REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Ex post evaluation report on the Civil Justice Programme (2007-2013)
Date: 2017-02-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, civil procedure, cross-border cooperation, exchange of information, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial power, right to justice, vocational training

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 13.2.2017  COM(2017) 59 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Ex post evaluation report on the Civil Justice Programme (2007-2013)  
 
 
CONTENTS 

1 

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

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

1.2  METHODOLOGY AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION ......................................... 3 

1.3  OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAMME ...................................................................... 3 

2 

RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION .......................................................................... 9 

2.1  RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAMME .................................................................... 9 

2.2  COHERENCE AND COMPLEMENTARITY ......................................................... 11 

2.3  EFFECTIVENESS .................................................................................................... 13 

2.4 

SUSTAINABILITY, TRANSFERABILITY AND INNOVATION ........................ 15 

2.5  EFFICIENCY AND SCOPE FOR SIMPLIFICATION ........................................... 17 

2.6  EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE ................................................................................ 19 

3 

CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 24 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 

OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT 

The Decision establishing the Civil Justice programme (JCIV) requires the Commission to submit an 
ex  post  evaluation  for  the  period  2007  to  20131.  The  ex  post  evaluation2  was  performed  by  an 
independent external evaluator assisted by the relevant Commission staff. 

This  report  is  based  on  that  evaluation.  The  report  is  divided  into  sections  on  the  main  evaluation 
criteria  and  corresponding  questions.  These  include  relevance;  coherence  and  complementarity; 
effectiveness; impact and sustainability; efficiency and scope for simplification; and European added 
value. 

METHODOLOGY AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION 

1.2 
This final evaluation is based on the following: 

 

 

an  extensive  review  of  the  available  documentation  of  130  action  grants  and  16  operating 
grants awarded under the 2007-2013 programme; 
a review of documentation such as the founding decision, annual work programmes and calls 
for proposals for both grants and public procurement contracts; 
a review of EU policy documents and the founding decisions of related EU programmes; 
a quantitative analysis of a sample of the 146 action grants and operating grants awarded; 
an analysis of 52 responses to the online survey from JCIV grant beneficiaries;  

 
 
 
  15 follow-up interviews with coordinators of projects/organisations receiving 2007-2013 JCIV 

grants3;  
four scoping interviews with Commission officials. 

 

1.3 

OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAMME 

The JCIV was established by Decision 1149/2007/EC of 25 September 2007 for 2007-2013, as part of 
the Programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice'. 

Article 2 of the founding decision lists the general objectives. These are to: 

  promote  judicial  cooperation  with  the  aim  of  contributing  to  the  creation  of  a  genuine 
European area of justice in civil matters based on mutual recognition and mutual confidence; 
  promote the elimination of obstacles to the good functioning of cross-border civil proceedings 

 

 

in the Member States; 
improve  the  daily  life  of  individuals  and  businesses  by  enabling  them  to  assert  their  rights 
throughout the European Union, notably by fostering access to justice; 
improve  the  contacts,  exchange  of  information  and  networking  between  legal,  judicial  and 
administrative authorities and the legal professions, including by way of support for judicial 
training,  with  the  aim  of  better  mutual  understanding  among  such  authorities  and 
professionals. 

Article  3  lists  the  specific  programme  objectives.  These  are  to  foster  judicial  cooperation  in  civil 
matters aiming at: 

1 Article 16(3)(d) of Decision No 1149/2007/EC 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'. 
2 The ex-post evaluation report by external evaluator is published here: Main report: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jciv_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf, Annexes: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jciv_annex_4_quantitative_analysis.pdf    

Mid-term evaluation report by external evaluator is published here: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0351:FIN:EN:PDF  
3 These two sources are rather subjective sources of evidence, and cannot be taken for independent evidence of performance.  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
ensuring legal certainty and improving access to justice; 

 
  promoting mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial cases; 
 

eliminating  obstacles  to  cross-border  litigation  created  by  disparities  in  civil  law  and  civil 
procedures and promoting the necessary compatibility of legislation for that purpose; 
  guaranteeing a proper administration of justice by avoiding conflicts of jurisdiction; 
 

improve mutual knowledge of Member States’ legal and judicial systems in civil matters and 
promote  and  strengthen  networking,  mutual  cooperation,  exchange  and  dissemination  of 
information, experience and best practices; 
ensure  the  sound  implementation,  the  correct  and  concrete  application  and  the  evaluation  of 
Community instruments in the area of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters; 
improve information on the legal systems in the Member States and access to justice; 

 
  promote the training of legal practitioners in Union and Community law; 
 

evaluate  the  general  conditions  necessary  to  reinforce  mutual  confidence,  while  fully 
respecting the independence of the judiciary; 
facilitate  the  operation  of  the  European  Judicial  Network  in  Civil  and  Commercial  Matters 
established by Council Decision 2001/470/EC. 

 

 

The  JCIV’s  specific  objectives  narrow  down  the  general  objectives  to  the  expected  outcomes  of  the 
programme.  Like  other  programmes  forming  part  of  the  Directorate-General  for  Justice’s  General 
Programme  on  Fundamental  Rights  and  Justice  2007-2013,  the  JCIV  provides  for  various  types  of 
action, including:  
Action grants for4:  

 

 

specific transnational projects of Community interest. These can be presented by an authority 
or  any  other  body  of  a  Member  State,  an  international  or  non-governmental  organisation, 
under the conditions set out in the annual work programme. These projects are co-financed up 
to 80% of the total costs and form the core of the programme.  
specific projects on the implementation of the European competition rules. These are projects 
aimed  at  promoting  judicial  cooperation  between,  and  the  training  of,  national  judges  who 
have to enforce European competition rules including Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on 
the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  and  the  State  aid  rules,  with  the  aim  of 
contributing  to  developing  and  implementing  European  competition  policy  and  Community 
cooperation  measures  on  competition,  to  ensure  the  consistency  of  Community  competition 
policy. 

Operating grants intended5: 

 

 

 

to co-finance (up to 80%) the annual work programme of non-governmental organisations or 
other entities pursuing an aim of general European interest (calls for proposals);  
to  co-finance  expenditure  associated  with  the  permanent  work  programme  of  specific 
organisations mentioned in the legal base (the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary 
and  the  Network  of  the  Presidents  of  the  Supreme  Judicial  Courts  of  the  European  Union), 
provided that the grants are used to achieve an objective of European general interest; 
to  fund  the  operation  of  the  European  Judicial  Network  in  Civil  and  Commercial  Matters 
established by Council Decision 2001/470/EC. 

Commission initiated projects for conducting studies and research, opinion polls and surveys; devising 
indicators  and  common  methodologies;  collecting,  developing  and  disseminating  data  and  statistics; 
holding seminars, conferences and expert meetings; running public campaigns and events; setting up 
and  maintaining  websites;  drafting  and  publishing  information;  supporting  and  running  networks  of 

4 Article 8 of Decision No 1149/2007/EC 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'. 
5 Ibid. 

4 

 
 
 
national  experts;  and  analysing,  monitoring  and  evaluating  the  work  done.  The  Commission  uses 
procurement procedures6 for these activities. 

Table 1-1 shows the number of different actions funded in each year. Calls for proposals for action 
grants and operating grants were split across the years 2011 and 2012. The total planned budget for the 
JCIV for January 2007 to December 2013 was EUR 109.3 million7 (see Table 1-2). Over the period, 
the  Commission  published  6  calls  for  proposals  for  action  grants  and  6  calls  for  proposals  for 
operating grants, and 247 Commission initiatives were launched. 

Table 1-1 Number of actions funded per year 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

TOTAL 

Action grants  

Operating grants  

Public procurement   

24 

2 

2 

19 

3 

22 

18 

3 

22 

16 

3 

52 

25 

2 

36 

63 

28 

3 

50 

130 

16 

247 

Table 1-2 gives a detailed breakdown of the budget for each implementation year and funding tool, 
based on annual work programmes. As the table shows, the programme includes specific projects on 
competition (EUR 800 000 a year, which is managed by the Directorate-General for Competition); the 
management of membership of the community in the Hague Conference on private international law; 
and  operating  expenditures  of  the  European  judicial  network.  The  funding  for  the  network  covers 
about  six  general  meetings  per  year  to  discuss  problems  in  applying  civil  justice  instruments,  the 
publication  of  practical  guides  for  practitioners  and  the  public  (including  translation,  printing  and 
shipping costs) and updating the website (for which working groups are usually set up). All actions are 
decided the preceding year when the budget is being drawn up. 

