online by DG Justice. Do you wish that your 
contribution is displayed under your name/the name of your organisation or anonymously? 

The contribution may be displayed 
under the name of the respondent 
The contribution must be displayed 
anonymously 

Number of 
requested 
records 
128 

% Requested 
records(187)   

68,45% 

% of 
total number 
records(187)   
68,45% 

59 

31,55% 

31,55% 

I.7. Have you already received funding from DG Justice funding programmes? 

Yes 
No 

Number of 
requested 
records 
75 
112 

% Requested 
records(187)   

40,11% 
59,89% 

% of 
total number 
records(187)   
40,11% 
59,89% 

As you have indicated "Yes" above, please specify the programme below (if you have received funding from 
more than one programme, please indicate all of them): 

Civil Justice 
Criminal Justice 
Daphne 
Drugs Prevention and Information 

Number of 
requested 
records 
16 
19 
30 
2 

% Requested 
records(75)   

21,33% 
25,33% 
40,00% 
2,67% 

% of 
total number 
records(187)   
8,56% 
10,16% 
16,04% 
1,07% 

EN 

57   

  EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Fundamental Rights and 
citizenship 
Progress 

21 

12 

28,00% 

11,23% 

16,00% 

6,42% 

II. EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK ON THE CURRENT PROGRAMMES 

II.1. How effective and appropriate do you consider the current funding activities of DG Justice? 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(176)    

Very effective 
Effective with minor deficiencies 
Could be improved 
Should be improved 
No opinion 
N/A 

21 
32 
56 
29 
38 
- 

11,23% 
17,11% 
29,95% 
15,51% 
20,32% 

- 

11,23% 
17,11% 
29,95% 
15,51% 
20,32% 
5,88% 

11,93% 
18,18% 
31,82% 
16,48% 
21,59% 
- 

III. OBJECTIVES AND FOCUS OF FUNDING AFTER 2013 

III.1. In your opinion and taking into consideration the approximate funding levels for 
the year 2011 (see figures below), for which of the following policies should funding 
be increased, maintained, decreased or discontinued after 2013? 

Civil Justice policy (€ 15.5 million) 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(150)    

Should be increased 
Should be maintained 
Should be decreased 
Should be discontinued 
No opinion 
N/A 

Contract law (€ 0.5 million)  

36 
56 
10 
3 
45 
- 

19,25% 
29,95% 
5,35% 
1,60% 
24,06% 

- 

19,25% 
29,95% 
5,35% 
1,60% 
24,06% 
19,79% 

24,00% 
37,33% 
6,67% 
2,00% 
30,00% 
- 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(143)    

Should be increased 
Should be maintained 
Should be decreased 
Should be discontinued 
No opinion 
N/A 

11 
43 
9 
7 
73 
- 

5,88% 
22,99% 
4,81% 
3,74% 
39,04% 

- 

5,88% 
22,99% 
4,81% 
3,74% 
39,04% 
23,53% 

7,69% 
30,07% 
6,29% 
4,90% 
51,05% 
- 

EN 

58   

  EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Consumer and marketing law (€ 0.5 million) 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(145)    

Should be increased 
Should be maintained 
Should be decreased 
Should be discontinued 
No opinion 
N/A 

25 
43 
7 
6 
64 
- 

Criminal Justice policy (€ 27 million) 

13,37% 
22,99% 
3,74% 
3,21% 
34,22% 

- 

13,37% 
22,99% 
3,74% 
3,21% 
34,22% 
22,46% 

17,24% 
29,66% 
4,83% 
4,14% 
44,14% 
- 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(150)    

Should be increased 
Should be maintained 
Should be decreased 
Should be discontinued 
No opinion 
N/A 

36 
48 
20 
2 
44 
- 

Anti-drugs policy (€ 4 million) 

19,25% 
25,67% 
10,70% 
1,07% 
23,53% 

- 

19,25% 
25,67% 
10,70% 
1,07% 
23,53% 
19,79% 

24,00% 
32,00% 
13,33% 
1,33% 
29,33% 
- 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(145)    

