REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Ex post evaluation report on the Criminal Justice Programme (2007-2013)
Date: 2017-03-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, European judicial area, criminal law, criminal procedure, cross-border cooperation, exchange of information, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, project evaluation, vocational training

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.3.2017  COM(2017) 115 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Ex post evaluation report on the Criminal Justice Programme (2007-2013)  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 

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

1.1  OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT ................................................................................. 2 

1.2  METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION ...................................... 2 

1.3  OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAMME ...................................................................... 2 

2 

RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION .......................................................................... 7 

2.1  RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAMME .................................................................... 7 

2.2  COHERENCE AND COMPLEMENTARITY ........................................................... 9 

2.3  EFFECTIVENESS .................................................................................................... 11 

2.4 

SUSTAINABILITY AND TRANSFERABILITY ................................................... 14 

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

2.6  EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE ................................................................................ 21 

3 

CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 25 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 

OBJECTIVE OF THE REPORT 

The  Decision  establishing  the  Criminal  Justice  Programme  (JPEN)  requires  the  Commission  to 
present  an  ex  post  evaluation  covering  2007-20131.  This  ex  post  evaluation2  was  performed  by  an 
independent external evaluator assisted by Commission staff. 

This  report  is  based  on  that  evaluation.  The  report  is  structured  according  to  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 SOURCES OF INFORMATION 

1.2 
This final evaluation of JPEN is based on the following: 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 

an  extensive  review  of  the  available  documentation  for  284  action  grants  and  50  operating 
grants funded by the 2007-2013 Criminal Justice programme 2007-2013; 
a  review  of  programme  documentation,  such  as  the  founding  decision,  annual  work 
programmes and call for proposals for both grants and public procurement contracts; 
a review of EU policy documents, founding decisions of related EU programmes, etc.; 
a quantitative analysis of 334 JPEN projects (action grants and operating grants); 
an analysis of 97 responses to the online survey from grant beneficiaries; 
the write-ups of 33 follow-up interviews with coordinators of projects/organisations receiving 
JPEN 2007-2013 grants who also responded to the online survey;  
interviews with Commission officials involved in the programme. 

1.3 

OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAMME 

JPEN was established under the Council Decision No 2007/126/JHA of 12 February 2007 as part of 
the  ‘Fundamental  Rights  and  Justice’  General  Programme.  The  programme  was  implemented  for 
seven years from 2007-2013. It is a continuation of the framework programme on police and judicial 
cooperation in criminal matters (AGIS) (2003-2007). 

JPEN addressed one of the four objectives of the Programme on Fundamental Rights and Justice, i.e. 
the need to promote judicial cooperation and to create a genuine area of justice in criminal matters in 
accordance  with  the  principles  of  mutual  recognition.  It  was  conceived  also  in  order  to  establish  a 
computerised system of exchange of information of criminal data. 

The five general objectives of JPEN, as listed in Article 2 of the Decision, are: 

 

 

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

to promote the compatibility of rules applicable in the Member States as may be necessary to 
improve judicial cooperation;  

1 Article 16(3)(d), Council Decision No 2007/126/JHA of 12 February 2007 establishing for the period 2007 to 2013, as part of the General 
Programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’, the Specific Programme ‘Criminal Justice’. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32007D0126&from=EN  
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/jpen_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf, Annexes: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jpen_annex_1_quantitative_analysis.pdf, 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jpen_annex_2.pdf      

Mid-term evaluation report by external evaluator is published here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/funding/jpen/interim_evaluation_report_2011_en.pdf  

3 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

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

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

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

The specific objectives of JPEN, as listed in Article 3 of the Decision, are to: 

  Foster judicial cooperation; 

 

Improve mutual knowledge of Member States' legal and judicial systems in criminal matters 
and to 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 

Union instruments in the areas of judicial cooperation in criminal matters; 

 

Improve information on legal systems in the Member States and access to justice; 

  Promote  training  in  Union  and  Community  law  for  the  judiciary,  lawyers  and  other 

professionals involved in the work of the judiciary; 

  Evaluate the general conditions necessary to develop mutual confidence; 

  Develop  and  implement  a  computerised  system  of  exchange  of  information  on  criminal 

records and to support studies to develop other types of exchange of information. 

To achieve these objectives, the programme funded activities through three different types of financial 
support: action grants; operating grants; and procurement3.  