The  budget  allocated  to  action  grants  and  operating  grants  between  2007  and  2013  was  EUR  49.2 
million,  of  which  EUR 34.9  million  had  been  committed  and  EUR 14.6  million  spent  as  of  January 
2015.8  

6 Ibid. 
7 Article 13 of Decision No 1149/2007/EC 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'. 
8 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Civil 
Justice (JCIV), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 38 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jciv_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1-2 Planned budget breakdown for the JCIV (2007-2013) 

Available budget for grants and contracts 

GRANTS 

AGs9 

Year 

2007 

4 300 000 

2008 

4 500 000 

2009 

4 800 000 

2010 

5 050 000 

AGs comp10  OGs NGOs11 

OGs other12  HCCH

13

14

EJN

COM initiatives15 

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 500 000 

1 500 000 

500 000 

500 000 

0 

0 

3 250 000 

4 550 000 

3 150 000 

4 650 000 

1 500 000 

500 000 

20 000 

2 700 000 

4 650 000 

1 500 000 

500 000 

20 000 

3 050 000 

5 380 000 

2011 

3 980 000  

800 000 

500 000 

500 000 

20 000 

2 205 000 

7 695 000 

2012 

4 350 000  

800 000 

500 000 

500 000 

34 000 

2 700 000 

7 216 000 

2013 

8 776 000 

800 000 

500 000 

500 000 

30 000 

800 000 

5 150 000 

Total  35 756 000 
Source: JCIV — Annual Work Programmes (2007-2013) 

2 400 000 

7 500 000 

3 500 000 

124 000 

15 155 000 

39 291 000 

Most JCIV actions were led by a national authority (22% of all lead organisations), a university (21%), 
or a European network, platform or forum (20%). Compared to other programmes such as Daphne and 
Fundamental  Rights  and  Citizenship  Programme  (FRC),  national  non-governmental  organisations 
(NGOs)  were  in  the  minority,  leading  only  8%  of  JCIV  actions.  Universities  (22%)  and  national 
authorities  (20%)  accounted  for  the  bulk  of  partner  organisations,  followed  by  other  education  and 
training institutes (15%), national NGOs and platforms (13%) and legal professionals (10%).16 

Project awarded JCIV action grants mainly focused on analytical activities, training, and awareness-
raising, information and dissemination (see Figure 1-1, left).  

Operating  grants  mainly  went  towards  supporting  key  actors;  mutual  learning;  exchange  of  good 
practices  and  cooperation;  and  awareness-raising,  information  and  dissemination  (see  Figure  1-1, 
right).  

9 Budget allocated to action grants for ‘specific trans-national projects of Community interest presented by an authority or any other body of 
a Member State, an international or non-governmental organisation, and involving in any case at least two Member States or at least one 
Member State and one other State which may be either an acceding country or a candidate country’ (Article 4(b) of the founding Decision). 
10 Budget allocated, according to the annual work programme, to action grants for specific projects to help implement European competition 
rules. These are projects to promote judicial cooperation between, and training of, national judges in the context of the enforcement of the 
European competition rules, including Articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU and the State aid rules, with the aim of contributing to the 
development and implementation of European competition policy and Community cooperation measures in the field of competition to ensure 
the consistency of Community competition policy. 
11 Budget allocated to operating grants for ‘the activities of non-governmental organisations or other entities pursuing an aim of general 
European interest in accordance with the general objectives of the Programme under the conditions set out in the annual work programmes’ 
(Article 4(c) of the founding Decision). 
12 Budget allocated to ‘operating grants to co-finance expenditure associated with the permanent work programmes of the European Network 
of Councils for the Judiciary and the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the European Union, insofar as it is 
incurred in pursuing an objective of general European interest by promoting exchanges of views and experience on matters concerning case-
law and the organisation and functioning of the members of those networks in the performance of their judicial and/or advisory functions 
with regard to Community law’. 
13 Budget allocated to the management of the membership of the community in the Hague conference on private international law. 
14 Budget allocated, according to the annual work programme, for operation of the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial 
Matters, created by Council Decision No 2001/470/CE of 28 May 2001, establishing a European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial 
Matters. 
15 Budget allocated to ‘specific actions initiated by the Commission, such as studies and research, opinion polls and surveys, formulation of 
indicators and common methodologies, collection, development and dissemination of data and statistics, seminars, conferences and expert 
meetings, organisation of public campaigns and events, development and maintenance of websites, preparation and dissemination of 
information material, support for and management of networks of national experts, analytical, monitoring and evaluation activities’ (Article 
4(a) of the founding Decision). 
16 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Civil 
Justice (JCIV), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 3 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jciv_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public  procurement  contracts  focused  on  studies,  practical  guides,  conferences,  workshops, 
maintenance of websites and other IT provision. 

Figure 1-1 JCIV action grants projects by main activity (left) and JCIV operating grants by main activity (right) 

Figure  1-2  provides  an  overview  of  the  number  of  times  a  type  of  output  was  identified  in  the  146 
JCIV  projects  mapped.17  For  example,  the  output  ‘workshops  and  focus  groups’,  related  to  mutual 
learning and networking, which was identified 66 times and for which 59 indicators were found, had a 
total  of  4 345  participants  (the  total  of  33  indicators).  The  target  groups  were  most  often  judges, 
practitioners and judicial staff.  

The second most frequent output was training activities (42), as part of awareness-raising, information 
and  dissemination.  These  accounted  for  4 371  participants  (based  on  28  different  indicators).  The 
target groups were most often judges, mediators and practitioners.  

The third most frequent output (41) was events, with a total of 3 646 participants (identified 23 times), 
and 8 000 recipients (the outputs of one indicator).  The target groups were most often practitioners, 
the general public and judicial staff. 

Figure 1-2 Count of JCIV outputs 

17 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Civil 
Justice (JCIV) quantitative analysis, 28 July 2015, p. 10 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jciv_annex_4_quantitative_analysis.pdf  

7 

 
 
 
 
       
 
 
 
 
8 

 
 
 
2 

2.1 

RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION  

RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAMME 

The relevance of a programme is assessed in terms of the extent to which its actions logically address 
its objectives, the wider EU policy needs and the needs of the target audiences. 

2.1.1 

Relevance of the programme’s actions to its objectives 

All  general  and  specific  objectives  are  geared  to  promoting  judicial  cooperation  with  the  aim  of 
contributing to the creation of a genuine European area of justice in civil and commercial matters. In 
assessing whether the objectives are SMART18, it can be concluded that they are specific (in that they 
target a specific area for improvement), attainable and realistic (as they can be achieved through the 
actions  funded  and  within  the  programme  resources).  However,  they  are  not measurable,  as  they  do 
not quantify or at least suggest an indicator of progress. Nor are they time-bound, as the objectives do 
not have a time line, and it is not specified when the results should be achieved.19  

The  Commission  has  a  broad  objective  of  fostering  European  judicial  training,  which  prioritises 
training on specific subjects to meet policy needs and in line with the work of the European Judicial 
Training Network (EJTN). In 2011, the European Commission set a target of training half of all legal 
practitioners in the EU (around 700 000) in European law and in the law of a Member State by 202020. 
Under  the  JCIV  programme,  European  judicial  training  was  mainly  supported  through  action  grants 
and a few specific actions, though operating grants were also awarded through other programmes21. 

Given the Commission’s responsibility for running the secretariat of the European Judicial Network in 
Civil  and  Commercial  Matters  (EJN-Civil),  funds  were  also  allocated  through  procurement  or 
administrative arrangements to support its operation. This pertains to a general objective, although it 
could be argued that it is a cross-cutting objective. The network generally meets to discuss problems in 
the  application  of  the  existing  civil  justice  instruments,  the  publication  of  practical  guides  for 
practitioners or the public and updating the website.22  

2.1.2 

Priorities set in the calls for proposals and selected actions and their relevance to 
policy  

The JCIV programme has been closely linked to the main policy developments and legal instruments 
in the civil justice area from the start, and regular efforts were made to align the JCIV programme with 
new policy and legislative developments by setting priorities in the calls for proposals.  

Overall  the  priorities  and  funded  actions  can  be  considered  relevant  to  the  objectives  of  the 
programme. However, the process put in place to select the programme’s priorities left little room for 
manoeuvre, once the priorities had been set (although in principle a project which did not reflect any 
priority could receive a grant under other award criteria). This meant that in some cases, if a priority 
changed during the implementation of a project, its results were less useful. Conversely, with regard to 
training, for example, needs could arise that did not fall under the set priorities. They could not then be 
funded under the programme because they were not taken into consideration in a specific call. 