Should be increased 
Should be maintained 
Should be decreased 
Should be discontinued 
No opinion 
N/A 

40 
47 
5 
3 
50 
- 

21,39% 
25,13% 
2,67% 
1,60% 
26,74% 

- 

21,39% 
25,13% 
2,67% 
1,60% 
26,74% 
22,46% 

27,59% 
32,41% 
3,45% 
2,07% 
34,48% 
- 

Fundamental Rights (Charter, Rights of the child) (€ 11 million) 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(171)    

Should be increased 
Should be maintained 
Should be decreased 
Should be discontinued 
No opinion 
N/A 

EU Citizenship (€ 1.5 million) 

94 
49 
3 
2 
23 
- 

50,27% 
26,20% 
1,60% 
1,07% 
12,30% 

- 

50,27% 
26,20% 
1,60% 
1,07% 
12,30% 
8,56% 

54,97% 
28,65% 
1,75% 
1,17% 
13,45% 
- 

Should be increased 

Number of 
requested 
records 

64 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(157)    

34,22% 

34,22% 

40,76% 

EN 

59   

  EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Should be maintained 
Should be decreased 
Should be discontinued 
No opinion 
N/A 

40 
10 
4 
39 
- 

Data protection (€ 1.5 million) 

21,39% 
5,35% 
2,14% 
20,86% 

- 

21,39% 
5,35% 
2,14% 
20,86% 
16,04% 

25,48% 
6,37% 
2,55% 
24,84% 
- 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(140)    

Should be increased 
Should be maintained 
Should be decreased 
Should be discontinued 
No opinion 
N/A 

32 
44 
11 
5 
48 
- 

Gender equality (€ 13 million) 

17,11% 
23,53% 
5,88% 
2,67% 
25,67% 

- 

17,11% 
23,53% 
5,88% 
2,67% 
25,67% 
25,13% 

22,86% 
31,43% 
7,86% 
3,57% 
34,29% 
- 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(171)    

Should be increased 
Should be maintained 
Should be decreased 
Should be discontinued 
No opinion 
N/A 

81 
50 
11 
4 
25 
- 

43,32% 
26,74% 
5,88% 
2,14% 
13,37% 

- 

43,32% 
26,74% 
5,88% 
2,14% 
13,37% 
8,56% 

47,37% 
29,24% 
6,43% 
2,34% 
14,62% 
- 

Violence against women, children and young people (€ 20.5 million) 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(167)    

Should be increased 
Should be maintained 
Should be decreased 
Should be discontinued 
No opinion 
N/A 

85 
55 
3 
4 
20 
- 

45,45% 
29,41% 
1,60% 
2,14% 
10,70% 

- 

45,45% 
29,41% 
1,60% 
2,14% 
10,70% 
10,70% 

50,90% 
32,93% 
1,80% 
2,40% 
11,98% 
- 

Non discrimination, including Roma policies (€ 20.5 million) 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(165)    

Should be increased 
Should be maintained 
Should be decreased 
Should be discontinued 
No opinion 
N/A 

83 
42 
12 
7 
21 
- 

44,39% 
22,46% 
6,42% 
3,74% 
11,23% 

- 

44,39% 
22,46% 
6,42% 
3,74% 
11,23% 
11,76% 

50,30% 
25,45% 
7,27% 
4,24% 
12,73% 
- 

EN 

60   

  EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
III.2. Do you believe that there is EU added value in allocating EU funding 
to achieve the following objectives? 

Raise awareness and improve knowledge of the population on their rights and obligations 

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

Promote EU citizenship 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(171)    

98 
57 
6 
1 
9 
- 

52,41% 
30,48% 
3,21% 
0,53% 
4,81% 

- 

52,41% 
30,48% 
3,21% 
0,53% 
4,81% 
8,56% 

57,31% 
33,33% 
3,51% 
0,58% 
5,26% 
- 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(161)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

Improve access to justice 

64 
64 
10 
2 
21 
- 

34,22% 
34,22% 
5,35% 
1,07% 
11,23% 

- 

34,22% 
34,22% 
5,35% 
1,07% 
11,23% 
13,90% 

39,75% 
39,75% 
6,21% 
1,24% 
13,04% 
- 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(165)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

