COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENTAccompanying the documentsProposal 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) 1365 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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 

{COM(2011) 758 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1364 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
During  the  2007-2013  financial  perspective  funding  in  the  area  of  justice,  rights  and 
citizenship  is  provided  by  6  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).  

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  

In preparation of the proposals for 2014-2020 mid-term evaluations were carried out for the 
ongoing programmes. The results of the evaluations of JCIV, JPEN, FRC, DAP and DPIP are 
already  published.  PROGRESS  was  evaluated  by  its  annual  performance  reports  and  these 
findings were complemented by the interim results of the programme's mid-term evaluation. 

A public stakeholder consultation on the future of funding in the area of justice, rights and 
equality took place between 20 April 2011 and 20 June 2011. 187 respondents (37 individuals 
and 150 organisations) submitted their contribution. The responses largely acknowledged the 
EU  added  value  in  all  areas  of  funding  and  expressed  the  need  for  simplification  of 
management and procedures. Most of the proposed measures were rated positively and there 
was agreement concerning the proposed types of activities and delivery mechanisms. A public 
consultation on a possible successor instrument to Progress took place between 4 April 2011 
and 27 May 2011. 

The  consultation  of  the  Impact  Assessment  steering  group  involving  LS,  SG,  BUDG, 
EMPL,  HOME,  SANCO,  COMM,  EAC,  COMP  and  MARKT  was  launched  on  20  May 
2011,  convened  twice  and  accompanied  the  final  stages  of  the  preparation  of  the  impact 
assessment. 

2. 

THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF FUNDING 

During the ongoing 2007-2013 financial perspective six funding programmes are in place to 
support  EU  policies  in  the  area  of  justice,  rights  and  equality  with  a  relatively  small  total 
budget  of  €  791  million  for  the  entire  period.  They  are  implemented  via  centralised  direct 
management  through  annual  programming  and  three  types  of  actions:  transnational  projects 
(Action  Grants),  support  to  NGOs  (Operating  Grants)  and  Commission  initiatives.  These 
programmes are: 

•  The Civil Justice Programme (JCIV) - € 109,5 million (2007-2013); 

•  The Criminal Justice Programme (JPEN) - € 199,3 million (2007-2013); 

•  The  Fundamental  Rights  and  Citizenship  Programme  (FRC)  -  €  97,25  million  (2007-

2013);  

•  The Daphne III Programme (DAP) € 121,43 million (2007-2013); 

•  The  Drug  Prevention  and  Information  Programme  (DPIP)  -  €  22,35  million  (2007-

2013); 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
•  The  sections  Antidiscrimination  and  Diversity  and  Gender  Equality  of 

the 
PROGRESS programme - € 241,52 million (2007-2013), 35% of the overall PROGRESS 
budget.  

3. 

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.  

Policy challenges 

Judicial  cooperation  in  civil  and  criminal  matters  is  still  insufficient.  Access  to  justice 
should become a reality, consumer rights have to be enforced and differences in contract law 
between Member States have to be tackled. In the area of criminal law the implementation of 
the  existing  instruments  needs  to  be  improved,  while  quality  treatment  to  victims  is  placed 
high  on  the  agenda.  In  the  area  of  criminal  justice  the  prevention  of  drug-related  crime 
requires a long-term, integrated and multidisciplinary approach at EU level.  

EU  citizenship  rights  are  now  firmly  anchored  in  primary  EU  law  and  substantially 
developed in secondary law. However, EU citizens still encounter difficulties when exercising 
these rights. Lack of information is considered by EU citizens as one of the most important 
barriers to cross-border commuting and to exercising their right to free movement. 

People’s  interest  in  and  expectations  about  the  enforcement  of  the  EU  Charter  of 
Fundamental  Rights  are  high.  However,  there  is  a  frequent  misunderstanding  about  the 
purpose  of  the  Charter  and  the  situations  where it  applies  or  does  not  apply.  In  the  specific 
area of the Rights of the Child this lack of awareness is particularly acute.  

Despite  remarkable  advances  towards  equality  between  women  and  men  significant 
inequalities persist at global and EU level. Violence against women still remains one of the 
worst expressions of that inequality.  

Discrimination  in  the  EU  is  experienced  regularly  by  an  important  part  of  the  population. 
However, Europeans are not sufficiently aware of their rights should they become a victim of 
discrimination or harassment. 

The EU has become a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 
However, persons with disabilities are not yet able to fully enjoy the rights and fundamental 
freedoms enshrined in the Convention.  