The programme was implemented: 

18 SMART objectives are defined as being specific, measurable, achievable, results-focused and time-bound. 
19 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Civil 
Justice (JCIV), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 7 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jciv_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 
20 European Commission communication Building trust in EU-wide justice — A new dimension to European judicial training, 
COM/2011/0551 final, 13.09.2011. 
21 E.g. to the EJTN via the JPEN programme and to other organisations, such as the Academy of European Law (ERA) and the European 
Institute of Public Administration (EIPA), through operating grants from the Directorate-General for Education and Culture. 
22 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Civil 
Justice (JCIV), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 7 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jciv_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 

9 

 
 
 
 

 

to contribute to policy and legislative developments, through research, analysis and other 
support  activities,  to  provide  the  legislator  with  clear  and  detailed  information  on  the 
problems  and  the  situation  on  the  ground,  as  well  as  through  strengthening  networks  to 
assist  with  the  preparation  of  future  initiatives  in  this  area.  Among  its  most  important 
achievements, the 2009 action grant project ‘Interconnecting European Registers of Wills’ 
aimed at developing a large network of interconnected registers of wills, in line with the 
policy  development  which  finally  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  Succession  Regulation23  in 
2012.  Public  procurement  contracts  were  also  largely  used  to  that  end,  e.g.  through  the 
European  Judicial  Atlas  in  Civil  Matters,  the  JURE  case-law  database,  and  various 
evaluation and implementation studies. 
to  support  the  practical  application  and  implementation  of  existing  EU  policy  and 
legislation, through promoting networks, to help with the consistent implementation of EU 
instruments across Europe, through training and capacity building for legal professionals 
and  other  practitioners,  to  equip  them  with  the  tools  to  effectively  put  EU  rights  and 
policies  into  practice.  Among  its  most  important  achievements,  two  2009  action  grant 
projects aimed at creating user-friendly tools —available in the European e-Justice Portal 
— to find civil law lawyers and notaries respectively across the EU. Another example is 
the ‘i-Support’ action grant, to explore ICT systems with a view to implementing the 2009 
EU Maintenance Regulation and the 2007 Hague Convention on maintenance, accession 
to  which  was  under  discussion  at  the  time  the  grant  was  awarded.  Public  procurement 
contracts  played  an  important  role  here  too,  e.g.  via  stakeholder  consultations,  impact 
assessments and feasibility studies.24 

2.1.3 

Relevance of the programme to the needs of the target groups 

Overall, grant beneficiaries found that the calls and selected actions identified, and responded to, the 
needs of the target groups, although the extent to which they adequately identified these needs varied, 
with  some  undertaking  elaborate  needs  assessments  and  others  adopting  a  less  rigid  approach.  Most 
grant  beneficiaries  consulted  for  this  evaluation  reported  that  they  conducted  needs  assessments  to 
support the design and development of their projects. However, analysis of the project documentation 
showed that a significant number of grant applicants either did not design their projects on the basis of 
a  needs  assessment  or  did  not  sufficiently  document  that  assessment  in  the  grant  application  form. 
While the Commission did not specifically require them to conduct and demonstrate needs assessment, 
these  would  have  enabled  grant  applicants  to  make  the  relevance  of  their  project  much  clearer, 
enhanced  the  quality  of  studies  and  provided  a  baseline  upon  which  to  assess  project  success  later. 
Projects  that  are  not  based  on  needs  assessment  may  still  be  relevant  to  target  groups’  needs.  But  a 
needs assessment makes it more likely that applicants will pick the most relevant methods or means of 
supporting the target groups.25 

Grant beneficiaries reported that the  conceptual framework of the JCIV programme allowed them to 
develop their projects as planned. Of 61 respondents to the online survey, 59 said they had been able 
to  reach  the  target  groups.  In  addition,  86.8%  of  respondents  to  the  online  survey  (53)  reported 
feedback from their target group(s) confirming that the implemented project/activities were relevant to 
the  problems  or  issues  they  faced.  In  follow-up  interviews,  most  stakeholders  said  that  they  did  not 
recall  the  specific  messages  of  the  target  groups  but  that  their  projects  were,  in  general,  positively 
received.26  

23 Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement 
of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession. 
24 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Civil 
Justice (JCIV), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 7 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jciv_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 
25 Ibid., p. 12 
26 Ibid., p. 13 

10 

 
 
  
 
The overall conclusion that the JCIV programme and its priorities were relevant to grant beneficiaries 
was  confirmed  in  stakeholder  interviews.  10  out  of  15  interviewees  indicated  that  the  conceptual 
framework  of  the  programme  (i.e.  its  objectives  and  the  priorities  set)  had  enabled  them  to  develop 
their projects as originally envisaged.27   

2.2 

COHERENCE AND COMPLEMENTARITY 

there 

to  which 

is  convergence  with  other  policies  and 

Coherence  relates  to  the  extent  to  which  the  intervention  logic  of  the  programme  is  internally 
consistent,  i.e.  between  objectives,  inputs,  activities  and  expected  results,  and  to  whether  the 
intervention is consistent with interventions having similar objectives. Complementarity concerns the 
interventions,  or  overlap. 
extent 
Complementarity  and  coherence  can  be  achieved  by  creating  synergies,  i.e.  concerted  actions, 
collaboration or interaction involving different actors/stakeholders mutually reinforcing shared goals. 
However,  overlaps  can  be 
the  different  programmes.  Coherence  and 
complementarity were analysed in terms of whether the programme was optimised in relation to other 
EU  programmes  and  how  the  results  of  the  implemented  actions  complement  national  policy 
initiatives/programmes  and  other  European  or  international  initiatives/programmes.  It  can  be  multi-
dimensional in terms of (i) objectives and thematic areas; (ii) the priorities set in the calls for proposals 
and (iii) the actions funded. 

identified  among 

Article  12  of  the  founding  decision  outlines  the  scope  for  complementarity  with  other  EU  financial 
programmes:  the  Criminal  Justice  Programme  (JPEN),  as  part  of  the  General  Programme 
‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’; Security and Safeguarding Liberties, composed of the two financial 
programmes,  i.e.  Prevention  and  Fight  against  Crime  (ISEC)  and  Prevention,  Preparedness  and 
Consequence  Management  of  Terrorism  and  other  Security  Related  Risks  (CIPS);  Solidarity  and 
Management  of  Migration  Flows,  composed  of  four  funds,  i.e.  External  Borders  Fund  (EBF), 
European Return Fund (RF), European Refugee Fund (ERF) and European Fund for the Integration of 
third-country (i.e. non-EU) nationals (EIF). In addition to the programmes referred to in the founding 
decision,  further  complementarity  is  possible  with  a  number  of  other  EU  instruments,  e.g.  the  FRC 
programme  (in  terms  of  certain  objectives  and  thematic  areas,  the  nature  of  the  programme,  and  to 
some extent the target groups), and the Daphne programme (in terms of the nature of the programme 
and target groups).28 

2.2.1 

Objectives and thematic areas 

The programme achieved coherence and complementarity with programmes similar in objectives and 
themes by means of decisions made on the scope of the programmes at the programme design and call 
development stages. However, the analysis found both complementarity and overlap between the JCIV 
and the JPEN, FRC and (potentially) ISEC programmes, in terms of objectives and themes.  

The JCIV and JPEN both aim to establish a European area of justice based on the principle of mutual 
recognition of court rulings, cooperation between judicial authorities in civil and criminal matters, and 
fostering trust. They are also intended to facilitate access to the courts and hence to facilitate the lives 
of  Europeans,  involving  stakeholders  and  civil  society  in  the  debate  on  justice.  There  is  scope  for 
complementarity  because  they  have  similar  objectives.  The  JCIV  deals  with  civil  and  commercial 
matters,  while  the  JPEN  deals  with  criminal  matters.  But  there  is  always  a  risk  they  will  overlap, 
especially in general issues such as e-justice or training. Moreover, some specific subjects fall under 
civil justice in some Member States, and under criminal justice in others. Protection measures are one 
example: these are regulated by two separate instruments at EU level, a civil29 and a criminal one30. 
The  programmes  were  kept  separate  in  2007  because  of  their  different  legal  bases,  which  called  for 
different  adoption  procedures.  However,  this  is  no  longer  the  case  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the 
Treaty of Lisbon. The programmes are very similar in terms of objectives, management methods, and 

27 Ibid., p. 12 
28 Ibid., p. 14 
29 Regulation (EU) n. 606/2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters. 
30 Directive 2011/99/EU on the European protection order. 