93 
50 
5 
0 
17 
- 

49,73% 
26,74% 
2,67% 
0,00% 
9,09% 

- 

49,73% 
26,74% 
2,67% 
0,00% 
9,09% 
11,76% 

56,36% 
30,30% 
3,03% 
0,00% 
10,30% 
- 

Eliminate obstacles to and reduce costs of cross-border judicial proceedings 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(155)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

63 
48 
10 
1 
33 
- 

33,69% 
25,67% 
5,35% 
0,53% 
17,65% 

- 

33,69% 
25,67% 
5,35% 
0,53% 
17,65% 
17,11% 

40,65% 
30,97% 
6,45% 
0,65% 
21,29% 
- 

EN 

61   

  EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Facilitate cross-border business and consumer transactions 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(152)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

36 
58 
9 
2 
47 
- 

Promote and support gender equality 

19,25% 
31,02% 
4,81% 
1,07% 
25,13% 

- 

19,25% 
31,02% 
4,81% 
1,07% 
25,13% 
18,72% 

23,68% 
38,16% 
5,92% 
1,32% 
30,92% 
- 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(172)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

98 
58 
2 
1 
13 
- 

52,41% 
31,02% 
1,07% 
0,53% 
6,95% 

- 

52,41% 
31,02% 
1,07% 
0,53% 
6,95% 
8,02% 

56,98% 
33,72% 
1,16% 
0,58% 
7,56% 
- 

Fight discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual 
orientation  

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(171)    

114 
40 
4 
1 
12 
- 

60,96% 
21,39% 
2,14% 
0,53% 
6,42% 

- 

60,96% 
21,39% 
2,14% 
0,53% 
6,42% 
8,56% 

66,67% 
23,39% 
2,34% 
0,58% 
7,02% 
- 

Protect vulnerable persons (Roma, children, victims of violence etc.) 
% Requested 
records(187)   

Number of 
requested 
records 

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(168)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

106 
47 
4 
2 
9 
- 

56,68% 
25,13% 
2,14% 
1,07% 
4,81% 

- 

56,68% 
25,13% 
2,14% 
1,07% 
4,81% 
10,16% 

63,10% 
27,98% 
2,38% 
1,19% 
5,36% 
- 

Reduce drug use and prevent drug related crime 

EN 

62   

  EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(155)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

51 
63 
14 
2 
25 
- 

27,27% 
33,69% 
7,49% 
1,07% 
13,37% 

- 

27,27% 
33,69% 
7,49% 
1,07% 
13,37% 
17,11% 

32,90% 
40,65% 
9,03% 
1,29% 
16,13% 
- 

IV. SIMPLIFICATION AND IMPROVEMENT 

IV.1. Do you agree that the funding activities of DG Justice need to be simplified and improved? 

Yes 
No 
No opinion 
N/A 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(171)    

148 
6 
17 
- 

79,14% 
3,21% 
9,09% 

- 

79,14% 
3,21% 
9,09% 
8,56% 

86,55% 
3,51% 
9,94% 
- 

IV.2. Do you agree with the following measures for simplification/improvement 
 of the funding activities? 

Provide funding under one single programme (i.e. launch annually fewer/one calls for proposals covering a 
wider range of objectives and priorities) 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(170)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

47 
47 
34 
25 
17 
- 

25,13% 
25,13% 
18,18% 
13,37% 
9,09% 

- 

25,13% 
25,13% 
18,18% 
13,37% 
9,09% 
9,09% 

27,65% 
27,65% 
20,00% 
14,71% 
10,00% 
- 

Focus funding on bigger projects with greater EU added value 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(170)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

24 
24 
66 
44 
12 
- 

12,83% 
12,83% 
35,29% 
23,53% 
6,42% 

- 

12,83% 
12,83% 
35,29% 
23,53% 
6,42% 
9,09% 

14,12% 
14,12% 
38,82% 
25,88% 
7,06% 
- 

EN 

63   

  EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Simplify selection procedures 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(168)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