Action  grants  were  awarded  for  specific  transnational  projects  of  interest  to  the  whole  of  the  EU; 
national  projects  preparing  for  or  complementing  transnational  projects  or  Union  measures;  and 
national projects contributing to developing innovative methods and/or technologies with a potential 
for transferability.  

Operating grants were awarded either to NGOs or other bodies pursuing an aim of general European 
interest  in  the  area  of  criminal  justice;  or  to  the  European  Judicial  Training  Network  (EJTN), 
specifically  to  co-finance  expenditure  associated  with  their  permanent  work  programme  of  judicial 
training.4  

The  Commission  also  used  JPEN  funding  to  procure  specific  actions  of  importance  to  the 
Commission.  These  included  studies;  research;  and  the  creation  and  implementation  of  specific  IT 
projects to facilitate the exchange and dissemination of information.  

The  2010  annual  work  programme  included  specific  action  grants  to  co-finance  European  e-justice 
projects. In 2013, a specific call for proposals was launched to finance judicial training projects. 

3 Article 7, Council Decision No 2007/126/JHA of 12 February 2007 establishing for the period 2007 to 2013, as part of the General 
Programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’, the Specific Programme ‘Criminal Justice’, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32007D0126&from=EN  
4 Article 6, Council Decision No 2007/126/JHA of 12 February 2007 establishing for the period 2007 to 2013, as part of the General 
Programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’, the Specific Programme ‘Criminal Justice’, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32007D0126&from=EN  

4 

 
 
 
 
The  programme  was  aimed  at  supporting  the  following  target  groups:  legal  practitioners; 
representatives  of  victims’  assistance  services;  other  professionals  involved  in  the  work  of  the 
judiciary; national authorities; and the EU public in general. 

The  total  planned  budget  for  JPEN  for  January  2007  to  December  2013  was  EUR 196  million  (see 
Table 1-1 Planned budgetary breakdown for JPEN 2007-2013).5  

Table 1-1 Planned budgetary breakdown for JPEN 2007-2013 

Action grants 

Operating grants6 

Procurement 

Value (€) 

Value (€) 

22 000 000 

5 900 000 

18 800 000 

6 000 000 

14 900 000 

8 500 000 

17 000 000 

5 000 000 

14 500 000 

13 450 000 

15 210 000 

6 500 000 

7 500 000 

7 660 000 

Value (€) 

1 300 000 

5 000 000 

7 000 000 

4 000 000 

6 000 000 

6 000 000 

4 640 000 

Total 

Value (€) 

29 200 000 

29 800 000 

30 400 000 

26 000 000 

26 500 000 

26 950 000 

27 510 000 

114 860 000 

49 560 000 

31 940 000 

196 360 000 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

Total 

Source: JPEN Programme — Annual work programmes (2007-2013) 

Most of the financial support under JPEN’s budget was allocated to action grants (64 %). Operating 
grants  to  co-finance  the  annual  work  programme  of  NGOs  and  expenditure  associated  with  the 
permanent  work  programme  of  the  EJTN  represented  20 %  of  the  total  programme  budget.  The 
remainder of the budget was allocated to public procurement contracts.7   

As  described  above,  JPEN  funding  was  made  available  through  action  grants  and  operating  grants, 
framework  partnership  agreements  and  public  procurement  contracts.  Table  1-2  summarises  the 
number  of  different  actions  funded  in  each  year  of  the  programme  implementation  period.  Calls  for 
proposals for action grants and operating grants were split across years in 2011 and 2012. 

Table 1-2 Number of actions funded per year 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2012 

2013 

TOTAL 

Action grants 

56 

41 

32 

49 

Specific action 
grants 

Operating grants 

TOTAL 

- 

5 

- 

7 

61 

48 

2 

13 

47 

- 

8 

57 

53 

2 

- 

55 

- 

- 

10 

10 

49 

280 

- 

7 

4 

50 

56 

334 

Note:  the  table  differs  from  the  number  of  projects  analysed  for  this  evaluation  since  documentation  was  not  available  for  all 
projects. 