11 

 
 
 
end  beneficiaries  and  have  in  fact  been  combined  into  one  funding  instrument  for  the  2014-2020 
period.  

There  is  complementarity  with  the  FRC  programme’s  objective  of  providing  ‘training  to  legal 
professions  and  legal  practitioners’31  which  could  be  interpreted  as  similar  to  JCIV’s  objective  of 
‘improving  mutual  knowledge  of  EU  countries’  legal  and  judicial  systems  in  civil  matters  for 
professionals and legal practitioners’.  

The  JCIV  programme  aims  to  ‘foster  judicial  cooperation  in  civil  matters’.  Article  3(3)  of  ISEC’s 
founding decision states that the programme does not deal with judicial cooperation. However, it may 
cover actions which aim at encouraging cooperation between judicial authorities and law enforcement 
authorities and therefore there is potential scope for complementarity and for overlap with the JCIV.  

There is significant measure for complementarity between the JCIV programme and other EU funding 
programmes and little evidence of overlap. In particular the relatively narrowly defined scope of the 
JCIV programme (focusing on a specific thematic area, i.e. promoting access to justice and fostering 
judicial  cooperation  in  civil  matters,  for  particular  types  of  beneficiaries,  i.e.  legal  practitioners  and 
national authorities) helped minimise overlap and duplication with other EU programmes. Particularly 
on cross-cutting issues such as e-justice and training there is a need for complementarity (also in order 
to avoid overlap).32  

2.2.2 

Priorities set in the calls for proposals 

When  preparing  annual  work  programmes,  DG  Justice  also  sought  to  increase  complementarity  and 
coherence  between  the  DG  Justice  programmes  by  organising  meetings  between  the  programme 
management and policy units. At the same time, it participated in inter-service consultations and inter-
service groups to discuss complementarity and possible overlaps in programming with other DGs. The 
Commission presented the annual work programme and its priorities to the Programme Committee for 
Member  States  to  identify  any  complementarity  and  coherence  issues  with  other  EU  or  national 
initiatives.33  

2.2.3 

Actions funded 

A  certain  measure  for  complementarity  was  also  found  in  a  small  number  of  projects  implemented 
under the JCIV. This included a few cases of potential overlap with other EU programmes. Among the 
most important34: 

  The  JCIV  project:  ‘Understanding  Justice’  is  similar  to  JPEN  in  that  it  aims  to  adapt  the 
existing  corpus  of  knowledge  and  practical  recommendations  for  Legal  Interpreting  and 
Translation  (LIT)  in  the  Criminal  Justice  domain  to  the  delivery  of  LIT  in  the  Civil  Justice 
domain,  and  to  create  and  disseminate  knowledge  to  judicial  staff  and  practitioners, 
interpreters  practising  in  the  Criminal  Justice  domain  and  the  public  about  best  practices  in 
interpreting and translation in civil justice proceedings. 

  The  JPEN  project:  ‘European  Training  Platform  for  lawyers’,  created  under  the  e-justice 
priority,  aimed  at  creating  a  European  Training  Platform  for  both  civil  and  criminal  justice 
practitioners, although funded under the JPEN programme. 

  The JCIV project: ‘Conference on Justice in the EU — from the Citizen’s Perspective’ held a 
conference  which  contributed  to  deeper  understanding  of  the  issue  of  individuals’  access  to 
civil and criminal justice in the EU and improved networking among legal practitioners. The 
specific objectives of the JPEN programme include improving mutual knowledge of Member 

31 European Commission website, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Funding Programme, available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants/programmes/fundamental-citizenship/index_en.htm.  
32 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Civil 
Justice (JCIV), ICF, 28 July 2015, pp. 14-15 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jciv_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 
33 Ibid., p. 8 
34 Ibid., p. 17 

12 

 
 
 
States’ legal and judicial systems in criminal matters, promoting and strengthening networking 
and improving information on legal systems in the Member States and access to justice.  
  The JCIV project: ‘Litigious Love: Same-sex couples and mediation in the European Union’ 
helps  to  combat  homophobia  and  targets  same-sex  couples  in  the  EU.  These  objectives  and 
target groups are similar to the FRC programme.  

The online survey found various synergies with other grants funded by other EU, national or regional 
programmes  and  within  the  JCIV  programme.  In  summary,  nine  respondents  to  the  online  survey 
reported synergies with other JCIV projects, seven reported synergies with other EU programmes, and 
six reported synergies with other national or regional programmes with similar objectives.35  

2.3 

EFFECTIVENESS 

The effectiveness of a programme refers to the extent to which the programme has been successful in 
achieving its objectives, and the extent to which JCIV projects were successful in achieving their own 
project objectives. 

2.3.1 

Programme achievements 

It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of the programme because of the limited information available 
on outcomes  and impacts.36 The Commission's  monitoring  and evaluation  system  was rather output-
oriented than results-oriented which explains some of the deficiencies of the present evaluation report. 

Neither the action grant final report template nor the operating grant final report template has a section 
specifically  requiring  a  description  of  outcomes.  Moreover,  the  final  reports  reviewed  tended  not  to 
differentiate between the projects’ outputs and outcomes or impact. This might be because neither the 
final  report  template  nor  the  guidelines  providing  instructions  for  completing  the  report  provided  a 
clear explanation of the difference between outputs and outcomes or impact.37  

Out  of  146  action  grants and  operating  grants  implemented  during  the  programme  period,  107  were 
finished at the time information was made available for this evaluation. However, only 94 had a final 
report ready. A review of the final reports for these projects found 54 action grants and six operating 
grants with some evidence of useful outcomes.38  

2.3.2 

Project achievements 

Overall,  the  actions  funded  made  a  contribution  to  the  programme  objectives.  The  majority  of  the 
projects  were  able  to  achieve  the  planned  results  on  time  or  to  reach  the  expected  target  group.  No 
obstacles seriously influencing the implementation of the project’s results or objectives were identified 
apart from those linked to the economic crisis. With regard to unexpected effects of the projects, the 
evidence gathered showed that the majority of the projects had reached unexpected positive results and 
almost no unexpected negative effects. 

Over half of all finalised AGs and OGs (69 out of the 94 grants for which final reports were available) 
implemented all the activities as planned. In some cases, achievement of this entailed changes in the 
staff or required searching for additional funding. Out of 37 respondents to the online survey, 16 had 
to replace a member of staff in the course of the project/activities, while 10 respondents replaced more 
than  one  member  of  staff  in  the  course  of  the  project/activities  and  7  respondents  had  to  search  for 
additional  funding  to  implement  the  activities  planned.  Nonetheless,  these  fluctuations  had  a  minor 
impact  on  the  development  of  the  funded  actions.  In  fact,  85%  of  the  33  respondents  to  the  online 
survey  indicated  that  these  changes  had  no  impact  on  the  outcomes  of  the  project/activities.  For 

35 Ibid., p. 18 
36 Ibid. 
37 Ibid., p. 19 
38 Ibid., p. 19 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
example in the 2013 AG project ‘Business & Human Rights challenges for cross border litigation in 
the European Union’ although more than one member of staff had to be replaced, all of the project’s 
objectives were achieved. 

Out of a total of 61 respondents, the majority stated that they were able to achieve all (56%), or most 
(26%), of the planned results on time and out of 52 respondents, 94% were able to reach the expected 
target  groups.  Moreover,  out  of  52  respondents,  58%  reported  that  their  project  made  a  significant 
difference to the thematic area they were working in.  

According to the evidence gathered through the online survey and follow-up interviews, it seems that 
the main internal factors positively influencing the implementation of the project were good relations 
among  partners  and  good  cooperation  with  the  Commission.  No  obstacles  seriously  influencing  the 
implementation  of  the  project  results  or  objectives  were  identified.  However,  some  changes  were 
introduced  to  the  initial  design  of  some  projects  to  better  achieve  the  planned  results  or  to  adapt  to 
changing circumstances.  

In  relation  to  changes  during  the  project/activities,  out  of  33  respondents,  55%  reported  that  this 
change(s)  had  no  impact  on  the  implementation  of  the  project/activities,  and  42%  reported  that  the 
above-mentioned  change(s)  had  a  minor  impact.  Only  3%  reported  that  the  change(s)  had  a  major 
impact. Regarding the effect of these changes on outcomes, out of 33 respondents, 85% reported that 
the  change(s)  had  no  impact  on  the  outcomes  of  the  project/activities;  12%  believed  that  there  had 
been a minor impact and only 3% stated that the change(s) had a major impact on the outcomes of the 
project/activities.  During  follow-up  interviews,  project  partners  also  cited  as  positive  factors  that 
contributed  to  effective  implementation  of  projects  and  activities,  the  development  of  good 
relationships between partners and the cooperation with the Commission.   