92 
54 
4 
1 
17 
- 

Simplify reporting obligations 

49,20% 
28,88% 
2,14% 
0,53% 
9,09% 

- 

49,20% 
28,88% 
2,14% 
0,53% 
9,09% 
10,16% 

54,76% 
32,14% 
2,38% 
0,60% 
10,12% 
- 

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(176)    

102 
48 
12 
0 
14 
- 

54,55% 
25,67% 
6,42% 
0,00% 
7,49% 

- 

54,55% 
25,67% 
6,42% 
0,00% 
7,49% 
5,88% 

57,95% 
27,27% 
6,82% 
0,00% 
7,95% 
- 

Extend the use of IT tools at the selection, implementation and reporting phases 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(161)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

61 
65 
8 
4 
23 
- 

32,62% 
34,76% 
4,28% 
2,14% 
12,30% 

- 

32,62% 
34,76% 
4,28% 
2,14% 
12,30% 
13,90% 

37,89% 
40,37% 
4,97% 
2,48% 
14,29% 
- 

V. ACTIVITIES 

V.1. How important do you consider the following activities for achieving  
the funding objectives of DG Justice? 

Identification, development and exchange of good practices  

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(173)    

109 
56 
3 
0 

58,29% 
29,95% 
1,60% 
0,00% 

58,29% 
29,95% 
1,60% 
0,00% 

63,01% 
32,37% 
1,73% 
0,00% 

EN 

64   

  EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
No opinion 
N/A 

5 
- 

2,67% 

- 

2,67% 
7,49% 

2,89% 
- 

Training, in particular of professionals 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(168)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

91 
64 
3 
0 
10 
- 

Exchanges of legal/judicial professionals 

48,66% 
34,22% 
1,60% 
0,00% 
5,35% 

- 

48,66% 
34,22% 
1,60% 
0,00% 
5,35% 
10,16% 

54,17% 
38,10% 
1,79% 
0,00% 
5,95% 
- 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(161)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

54 
65 
11 
1 
30 
- 

28,88% 
34,76% 
5,88% 
0,53% 
16,04% 

- 

28,88% 
34,76% 
5,88% 
0,53% 
16,04% 
13,90% 

33,54% 
40,37% 
6,83% 
0,62% 
18,63% 
- 

Cooperation between professionals and organisations and development of specialised networks 

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

Studies 

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(169)    

96 
60 
2 
2 
9 
- 

51,34% 
32,09% 
1,07% 
1,07% 
4,81% 

- 

51,34% 
32,09% 
1,07% 
1,07% 
4,81% 
9,63% 

56,80% 
35,50% 
1,18% 
1,18% 
5,33% 
- 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(170)    

72 
69 
15 
2 
12 
- 

38,50% 
36,90% 
8,02% 
1,07% 
6,42% 

- 

38,50% 
36,90% 
8,02% 
1,07% 
6,42% 
9,09% 

42,35% 
40,59% 
8,82% 
1,18% 
7,06% 
- 

Statistics and development of indicators 

EN 

65   

  EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(168)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

56 
78 
10 
1 
23 
- 

Information and awareness-raising 

29,95% 
41,71% 
5,35% 
0,53% 
12,30% 

- 

29,95% 
41,71% 
5,35% 
0,53% 
12,30% 
10,16% 

33,33% 
46,43% 
5,95% 
0,60% 
13,69% 
- 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(169)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

89 
59 
10 
2 
9 
- 

47,59% 
31,55% 
5,35% 
1,07% 
4,81% 

- 

47,59% 
31,55% 
5,35% 
1,07% 
4,81% 
9,63% 

52,66% 
34,91% 
5,92% 
1,18% 
5,33% 
- 

Development of IT-tools, such as the e-Justice portal or the European registers for convicted third-country 
nationals 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(165)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

49 
69 
7 
1 
39 
- 

26,20% 
36,90% 
3,74% 
0,53% 
20,86% 

- 

26,20% 
36,90% 
3,74% 
0,53% 
20,86% 
11,76% 

29,70% 
41,82% 
4,24% 
0,61% 
23,64% 
- 

VI. DELIVERY MECHANISMS 

VI.1. Which actors/organisations are most appropriate to receive funding by DG 
Justice? 