5 According to the Article 13, Council Decision No 2007/126/JHA of 12 February 2007 establishing for the period 2007 to 2013, as part of 
the General Programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’, the Specific Programme ‘Criminal Justice’, 'The budgetary resources allocated to 
the actions provided for in the Programme shall be entered in the annual appropriations of the general budget of the European Union. The 
available annual appropriations shall be authorised by the budgetary authority within the limits of the financial framework.' 
6 The operating grant allocations also include money allocated to monopolies and framework partnership agreements. 
7 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Criminal 
Justice Programme (JPEN), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 2 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jpen_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JPEN projects were primarily led by national authorities, such as ministries of justice/interior (22 % of 
all 
(18 %);  European 
networks/platforms/forums (17 %); and other education/training institutes (10 %).  

national  NGOs/platforms/networks 

organisations); 

then 

lead 

This is consistent with what is stated in the founding decision under which organisations have access 
to the programme.   

Action grants were awarded to organisations working together in partnership. The composition of the 
partnerships shows that the most common partners were national NGOs, including national platform 
and  networks,  universities  and  national  authorities.  Such  partners  represented  19 %,  16 %  and  15 % 
respectively of  the  total  figure.  The  composition  of  partnerships  is  not  specifically  mentioned  in  the 
founding decision.8 

Figure 1-1 below illustrates the main types of activities addressed by the JPEN action grants (left) and 
operating grants (right). Most action grant-funded projects focused on awareness raising, information 
and  dissemination  activities  (22 %);  then  analytical  activities  (22 %);  mutual  learning,  exchange  of 
good practices, cooperation (21 %); and training activities (19 %).  

The  main  activities  implemented  through  operating  grants  were  awareness  raising,  information  and 
dissemination activities (18 %); then support to key actors (17 %); mutual learning, exchange of good 
practices, cooperation (15 %); and training activities (15 %).   

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

Public  procurement  contracts  focused  on  three  main  activities  such  as  studies;  the  organisation  of 
events and meetings; and IT provision.  

Public  procurement  was  also  used  for  maintenance  of  the  e-Justice  website.  The  procurement  of 
services  was  also  spent  on  expert  services  under  the  cooperation  and  verification  mechanism  for 
Romania and Bulgaria.9 

8 Ibid.., p. 4 
9 Ibid., p. 4 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 

RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION 

2.1 

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. 

Analysis  of  the  programme  objectives  and  priorities  shows  that  while  these  were  largely  specific, 
attainable  and  realistic,  they  were  not  measurable  or  (in  most  cases)  time-bound.  More  detail  was 
increasingly  provided  in  the  calls  for  proposals  as  to  the  calls’  expectations  for  funded  projects  (in 
relation to different priorities). The goals of most of the priority areas were aligned to EU objectives 
and policies, particularly in the last half of the programme.10 

Relevance to these objectives and to wider EU policy priorities was a key selection criterion in every 
action grant and operating grant call. An assessment of the operational objectives of the action grant 
and operating grant beneficiaries shows alignment between the projects’ operational objectives and the 
programme’s objectives. Furthermore, analysis of the action grants and operating grants demonstrates 
that  all  the  action  grant-funded  actions  and  most  of  the  operating  grant-funded  actions  were  clearly 
aligned with the programme’s priorities.11   

The  kinds  of  activities  covered  in  the  programme  were  also  highly  relevant  to  the  programme 
objectives and in line with Article 4 (‘eligible actions’) of Council Decision 2007/126/JHA on JPEN. 
A  large  number  of  actions  selected  for  grants  or  in  procurement  from  2007  to  2013  fell  into  the 
following categories: 

training activities, mainly for the judiciary or legal practitioners; 

 
  mutual learning/exchanges between authorities/organisations in Member States (e.g. through 

symposia, seminars and dissemination of good practices); 

  development  and/or  installation  of  hardware/software  to  facilitate  judicial  proceedings  and 

 
 

access to information about justice at EU and/or national level (e-Justice); 
support and advice services (including information and advice websites); 
research  and  analytical  activities  assessed  the  application  of  EU  law  in  Member  States  or 
mapped national legislative frameworks in order to assess compatibility with EU legislation. 
Such  activities  also  researched  methods  for  implementing  different  forms  of  justice  (e.g. 
restorative justice or alternatives to detention) and/or analysed obstacles to justice in the EU. 
Some  included  assessments  of  obstacles  to  the  implementation  of  EU  law  and  mutual 
confidence12.  