All  16  operating  grants  were  completed  between  2007  and  2013.  The  activities  carried  out  mainly 
related  to  awareness-raising,  mutual  learning  and  support  for  key  actors.  For  example,  the  2009 
operating  grant  for  Save  the  Children  Italy helped  its  legal  unit  carry out  activities  to  foster  judicial 
cooperation  in  civil  matters  and  improve  information  on  the  legal  systems  and  access  to  justice  in 
Member States. These included producing and sending an online newsletter to 1000 recipients in 13 
Member  States,  holding  two  meetings  for  judges  and  central  authorities  and  four  internal  training 
meetings  for  Save  the  Children  legal  experts.  It  also  helped  with  setting  up  the  EU  section  of  the 
International Association of Youth and Family Judges and Magistrates (IAYFJM).39   

Under the public procurement component of the JCIV programme, 247 contracts were awarded. The 
information provided for the evaluation includes the total amount of the contract, the name of the lead 
contractor  and  whether  the  contract  was  for  carrying  out  studies,  events  or  IT-related  tasks.  The 
information  shows40  that  public  procurement  contracts  were  used  for  developing,  implementing  and 
disseminating EU policy and legislation, and to ensure that project results were sustainable.  

Public procurement contracts are used to fund the European Day of Civil Justice, which is celebrated 
yearly on 25 October. These central events, co-organised by the Council of Europe and the European 
Commission, aim to bring justice closer to citizens and to inform them of their rights by staging mock 
cases  and  holding  information  sessions  open  to  students,  legal  professionals  and  the  general  public, 
and ‘open days’ at courts. Awareness-raising activities (e.g. in 2012 a campaign on consumer rights) 
and dissemination activities (e.g. producing guides in various language versions, e.g. in 2010 Guide du 
citoyen,  in  2011  Practice  Guide  for  the  Application  of  the  Regulation  on  the  European  Order  for 
Payment  and  in  2012  'Procédure  européenne  d’injonction  de  payer'  are  also  funded  through  public 
procurement contracts. The European Judicial Atlas in Civil Matters should also be mentioned, and the 
contracts funded for the maintenance of the e-Justice Portal.  

39 Ibid., p. 23 
40 Ibid. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4 

SUSTAINABILITY, TRANSFERABILITY AND INNOVATION 

In terms of sustainability, it was analysed, whether the results, outcomes and impacts achieved by the 
projects are sustainable beyond the project funding period.  

Three levels of sustainability were identified in the evaluation:  

 

short-term sustainability, which is achieved mainly through dissemination of projects’ results; 

  medium-term  sustainability,  which 

includes  continuation  of  project 

results  and/or 

partnerships; and 

 

longer-term sustainability, achieved mainly by transferring projects’ results to other contexts, 
organisations or Member States with little or no additional funding. 

2.4.1 

Continuation of project activities and outputs and dissemination 

Development  of  electronic  tools  has  been  a  priority  for  JCIV-funded  projects  since  the  2008 
Communication and e-Justice action plan. This might explain why survey respondents indicated that 
they had continued or would continue to maintain hardware and/or software.  

In follow-up interviews, 7 out of 15 interviewees indicated that electronic devices and online portals 
resulting from the projects were long-lasting outputs, although 2 out of 7 also pointed to difficulties in 
maintaining and updating them. Commission officials confirmed that updates (and maintenance) of the 
outputs  (e.g.  websites,  studies)  are  a  major  concern  and  this  may  influence  project  selection.  The 
question is whether to continue funding useful projects with good quality outputs which may not be 
sustainable in the long term, if the information is not regularly updated.41 
The  evidence  gathered42  through  the  consultation  with  grant  beneficiaries  for  this  evaluation  also 
suggests  that  projects  heavily  relied  on  EU  funds  to  guarantee  outputs.  EU  funding  also  contributed 
significantly to the ability of organisations to continue activities that were previously implemented.  

In fact, more than half of the participants in the survey, i.e. 27 out of 52 survey participants, indicated 
that further funding was needed to guarantee financial sustainability of the project/activities  

In  some  cases,  the  grant  beneficiaries  reported  in  the  follow-up  interviews  that  specific  elements  of 
their  projects  required  further  funding  to  ensure  sustainable  results  —  mostly  to  further  disseminate 
project outputs and to transfer parts of the project. These specific elements are: 

  maintenance of websites or electronic tools, i.e. electronic registry or ‘clearing houses’ such as 

 

an online mediation portal; 
follow-up activities to ensure the continuation of project results and extension of these results 
to  a  wider  group  of  beneficiaries,  e.g.  conferences,  events,  and  response  to  requests  and 
questions regarding the project results; 

  production of follow-up materials such as a manuals; 
 

transferability  of  results  achieved  within  one  Member  State  to  other  Member  States,  e.g. 
comparative analysis and exchange of best practices;  
training activities — in particular, adapting activities to other contexts. 

 

Out of the 52 survey respondents, only 13 stated that further  funding had already been secured from 
other EU funds. However, no further information on the type of additional funding was provided. In 
some  cases,  the  organisation  would  fund  follow-up  activities  itself,  e.g.  the  Max  Planck  Institute, 
Luxembourg.43  

41 Ibid., p. 32 
42 Ibid. 
43 Ibid., p. 33 

15 

 
 
 
2.4.2 

Continuation of partnerships after the project’s completion 

The  final  reports  of  JCIV-funded  actions  suggest  that  the  continuation  rate  of  partnerships  was 
remarkably  low.  Of  the  146  mapped  on  the  basis  of  the  information  available  in  the  project 
documentation, only 10 reported continuing with their established partnerships — fully in 6 cases and 
partially  in  4  cases.  The  continuation  rate  could  be  low  because,  as  indicated  in  the  mid-term 
evaluation report, the calls were very technical (focusing on highly technical legal subjects). This may 
have affected partnership options at the end of the projects.44  

However,  the  online  survey  showed  different  results  regarding  whether  partnerships  continued  after 
project completion. Of the 52 respondents, 69% indicated that the partnership continued and only 6% 
indicated that the partnership did not continue. The data could be contradictory because the mapping 
was carried out on the basis of the final reports (which might have provided incomplete information on 
this topic) while the surveys directly gathered the views of the project managers. The survey data is 
likely  to  be  more  representative  of  the  actual  situation  with  respect  to  the  continuation  of  the 
partnerships entered into in a JCIV-funded project.45   

2.4.3 

Potential sustainability and transferability of outputs 

The final reports provided little information on the sustainability of projects’ outputs.  Disseminating 
the outputs and results to a wide audience can increase their sustainability. Many of the outputs were 
already  designed  to  be  used  at  EU  level  (such  as  the  EJTN’s  judicial  training  was  designed  for 
participants from multiple Member States and the e-Justice portal for use by audiences in all Member 
States). Some outputs that were not designed for cross-EU application were otherwise designed to be 
transferable  to  other  Member  States.  Many  of  the  project  partners  interviewed  for  the  evaluation 
demonstrated that they had designed their projects around clear products, or outputs, many of which 
would be or could be transferred to other Member States. A total of 70 out of 89 respondents to the 
online survey also expressed the view that all or some outputs could be used without any changes in 
more than one country  and an additional 22 reported that the transfer could be done with some minor 
changes in more than one country. More than two thirds (61 respondents) also reported that the results 
of the project/activities could inform policy activities in one or more other countries.46  

There  was  evidence  that  at  least  some  actions  implemented  under  the  JCIV  continued  once  EU 
funding  ended.  Out  of  94  projects  (action  grants  and  operating  grants)  for  which  final  reports  were 
available, 45 provided some evidence of continuation of the project results. The reports on the other 49 
actions  funded  did  not  provide  information  on  this  issue.  The  availability  of  information,  therefore, 
affects the possibility of evaluating the sustainability of JCIV projects.47 

Grant  beneficiaries  considered  that  many  projects  had  achieved  sustainable  results.  Out  of  52 
respondents,  30 (58%) reported  that their projects  made a significant  difference to the thematic area 
they were working in; 18 respondents (35%) did not know, and 4 (8%) believed that their project did 
not make a significant difference.48 

In  some  cases, problems  with the transferability of results  were  identified  — these  are linked to the 
specific  focuses  of  some  of  the  actions  implemented.  This  was  the  case  in  the  project  ‘European 
experience  in  mediation  and  its  implementation  in  the  Czech  legal  environment’  aimed  at  training 
Czech  lawyers  and  judicial  staff  in  mediation.  The  project  ‘The  application  of  Rome  I  and  II 
Regulations  and  EC  4/2009  by  legal  practitioners  in  southern  Europe  –  EUROME’,  concerned 
Regulations focused on the law of the sea, and thus would not be implementable in countries with no 
relevance to this field. However, in both cases, the models developed could be used for other purposes. 