Non-governmental organisations  

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(175)    

127 
30 
7 
1 
10 

67,91% 
16,04% 
3,74% 
0,53% 
5,35% 

67,91% 
16,04% 
3,74% 
0,53% 
5,35% 

72,57% 
17,14% 
4,00% 
0,57% 
5,71% 

EN 

66   

  EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
N/A 

- 

- 

6,42% 

- 

Universities and Research institutes 

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

Private companies 

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(164)    

59 
80 
11 
2 
12 
- 

31,55% 
42,78% 
5,88% 
1,07% 
6,42% 

- 

31,55% 
42,78% 
5,88% 
1,07% 
6,42% 
12,30% 

35,98% 
48,78% 
6,71% 
1,22% 
7,32% 
- 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(166)    

4 
30 
66 
46 
20 
- 

2,14% 
16,04% 
35,29% 
24,60% 
10,70% 

- 

2,14% 
16,04% 
35,29% 
24,60% 
10,70% 
11,23% 

2,41% 
18,07% 
39,76% 
27,71% 
12,05% 
- 

National authorities at regional/local level 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(162)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

41 
66 
20 
10 
25 
- 

National authorities at central level 

21,93% 
35,29% 
10,70% 
5,35% 
13,37% 

- 

21,93% 
35,29% 
10,70% 
5,35% 
13,37% 
13,37% 

25,31% 
40,74% 
12,35% 
6,17% 
15,43% 
- 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(161)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

International organisations 

43 
42 
32 
16 
28 
- 

22,99% 
22,46% 
17,11% 
8,56% 
14,97% 

- 

22,99% 
22,46% 
17,11% 
8,56% 
14,97% 
13,90% 

26,71% 
26,09% 
19,88% 
9,94% 
17,39% 
- 

EN 

67   

  EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(163)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

42 
64 
24 
4 
29 
- 

22,46% 
34,22% 
12,83% 
2,14% 
15,51% 

- 

22,46% 
34,22% 
12,83% 
2,14% 
15,51% 
12,83% 

25,77% 
39,26% 
14,72% 
2,45% 
17,79% 
- 

VI.2. Which types of funding do you consider most appropriate for achieving the 
funding objectives  
of DG Justice? 

Funding of specific projects with EU added value  

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(165)    

115 
45 
2 
0 
3 
- 

61,50% 
24,06% 
1,07% 
0,00% 
1,60% 

- 

61,50% 
24,06% 
1,07% 
0,00% 
1,60% 
11,76% 

69,70% 
27,27% 
1,21% 
0,00% 
1,82% 
- 

Support to the regular activities of organisations 
Number of 
requested 
records 

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

88 
52 
19 
5 
10 
- 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(174)    

47,06% 
27,81% 
10,16% 
2,67% 
5,35% 

- 

47,06% 
27,81% 
10,16% 
2,67% 
5,35% 
6,95% 

50,57% 
29,89% 
10,92% 
2,87% 
5,75% 
- 

Setting-up of and support to the activities of networks 

Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(167)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

83 
66 
6 
2 
10 
- 

44,39% 
35,29% 
3,21% 
1,07% 
5,35% 

- 

44,39% 
35,29% 
3,21% 
1,07% 
5,35% 
10,70% 

49,70% 
39,52% 
3,59% 
1,20% 
5,99% 
- 

Procurement contracts for the implementation of policy (e.g. studies, evaluations, etc). 

EN 

68   

  EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Number of 
requested 
records 

% Requested 
records(187)   

% of 
total number 
records(187)   

   % of 
total number 
records(157)    

Strongly agree 
Agree 
Disagree 
Strongly disagree 
No opinion 
N/A 

46 
72 
17 
2 
20 
- 

24,60% 
38,50% 
9,09% 
1,07% 
10,70% 

- 

24,60% 
38,50% 
9,09% 
1,07% 
10,70% 
16,04% 

29,30% 
45,86% 
10,83% 
1,27% 
12,74% 
- 

EN 

69   

  EN