In addition, grants were awarded to many of the key organisations involved in promoting a common 
European area of justice. For example, grants went to major European networks and NGOs working in 
training  (e.g.  EJTN);  probation  (the  Confederation  of  European  Probation  —  CEP);  legal  rights 
(Advice on Individual Rights in Europe — AIRE); victim support (Victim Support Europe — VSE); 
protection  of  suspects  and  defendants  (Fair  Trials);  and  restorative  justice  (European  Forum  for 
Restorative Justice — EFRJ).13 

As  JPEN  focused  on  improving  judicial  cooperation  and  mutual  trust  (and  aimed  to  support  the 
creation of an EU-wide judicial area), it was also crucial that the programme involved partners and end 
beneficiaries  from  different  EU  Member  States.  JPEN  also  included  national  actions  (40  out  of  284 
action  grants,  see  below,  2.6.2  Added  value  for  the  EU  and  for  grant  beneficiaries).  These  were 
relevant actions to the programme. 

10 Ibid., p. 5 
11 Ibid., p. 7 
12 For instance, a ‘Legal Experts Advisory Panel’ project discussed obstacles to judicial cooperation/mutual confidence in the EU and 
recommended ways to improve this. 
13 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Criminal 
Justice Programme (JPEN), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 9 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jpen_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 

7 

 
 
 
2.1.1 

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

The main legislative instruments in place and introduced during the time period in question comprised 
instruments  that  provided  for  the  mutual  recognition  of  Member  State  judicial  decision;  instruments 
that  provided  for  alternatives  to  detention;  instruments  that  support  judicial  cooperation  in  the 
provision  of  evidence  to  other  Member  States;  instruments  introducing  provisions  on  procedural 
rights; and instruments to support victims and to ensure their rights.  
The JPEN annual priorities reflect changes in EU policy on criminal justice.14 

The  Commission  implemented  and  promoted  different  practical  instruments  to  support  the  main 
legislative  instruments.  The  aim  was  to  improve  judicial  cooperation  and  the  mutual  recognition  of 
decisions, and also increase the public’s access to justice. These practical instruments included15: 

 

 

 

 

the European e-Justice portal — an information website targeting the public, businesses, 
legal practitioners and the judiciary and gathering information on rights, services available 
and tools meeting their different needs; 
the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) — a computerised system 
set up to achieve efficient exchange of information on criminal convictions between EU 
countries; 
the European Judicial Network (EJN) — a network to promote judicial cooperation in 
criminal matters between EU countries; 
judicial training. 

From  2010,  the  priorities,  as  outlined  in  the  calls  for  proposals  and  work  programmes,  became 
‘SMARTer’  to  the  extent  that  they  were  more  specific  as  to  the  expected  content  of  the  projects 
addressing  the  priority.  They  also  became  more  responsive  to  policy  and  legislation.  These 
improvements were the result of institutional changes to the Commission after the entry into force of 
the Lisbon Treaty, which saw greater powers being granted to the Commission in the area of justice 
and home affairs. In addition, in 2010, the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security (DG 
JLS) split into DG Home Affairs and DG Justice (with JPEN falling under the new DG Justice) with 
greater responsibility being given to both Directorates-General.16 

The  actions  funded  through  action  grants  and  operating  grants  were  mainly  aimed  at  supporting  the 
implementation  of  existing  legislation.17  Selected  actions  also  indirectly  supported  new  policy 
development  to  the  extent  that  they  facilitated  the  exchange  of  ideas  and  discussion  of  obstacles  to 
justice/cooperation  in  the  EU  between  ministries  of  justice  and  members  of  the  judiciary/legal 
professionals in the EU. Out of the 334 grants, 16 mapped and produced policy recommendations.18  

Because the priority areas of the calls for proposals were accompanied by a description of the expected 
content of the projects, this made them more specific and helped grant applicants to ensure that their 
projects  were  relevant  to  EU  objectives.  Furthermore,  because  the  priority  areas  followed  the 
programme  objectives  and  EU  policy  objectives  so  closely,  it  was  easy  for  the  selected  actions  to 
target these objectives as well. 

Almost all the organisations producing these outputs were key European platforms or NGOs that have 
a  leading  role  in  the  monitoring  of  specific  aspects  of  criminal  justice  in  the  EU,  namely  the 
Confederation  of  European  Probation  (CEP);  the  Council  of  Bars  and  Law  Societies  of  Europe 
(CCBE);  the  European  Organisation  of  Prison  and  Correctional  Services  (EuroPris);  Fair  Trials 
International  (FTI);  the  International  Juvenile  Justice  Observatory;  VSE;  and  the  Irish  Council  for 
Civil Liberties.  