The elements of projects that were transferred included:  

44 Ibid., p. 32 
45 Ibid. 
46 Ibid., p.27 
47 Ibid., p. 31 
48 Ibid., p. 27 

16 

 
 
 
  methodological  tools  created  for  the  projects,  e.g.  methodological  assessments,  and  activity 

models, e.g. to carry out campaigns, events, and activities with other target groups; 

  websites — if content is translated, to be used in other countries; 
 
 

toolkits and project tools, e.g. reports, guidelines and manuals; and 
training courses and materials.49 

2.4.4 

Innovation 

Innovation  is  the  development  and  implementation  of  new  ideas  (products,  services  and  models)  to 
meet  needs  and  to  create  new  relationships  or  collaboration.  Innovation  is  about  designing  new 
responses to pressing (social) demands. 

The  evidence  gathered  showed  that  most  projects  were  innovative  in  terms  of  activities  or  practices 
and  the  methods  used.  It  also  confirmed  that  the  projects  could  be  considered  as  leading  the  way 
forward  in  their  field.  Grant  applicants  were  required  to  document  the  innovative  aspects  of  their 
project.  140  projects  showed  some  evidence  of  innovation.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  replies  to  the 
online survey. In fact, 90% of the 52 online survey respondents considered their projects/activities to 
be innovative. 

Innovative practices and activities included training, ground-breaking research in an area never studied 
before,  the  creation  of  an  online  platform,  and  practices  actively  involving  target  groups,  e.g. 
community  discussions,  the  use  of  role  models,  and  mapping  of  community  resources.  In  terms  of 
innovative methods, the research highlighted the use of tailor-made training methods, methods on how 
to  involve  target  groups,  e.g.  businesses,  judicial  staff  and  mediators,  interinstitutional  cooperation 
models, and peer education methodology.50  

Most  respondents  to  the  online  survey  (62%  out  of  52)  also  affirmed  that  the  project  could  be 
considered as leading the way forward in their policy area.51 

A number of interviewees reported that stakeholders at local and European levels, e.g. professionals, 
institutions and social groups, were interested in the outputs of their projects — in particular, regarding 
the innovative aspects of implemented actions52, such as: 

  devising  instruments  and  methodologies  which  could  be  used  directly  by  target  groups  to 
enhance  their  awareness  and  level  of  protection  (for  example,  Lappeenranta  University  of 
Technology  is  creating  an  online  ‘caseflow  management’  platform  offering  practitioners 
information  and  best  practices  to  avoid  delays  and  inefficiencies  in  court  management  that 
could potentially undermine the functioning of the courts); 
addressing  a  field  that  has  not  been  addressed  before,  e.g.  the  University  of  Pècs  with  its 
project ‘Improving the effectiveness of cross-border enforcement in the EU’, or the Romanian 
Ministry of Justice’s project to boost judicial cooperation on parental responsibility. 

 

2.5 

EFFICIENCY AND SCOPE FOR SIMPLIFICATION 

2.5.1  Money spent in comparison with the impacts achieved 

Most  of  the  financial  support  within  the  JCIV  programme’s  budget  was  planned  for  public 
procurement  contracts  and  action  grants  (see  Table  1-2  Planned  budget  breakdown  for  the  JCIV 
(2007-2013)).  The  remainder  of  the  budget  was  allocated  to  operating  grants.  High  rates  were 
allocated to public procurement contracts which were used extensively under the JCIV programme to 
help in developing and implementing EU policy and legislation, publicising EU policy and legislation 
and ensuring the sustainability of project results. To that end, a large amount of money was spent on 

49 Ibid., p. 34 
50 Ibid. 
51 Ibid. 
52 Ibid. 

17 

 
 
 
IT tools and maintenance, particularly for the e-Justice portal, in addition to other tools, such  as the 
European Judicial Atlas in Civil Matters and the JURE database.53  

2.5.2 

Demand for action grants 

There was a high demand for project funding, in terms of applications versus selected projects. In all, 
385 applications for JCIV action grants were submitted between 2007 and 2013, and applications for 
the first calls had a higher success rate than those submitted for later calls.  The 2007 and 2008 calls 
had a success rate of 61% of 44 and 31 applications respectively, but this proportion dropped to 20% 
for the 2011-2012 call (which covered two  budget years), when applications reached  a peak  of 127, 
and to 29% for the 2013 call (with 96 applications). At the start of the programme the Commission did 
not  receive  the  expected  number  of  applications.  However,  the  numbers  rose  sharply  as  the 
programme gained more visibility. The number of applications for action grants grew from an average 
of 40.5 in the period 2007-2010 to 127 in 2011-2012 and 96 in 2013.54  

2.5.3 

Demand for operating grants 

With a total of 50 operating grant applications (an average of 7 per year over the period, except for the 
2010 call when a peak of 15 applications was reached), success rates were higher in 2008 and 2009 
(50% and 43% respectively), dropping to 20% in 2010 and then rising to 29% and 38% in 2012 and 
2013.55  

2.5.4 

Use of public procurement 

Some 36.2% of procurement expenditure was committed on studies; over 33.4% on IT services, and 
26.8% on events.56  In addition to the Commission initiatives, JCIV procurement covers a budget for 
the  management  of  the  membership  of  the  community  in  the  Hague  Conference  on  private 
international  law  and  another  allocated,  according  to  the  annual  work  programme,  to  the  European 
Judicial  Network  in  Civil  and  Commercial  Matters,  set  up  by  Council  Decision  No  2001/470/CE  of 
28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters. The former 
had little impact on the budget, while the latter was a commitment of EUR 17.8 million. This budget 
was planned for specific activities during the previous year and it was, overall, entirely committed and 
paid.57 

2.5.5 

Overall implementation 

As  noted  above,  the  initial  total  budget  planned  for  the  implementation  of  the  JCIV  in  the 
programming period was EUR 103.7 million. Given that not all actions have been fully completed, the 
total amount paid is not yet known. The average underspend to date is 25%.  

With  these  amounts,  the  JCIV  funded  130  action  grants,  16  operating  grants  and  247  procurement 
actions.  For  the  procurement  activities,  it  appears  that  all  those  completed  to  date  were  fully  paid, 
which would also suggest efficient use of financial resources.58 

2.5.6 

Scope for simplification 

The evaluation of management efficiency and the scope for simplification is closely linked to the other 
findings on efficiency under this section and based on an assessment of the implementation process, 
e.g.  whether  it  is  overly  complex  (including  unnecessary  complicated  administrative  rules),  or  the 
reporting requirements too burdensome.  

53 Ibid., p. 37 
54 Ibid., p. 39 
55 Ibid. 
56 Ibid. 
57 Ibid. 
58 Ibid. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Based  on  the  data  collected  to  date,  the  Commission’s  management  of  the  JCIV  was,  overall, 
perceived as efficient in terms of the requirements imposed on applicants and grant beneficiaries and 
in  view  of  the  support  received.  However,  some  organisations  experienced  difficulties  with  the 
application  and  implementation  process.  For  example,  stakeholders  noted  complex  procedure  for 
applying in the calls for proposals and difficulties encountered with the technical and IT system, which 
has  led  to  some  organisations  refraining  from  responding  to  the  calls  for  proposals.  There  is  some 
scope for simplifying the procedures for applicants and beneficiaries including: improving technical/IT 
systems;  simplifying  accounting  procedures  and  financial  reporting;  improving  and  speeding  up  the 
feedback process; paying institutions for their work. Reporting arrangements were overall considered 
appropriate  but  sometimes  cumbersome,  particularly  with  regard  to  financial  reporting.  The 
Commission’s monitoring arrangements were overall perceived as useful, however some respondents 
experienced difficulties. 

The Commission's monitoring and evaluation system was rather output-oriented than results-oriented 
which explains some of the deficiencies of the present evaluation report.   