The role of funding  

The role of funding is to support the EU legislative and policy activity. The specific problems 
to be addressed by funding are: 

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

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
-  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. 

As a result, funding should focus on areas where it can produce clear added value:  

•  It should enhance the effectiveness of legislation by supporting: 

• 

Information and public awareness raising;  

•  Training and capacity building for legal professionals and other practitioners. 

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

•  Strengthening networks;  

•  Cross-border cooperation on enforcement. 

•  Additionally, funding should support:  

•  Research, analysis and other support activities, to provide to the legislator clear and 

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

Relevance, Effectiveness and Efficiency of funding activities 

In  accordance  with  the  Commission's  Communication  on  A  Budget  for  Europe  2020,  the 
budget needs to be responsive and easily adaptable to the ongoing policy developments, i.e. it 
has to ensure flexibility. This is currently hampered by the fragmented approach imposed 
by  six  separate  programmes.  This  setup  further  leads  to  funding  overlaps,  which  are 
counteracting  the  need  for  increased  focus  on  policy  priorities  identified  for  all  six 
programmes.  

The  mid-term  evaluations  have  confirmed  the  overall  effectiveness  of  the  programmes,  but 
they  have  also  identified  problems,  such  as  a  dilution  of  funds  ('saupoudrage')  amongst 
many  small-scale  projects  with  limited  impact  and  EU  dimension.  Despite  the  fact  that 
funding  is  allocated  to  a  multitude  of  projects,  there  is  no  balanced  geographical  spread 
among  the  organisations  which  receive  funding.  The  mid-term  evaluations  agree  that  more 
should be done to improve the dissemination and use of results and outputs of the funded 
activities.  Improvement  in  dissemination  goes  hand  in  hand  with  improvement  in  the 
evaluation and monitoring.  

The  mid-term  evaluations  and  the  public  consultation  highlighted  in  terms  of efficiency  the 
complex  and  bureaucratic  procedures  that  the  applicants  are  facing.  From  an 
administrative  point  of  view  the  multiplication  of  procedures  for  the  different  programmes 
imposes  a  high  administrative  burden  on  the  Commission.  The  multiplication  of 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
procedures  and  the  high  administrative  burden  contribute  to  increasing  the  length  of 
procedures.  

4. 

EU'S RIGHT TO ACT 

The EU’s right to act derives from specific TFEU articles:  

Within Title V:  

•  Judicial cooperation in civil matters (Article 81(1) and (2) TFEU); 

•  Judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Article 82(1) TFEU); 

•  Crime prevention (Article 84 TFEU). 

Outside Title V: 

•  Non-discrimination (Article 19(2) TFEU); 

•  EU citizenship (Article 21(2) TFEU); 

•  Internal Market (Article 114 TFEU); 

•  Public health (Article 168 TFEU); 

•  Consumer protection (Article 169 TFEU); 

•  Administrative cooperation (Article 197 TFEU); 

Subsidiarity principle 

Action  at  EU  level  produces  clear  benefits  compared  to  action  by  Member  States  alone, 
especially in promoting transnational cooperation, networking opportunities and mutual trust. 
Furthermore,  it  ensures  consistent  interpretation  and  coherent  application  of  EU  legislative 
instruments in all Member States and it brings economies of scale.  

5. 

OBJECTIVES 

General objective:  

• 

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:  

• 

Ensure  that  the  scope  of  the  programmes  is  appropriate  to  provide  support  to  the 
policies  in  the  area  of  justice,  rights  and  equality  and  to  be  responsive  to  their 
developments: 

Ensure flexibility in the allocation of funds; reduce overlaps and fragmentation.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
• 

Focus  funding  on  specific  areas  of  action  which  have  clear  added  value  and  are 
responsive to the annual policy priorities: 

Enhance  public  awareness  and  knowledge  of  EU 
the 
implementation of EU law and policies in Member States; promote transnational cooperation; 
promote exchange of information and good practice; improve knowledge and understanding 
of EU law with view to ensuring evidence-based policy making. 

law  and  policies;  support 

• 

Improve the effectiveness and performance orientation of the programmes:  

Prevent  dilution  of  funds;  ensure  better  geographical  coverage;  improve  dissemination  and 
use of results; improve monitoring and evaluation of the programmes.  

• 

Improve the efficiency of the programmes:  

Simplify  and  reduce  the  length  of  procedures  for  beneficiaries  of  funding  and  reduce 
administrative burden for Commission.  