Since  the  above  bodies  are  networks  with  an  overview  of  the  EU  and  well-established  expertise  in 
these areas, this makes them well placed to provide policy recommendations.  

14 Ibid., p. 11 
15 Ibid., pp. 10-11 
16 Ibid., p. 11 
17 Ibid. 
18 Ibid. 

8 

 
 
 
Services procured using JPEN funding were also relevant to the programme and wider EU objectives, 
as they focused mainly on developing the e-Justice portal and its modules  or on impact assessments 
and other studies to support the further development of legislation and policy establishing a common 
EU area of criminal justice.19 

2.1.2 

Relevance of the programme to target group needs 

A  total  of  70  out  of  97  of  respondents  to  the  online  survey  indicated  that  they  conducted  needs 
assessments to support the design and development of their projects. However, further analysis of the 
project documentation  of  sixteen application forms  showed that  only six  to have been  developed  on 
the basis of a needs assessment.  Admittedly it was not a specific requirement to conduct and provide 
evidence backing up a needs assessment. However, if grant applicants had done so, this would have 
given a much clearer indication of the relevance of their project,  enhanced the quality of their study 
and  provided  a  baseline  for  assessing  project  success  at  a  later  date.  Projects  that  are  not  based  on 
needs  assessment  may  still  be  relevant  to  the  target  groups’  needs,  but  not  producing  a  needs 
assessment creates a risk that more relevant methods or means of supporting the target groups could 
have been developed.20 

Of  the  97  respondents  to  the  online  survey,  69  (81.2 %)  reported  that  they  had  received  positive 
feedback  from  their  target  group(s)  on  the  relevance  of  the  project.  One  of  the  reasons  for  the 
reportedly  high  levels  (81 %)  of  positive  feedback  from  target  groups  may  be  because  the  (kind  of) 
actor implementing the project was the same as the actors benefiting from it. More specifically, it can 
be presumed that members of the judiciary, legal professionals, etc. applied to provide training to their 
own  colleagues  alongside  those  from  other  Member  States  or  to  host  meetings  with  fellow 
colleagues/experts from other Member States. Similarly, national authorities applied for grants to help 
them  set  up  criminal  records  systems  compatible  with  ECRIS  and/or  other  e-justice  facilities  to 
harmonise their justice systems with those of other Member States.21 

2.2 

COHERENCE AND COMPLEMENTARITY 

2.2.1 

Complementarity with other EU programmes 

Article  12  of  Council  Decision  No  2007/126/JHA  establishing  JPEN  outlines  the  scope  for 
complementarity and synergy creation with other EU financial instruments, namely the Civil Justice 
Programme  (JCIV);  the  Prevention  and  Fight  against  Crime  (ISEC);  Prevention,  Preparedness  and 
Consequence  Management  of  Terrorism  and  other  Security  Related  Risks  (CIPS);  Solidarity  and 
Management  of  Migration  Flows  (known  as  the  ‘SOLID  funds’);  and  the  Community  Statistical 
Programme. 

Other  EU  instruments  with  the  potential  for  complementarity  or  overlap  with  JPEN  included  the 
Daphne  III  Programme;  the  Fundamental  Rights  and  Citizenship  Programme  (FRC);  the  Lifelong 
Learning  Programme (LLP); the Seventh  Research and Development Framework Programme (FP7); 
and Horizon 2020, the new EU Research and Innovation programme. 

These programmes were similar to JPEN in objectives and themes. However, the fact that the JPEN 
objectives  were  specific  made  it  easier  to  avoid  overlap  with  other  DG  Justice  programmes,  which 
were different to JPEN in terms of:  

 

 

area  of  law  covered  —  JPEN  covers  criminal  law,  JCIV  covers  civil  law  and  FRC  covers 
fundamental rights;  

focus — all focused on victims, but the Drug Prevention and Information Programme (DPIP) 
and Daphne III addressed specific  groups of victims and considered prevention of harm and 
post-harm  assistance.  DPIP  and  Daphne  III  also  focused  more  on  treatment  and  protection 
than JPEN, which focused more on the victims’ journey through the criminal justice system;  

19 Ibid., p. 5 
20 Ibid., pp.13-14 
21 Ibid., p. 14 

9 

 
 
 
 

target groups or results — as in the case of ISEC, Daphne III and DPIP.  