2.6 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE 

EU  added  value  refers  to  the  extent  to  which  the  EU  nature  of  the  programme  brings  value  to  its 
stakeholders  and  the  extent  to  which  the  EU  has  a  comparative  advantage  over  national  and 
international actors working  in the area. First, the EU nature of  the programme and its geographical 
coverage  is  discussed.  The  EU  added  value  is  then  analysed  in  terms  of  value  to  the  EU  and  to 
beneficiaries. However, it has not been possible to identify and measure EU added value in terms of 
impacts. 

In  general,  funding  under  programmes  managed  by  DG  Justice  and  covered  by  this  evaluation  was 
only  available  to  activities  with  clear  European  ‘added  value’.  This  means  that  activities  must 
transcend  national  or  local  interests  to  become  truly  ‘European’  with  European  relevance,  coverage 
and impact. 

The JCIV programme’s added value mainly relates to its transnational dimension within the EU. The 
programme was established in order to develop an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the 
free  movement  of  persons  is  ensured.  Member  States  cannot  effectively  address  this  by  themselves. 
Therefore  the  programme  was  implemented  in  order  to  require  a  European  response,  including  the 
exchange of information at EU level and ensuring the dissemination of good practice throughout the 
EU.  Cooperation  between  EU  Member  States  is  therefore  crucial  for  the  implementation  of  the 
programme.  

For  action  grants,  Article  4  of  the  founding  decision  stipulates  that  the  JCIV  funds  specific 
transnational projects involving at least two Member States or at least one Member State and one other 
State, which may be either an acceding country or a candidate country. The annual work programmes 
and call for proposals require applicants to form transnational partnerships ‘of eligible organisations, 
i.e. an applicant plus a minimum of one partner, composed of organisations from at least two different 
eligible countries, i.e. from at least two different EU Member States’. 

For operating grants, organisations had to carry out activities with a European dimension involving at 
least 10 EU Member States. Article 9(5) of the founding decision also states that one of the evaluation 
criteria for selecting operating grant applications is the ‘geographical impact of the activities carried 
out’.  

According to Article 5 of the founding decision, acceding countries, candidate countries and Western 
Balkan countries included in the stabilisation and association process may participate in the actions of 
the  programme.  Furthermore,  legal  practitioners  from  Denmark,  from  candidate  countries  not 
participating in the programme, where this would contribute to their preparation for accession, or from 
other non-EU countries not participating in the programme, where this serves the aim of the projects, 
may participate as associate partners but are not permitted to submit projects or be co-applicants (co-

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
beneficiaries). The themes covered by JCIV, as mentioned in the annual work programmes and calls 
for proposals, have strongly focused on EU matters and transnational cooperation. Chief among these, 
the 2010 annual work programme refers to the area of European e-Justice as a general priority, and in 
particular  support  for  developing  best  practice  through  transnational  pilot  projects,  which  had  to 
demonstrate how they have contributed to improving interoperability at EU level.  

2.6.1 

Geographical coverage of the projects funded 

From  the  evaluation,  it  appears  that  most  JCIV  grants  went  to  a  select  group  of  Member  States 
(Belgium, Germany, France and Italy). Other Member States were involved to only a limited extent or 
were not involved at all.  

As  the  JCIV  programme  focused  on  improving  judicial  cooperation  and  mutual  trust,  it  was  crucial 
that the programme involved partners and final beneficiaries from different EU Member States. Most 
of  the  participant  organisations  were  based  in  Belgium,  Germany  and  Spain,  with  most  of  these 
organisations being partner organisations. Denmark did not participate in the JCIV programme.   

Organisations from all Member States except Portugal, Malta, Cyprus, Croatia, Bulgaria, Slovakia and 
Denmark  participated  as  lead  organisations  in  the  projects  of  the  JCIV  programme.  The  highest 
number  of  lead  organisations  was  from  Belgium  (21%  or  31  organisations),  followed  by  Germany 
(12% or 18 organisations) and  Spain  (11% or 16 organisations). Belgium hosts a high share of EU-
level networks, platforms and forums, which explains the high number of lead organisations registered 
in  Belgium.  The  highest  number  of  partner  organisations  was  from  Italy  (10%  or  57  organisation) 
followed  by  Spain  (10%  or  55  organisations).  However,  partner  organisations  were  spread  more 
evenly across different Member States.  

21%  of  JCIV  funding  was  committed  to  projects  where  the  lead  organisation  was  from  Belgium. 
Belgium  was  followed  by  Germany  (12%)  and  France  (11%).  This  funding  distribution  closely 
follows  the  distribution  of  the  number  of  projects  led  by  Member  States  (see  Figure  2-1  (left)). 
However,  the  funding  map  does  not  show  the  spread  of  committed  funding  among  project  partners. 
The  Figure 2-1  assumes  that  all  of  the  committed  funding  was  allocated  to  the  country  of  the  lead 
organisation.  This  was  not  the  case  in  reality  (projects  were  transnational  and  project  partners  also 
received part of the funding), so the Figure 2-1 should be interpreted with caution.  

Figure  2-1  Allocation  of  JCIV  committed  funding  by  lead  organisation  (left)  and  by  lead  organisation  per  capita 
(right) 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  2-2  further  highlights  the  partnership  structure  of  the  top  3  Member  States  with  the  highest 
number  of  lead  organisations  (Belgium,  Germany  and  Spain).  Figures  show  that  Belgian  lead 
organisations  commonly  work  with  Belgian,  French  and  German  partners,  and  with  Spanish  and 
Dutch  partners.  German  lead  organisations  most  frequently  partnered  with  Austrian  organisations 
(eight  projects)  followed  by  Czech,  German  and  Italian  organisations.  Spanish  lead  organisations 
mostly partnered with the Portuguese, Italian and Spanish organisations.  

Figure 2-2 Partnership structure for the top three Member States of lead organisation 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  JCIV  programme  did  not  cover  all  Member  States  equally.  The  highest  number  of  applications 
was submitted by Italian organisations (76 out of 385) followed by organisations from Belgium (69) 
and Spain (55). These top three applicant Member States submitted 52% of all applications for funding 
from the programme. Croatia, Malta, Cyprus and Denmark did not apply for JCIV funding (see Figure 
2-3).  

Figure  2-3  Total  number  of  applications  in  JCIV  per  Member  State  (right)  and  the  success  rate  by  Member  State 
(left) 

Luxembourg,  Finland,  Czech  Republic,  France  and  Sweden  showed  the  highest  success  rates  of  the 
applications  submitted  (more  than  50%  of  the  applications  were  successful).  Portugal,  Bulgaria  and 
Slovakia did not obtain funding from the JCIV programme.  

2.6.2 

Added value for the EU and for grant beneficiaries 

The follow-up interviews and online survey showed that the transnational partnership brought specific 
benefits  to  the  beneficiary  organisation,  which  no  other  funding  source  would  have  enabled  on  the 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
same scale59. The partnership approach has resulted  in an increased knowledge base of participating 
organisations. Out of 59 respondents to the online survey, 45 confirmed that the partnership resulted in 
more  knowledge/expertise  in  the  topic  area  (how  much  their  knowledge  has  increased  was  not 
measured), in networking with (more) international partners (41 respondents) and in more knowledge 
on  policy  and  practice  in  other  countries  (38  respondents).  To  a  lesser  extent,  it  also  contributed  to 
more knowledge of relevant EU legislation and EU policies.60 

The transnational partnership also further extended the scope for dissemination of results. The survey 
results, together with stakeholder consultations, indicate that good working relations between partners 
enabled  organisations  to  reach  all  target  groups,  including  those  difficult  to  reach,  and  had  ensured 
wide dissemination of the results. Engagement of all partners in the project, clear task allocation, and 
agreement  on  how  to  implement  activities,  had  helped  them  obtain  these  results.  However,  despite 
overall satisfaction with the partnerships, 26% of the online survey respondents strongly agreed, and 
35% partially agreed, with the statement that it would have been useful to involve partners from other 
countries. Follow-up interviews also confirm the specific benefits of transnational partnerships, i.e. a 
larger  knowledge  base  and  greater  scope  for  dissemination,  and  good  working  relations  between 
partners underpinning these specific benefits.  

In addition  to  added value for grant  recipients, the survey indicates  that the projects added value by 
contributing to achieving the EU objectives. Most survey respondents reported that the implemented 
project/activities made a significant/major contribution to improving cross-border cooperation and the 
elaboration and dissemination of best practices. Among these, analytical activities mainly contributed 
to  other  objectives  (40%),  mutual  learning  mainly  contributed  to  developing  mutual  trust  among 
countries (28%) and awareness-raising mainly contributed to the elaboration and dissemination of best 
practices (25%). 