6. 

OPTIONS 

Option O – Baseline scenario 

The baseline scenario is to maintain the existing programmes in their current form. 

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

While  maintaining  6  programmes  similar  to  the  existing  ones,  some,  but  not  all  problems 
identified could be addressed by streamlining the objectives in the legal acts and introducing 
harmonisation in the management of the programmes. 

Option B – 2 programmes  

This option would adopt all measures foreseen under option A. Additionally, it would aim for 
more improvement by merging the six programmes in two, a "Justice Programme" (merging 
the current JCIV, JPEN and DPIP programmes) and a "Rights  and  Citizenship  Programme" 
(merging the current FRC, DAP and the two sections of the PROGRESS programme). As a 
result of this merge all procedures would need to be implemented only twice (instead of six 
times)  and  this  simplification  would  have  a  significant  positive  impact  on  all  the  identified 
problems of scope, effectiveness and efficiency. 

Option C – 1 programme  

Under this option only one programme would be implemented, either a programme in the area 
of justice or a programme in the area of rights and citizenship. This option would ensure the 
advantages of option B for this funded area; but funding would cease completely in the other 
policy area. 

Discarded options 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
A change from centralised management to shared management is discarded due to the small 
amount of the EU budget allocated to this area and the disproportionately high administrative 
burden this would create. 

A  moderate  change  of  the  centralised  direct  management  mode  would  be  to  insert  the 
objectives  contributing  to  the  promotion  of  justice,  rights  and  equality  policies  into  the 
objectives  of  other  EU  funding  programmes.  This  option  is  discarded,  because  it  would 
lead to extensive fragmentation of the objectives, causing reduced effectiveness.  

Discontinuing funding in the area of justice, rights and equality is also a discarded option, as 
funding is an essential tool for supporting the development and implementation of EU policies 
and for providing information and raising awareness in this rapidly developing field. 

7. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

Option 0 – Baseline scenario 

The impact of this option would reflect the current situation. 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.  

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

Focus on concrete areas of action would facilitate the achievement of the funding priorities. 
Improved  management  would  put  into  practice  measures  to  render  the  programmes  more 
effective. Furthermore streamlined management would address some of the problems of scope 
(i.e.  overlaps)  and  of  efficiency  (i.e.  simpler  procedures  for  applicants).  However,  these 
improvements  would  be  limited,  as  the  multitude  of  programmes,  which  is  a  root  cause  of 
many of the problems, would not be addressed.  

Option B – 2 programmes  

The  merge  of  the  programmes  would  be  a  more effective  measure  to  ensure  that  the  policy 
priorities are addressed sufficiently and to achieve flexibility in the allocation of funds. Fewer 
programmes would also mean less fragmentation and fewer instances of overlaps.  

In  terms  of  efficiency  the  merge  of  the  programmes  would  reduce  the  number  of  necessary 
procedures.  Fewer  and  streamlined  procedures  would  result  in  more  simplification  for 
applicants, reduced administrative burden and consequently shorter procedures in comparison 
to option A.  

This  simplification  and  increased  efficiency  of  the  programmes  would  have  a  significant 
positive impact on the effectiveness of the programmes. All measures of option A would be 
applicable  and  they  would  increase  their  impact,  as  additional  human  resources  would  be 
allocated to these tasks.  

Option C – 1 programme  

The  implementation  of  a  single  programme  would  be  beneficial  in  terms  of  simplification, 
uniformity  in  procedures  and  flexibility.  However,  it  would  not  be  possible  to  address 
sufficiently  the  policy  priorities  and  needs  of  the  whole  policy  area,  but  only  of  the  one 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
chosen  for  funding.  In  the  funded  area  the  programme  would  be  equally  effective  as  under 
option B, but the  overall  effectiveness of funding would be  compromised  by the fact that it 
would not be able to address the other policy area.  

8. 

PREFERRED OPTION 

The preferred option is 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  disadvantages  in  comparison  with  the  baseline  scenario.  On  the  contrary, 
option A is not preferred, as it presents only limited improvements, but does not address fully 
the root causes of the problems; and option C, although it offers maximum benefits in terms 
of management, it allows only for partial coverage of the policy areas.  

9. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Monitoring and evaluation obligations, regular reporting and interim and ex-post evaluations 
would  be  included  in  the  legal  acts  of  the  programmes.  Results-based  management  and 
performance measurement would be promoted on the basis of performance indicators. 

EN 

8 

   EN