However, most respondents reported that the implemented project/activities only made a minor or no 
contribution  to  creating  practical  tools  and  solutions  that  address  cross-border  or  Union-wide 
challenges and to making a wider public aware of rights deriving from EU law. 

The  EU  added  value  is  particularly  evident  in  the  responses  of  grant  beneficiaries  concerning  how 
important  EU  funding  was  to  achieving  the  objectives.  87%  of  survey  respondents  stated  that  the 
projects/activities would not have been implemented without EU funding. It can therefore be assumed 
that  most  of  the  project/activities  carried  out  under  the  JCIV  programme  would  not  have  been 
implemented had the programme not existed.61  

59 87% of survey respondents to this question stated that the projects/activities would not have been implemented without EU funding.  
60 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Civil 
Justice (JCIV), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 52 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jciv_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 
61 Ibid., p. 53  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 

CONCLUSIONS 

Relevance of the programme62 

  The  programme  objectives  were  largely  specific,  attainable  and  realistic.  However,  they  were 

neither measurable, nor time-bound (although bound by programme and project duration). 

  Overall  the  priorities  and  funded  actions  can  be  considered  relevant  to  the  objectives  of  the 
programme. However, the process put in place to select the programme’s priorities left little room 
for  manoeuvre,  once  the  priorities  had  been  set  (although  in  principle  a  project  which  did  not 
reflect  any  priority  could  receive  a  grant  under  other  award  criteria).  This  meant  that  in  some 
cases,  if  a  priority  changed  during  the  implementation  of  a  project,  its  results  were  less  useful. 
Conversely, with regard to training, for example, needs could arise that did  not fall under the set 
priorities. They could not then be funded under the programme because they were not taken into 
consideration in a specific call.  

  The JCIV programme was well designed to support the practical application and implementation 

of EU policy and legislation, and to contribute to policy and legislative development. 

  Overall, grant beneficiaries found that the calls and selected actions identified, and responded to, 
the needs of the target groups, although the extent to which they adequately identified these needs 
varied,  with  some  undertaking  elaborate  needs  assessments  and  others  adopting  a  less  rigid 
approach. However, the robustness of the  method  used for the needs assessments carried out by 
the  projects  could  not  be  assessed  by  this  evaluation.  Needs  assessments  are  not  a  mandatory 
requirement for the grant beneficiaries. 

Coherence and complementarity 

  Overall,  the  JCIV  achieved  a  certain  degree  of  complementarity  with  other  EU  programmes  in 
terms of certain objectives and thematic areas, the nature of the programme and the target groups, 
especially  with  the  JPEN  and  FRC.  At  the  same  time,  however,  there  is  a  risk  of  overlap  with 
these programmes. 

  Synergies were established at EU and national levels and within the programme itself. 

  The JCIV programme was consistent with policy developments at EU and national levels and was 
able to support policy developments and legislation in civil justice through the actions funded and 
through public procurement contracts.  

Effectiveness 

  Overall,  the  actions  funded  made  a  contribution  to  the  programme  objectives.  However,  it  is 
difficult  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of  the  programme  because  of  the  limited  information  on 
outcomes and impacts provided in the projects final reports and the interviews. The Commission's 
monitoring and evaluation system was rather output-oriented than results-oriented which explains 
some of the deficiencies of the present evaluation report. 

  Most  of  the  projects  were  able  to  achieve  their  planned  results  on  time  and  reach  the  expected 
target  group.  No  obstacles  seriously  influencing  the  implementation  of  the  project’s  results  or 
objectives were identified. 

  The  JCIV  has  contributed  to  the  implementation  and  development  of  EU  policy  and  legislation, 
via grants and public procurement contracts. However, the lengthy project cycle could nullify the 
effectiveness of the finalised actions where policy priorities changed.  

Sustainability  

62 Ibid., pp. 54-56 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  Regarding  short-term  sustainability  (i.e. 

through  dissemination  of  project  results), 

the 
Commission’s efforts to disseminate (and monitor) project results have been limited, overall. The 
Commission  mostly  relied  on  its  beneficiaries  to  disseminate  the  outputs  directly  to  their  target 
groups,  and  its  own  human  resources  were  dedicated  mostly  to  the  financial  management. 
Dissemination  to  a  wider  public  is  identified  as  key  element  in  giving  the  programme  greater 
impact.  Dissemination  of  JCIV  results  was  limited  in  effectiveness  by  the  lack  of  a  specific 
channel for disseminating them. Grant beneficiaries’ dissemination appeared to be more efficient, 
as most had established clear plans for disseminating the results of their project/activities. 

  Overall,  the  JCIV  programme  generated  sustainable  results  in  the  medium  (i.e.  continuation  of 
project results and/or partnerships) and long term (i.e. through the transfer of projects’ results to 
other contexts, organisations and Member States with little or no additional funding). Regarding 
the continuation of partnerships, the evidence collected is somewhat contradictory: while the JCIV 
final  reports suggested  that  this  was  low,  the  online  survey  showed  a  different  result,  with most 
respondents indicating that the partnership had continued. This could be due to partnerships being 
‘reconstituted’ only after a while, when the final report had already been submitted. 

  Most projects were considered innovative, particularly in targeting groups or tackling issues that 
had not been researched or addressed before, or through the development of new methodologies, 
approaches or tools.  

  More  than  half  of  survey  respondents  indicated  that  further  funding  was  needed  to  guarantee 

financial sustainability of the project/activities. 

Efficiency 

  Overall, funding provided to action grants, operating grants and procurement contracts appears to 

have been sufficient to support the achievement of the JCIV’s general objectives. 

  The  financial  resources  have  been  used  efficiently  overall,  judging  by  the  comparison  of  inputs 
and outputs between projects’ budgets, and the total outputs and results produced. In the first years 
of  implementation,  absorption  rates  were  relatively  low,  pointing  to  a  lack  of  financial  and 
administrative capacity of the potential beneficiaries, but this increased to an acceptable level after 
two years. 

  The  Commission’s  management  of  the  JCIV  was  perceived  as  efficient  in  terms  of  the 
requirements imposed on applicants and grant beneficiaries and of the support received. However, 
some  organisations  found  the  application  and  implementation  process  difficult.  There  is  some 
scope  for  simplifying  procedures  for  applicants  and  beneficiaries  (e.g.  improving  technical/IT 
systems  or  simplifying  accounting  procedures  and  financial  reporting).  Reporting  arrangements 
were  considered  appropriate  overall,  but  sometimes  cumbersome,  particularly  with  regard  to 
financial reporting. The Commission’s monitoring arrangements were considered useful overall. 

EU added value 

  The  JCIV  programme  had  a  strong  transnational  dimension.  The  transnational  partnerships 
resulted in specific benefits for the organisations involved in implementing JCIV activities, e.g. an 
increased  knowledge  base  of  participating  organisations,  networking  consisting  of  (more) 
international partners and improved knowledge of policy and practice in other countries. 

  The geographical coverage of action grants and operating grants was uneven, with a few Member 
States overly represented (Belgium, Germany, France and Italy) and others involved little or not at 
all.  

Key recommendations 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
  Better define the priorities: the Commission should invest more time and human resources in the 
process of setting priorities in order to ensure that the priorities can be adequately achieved within 
an earmarked budget. 

  Realistic assessments of project risks and better risk mitigation strategies: the Commission should 
better  monitor  risks  throughout  the  project  duration,  for  example  by  asking  for  brief  progress 
reports that identify any potential risks as they arise during the implementation of the project. 

 

Increase  focus  on  assessment  of  impacts  at  all  levels  and  not  merely  on  outputs,  as  regards 
monitoring  and  evaluation.  This  goes  hand  in  hand  with  the  need  to  collect,  analyse  and  use 
objective  and  independent  evidence  in  order  to  perform  project  and  programme  evaluations. 
Increase focus on needs assessment that each project aims to address. 

  Explore  ways  of  enhancing  the  uptake  of  project  outputs,  results  and  best  practices  by  other 
organisations,  including  in  other  Member  States,  including  more  resources  for  translations, 
communication and dissemination.  

  Sharpen the programme's intervention logic; further to the scope of the programme and its general 
and specific objectives and priorities, types of action and types of intervention and implementing 
measures,  the  Commission  shall  seek  to  sharpen  the  intervention  logic63,  and  make  the  relations 
between  the  rationale,  objectives,  inputs,  outputs,  beneficiaries,  expected  outcomes  and  impacts 
articulate, precise and concrete in any future continuation of the programme. 

63 See for instance Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme 
evaluation: Civil Justice (JCIV), ICF, 28 July 2015, pp. 1-2 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jciv_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf. 

26