Also, the objectives of DG CONNECT's programmes and of FP7 have objectives that are coherent but 
not necessarily overlapping with JPEN.22 

The  PROGRESS  Programme  and  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF)  also  funded  the  training  of  the 
judiciary, but each complemented JPEN: PROGRESS funded gender equality and anti-discrimination 
training for the judiciary (which none of the other justice programmes do); and the ESF mostly funded 
national training.  

By  contrast,  the  added  value  of  the  JPEN-funded  training  was  that  it  was  always  transnational  (as 
participants  benefited  from  learning  about  other  Member  States  and  from  increased  transnational 
cooperation). 

Table  2-1  below  illustrates  the  scope  for  coherence  and  complementarity  of  JPEN’s  objectives  and 
thematic areas with the selected EU funding programmes. 

Table 2-1 Scope for complementarity and overlap of objectives: JPEN and EU programmes 

Judicial 
cooperation 

Promotion of 
compatibility of 
legislation 

JPEN 

JCIV 
FRC 

JPEN 

JCIV 

Exchange of 
information and best 
practices (in criminal 
justice) 
JPEN 

E-Justice 

Training of 
the judiciary 

JPEN 

JCIV 

JPEN 

JCIV 
FRC 

Protection of the 
rights of victims 
and the accused 

Criminal 
justice 

JPEN 

JPEN 

ISEC 

Daphne III 

ISEC 
Daphne III 

ISEC 

FP7 / Horizon 2020 

DG Connect  

When  preparing  annual  work  programmes,  complementarity  and  coherence  between  the  DG  Justice 
programmes were increased through Commission inter-service consultations and inter-service groups, 
where  complementarity  and  possible  overlaps  in  programming  was  discussed  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.23 

2.2.2 

Complementarity at project level 

At  the  project  selection,  monitoring  and  reporting  stages  of  the  programme  cycle,  the  Commission 
applied  no  mechanisms  to  enhance  complementarity,  except  for  sharing  resources  (i.e.  the  e-Justice 
portal) with the Civil Justice Programme (JCIV). 

At  project  level,  grant  beneficiaries  sought  to  establish  synergies  with  colleagues  or  other 
organisations  implementing  projects  funded  by  JPEN  or  by  other  EU  programmes;  and/or  with 
projects funded through national and international mechanisms.  

Almost  two  thirds  of  respondents  to  the  online  survey  indicated  that  some  form  of  synergies  were 
established  with  other  projects  under  JPEN  (29 %),  other  EU  programmes  (20 %),  national 
programmes  (20 %)  or  international  programmes  (5.5 %)24.  However,  not  all  respondents  provided 
examples of the synergies they had created, so it was not always possible to corroborate this reported 
information. 

22 Ibid., p. 16 
23 Ibid., p. 20 
24 26 respondents of the survey (or 27 % of all respondents) stated that no synergies were established and 11 gave the response ‘I do not 
know’. There is a slight methodological issue with this data: not all respondents had the option of replying ‘no’ or ‘I don’t know’, because 
these two categories where only added after the survey was already running. A total of 17 of the respondents considered in this report did not 
have this option and therefore of the 33 not providing a response to this question, 17 may have replied ‘no’ or ‘I do not know’ had they been 
given the option. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Grant  beneficiaries  sought  to  increase  the  impact  of  their  JPEN-funded  projects  by  building  on  the 
findings  of  other  projects;  designing  the  project  around  good  practices  established  under  other 
programmes; and disseminating the results of the projects to networks established under other projects.  

Among  them,  one  beneficiary  reported  having  disseminated  the  results  of  the  project  to  end-user 
meetings  of  another  project  funded  under  DG  Research’s  FP7  programme.  Another  respondent 
explained that it had used some of the tools developed under a project funded by the LLP. Results of 
JPEN  projects  were  also  disseminated  at  conferences  organised  with  funding  from  other  EU 
programmes.25 

2.3 

EFFECTIVENESS 

A programme is effective to the extent that it has succeeded in achieving its objectives. The success of 
JPEN can also be gauged by the extent to which individual JPEN projects succeeded in achieving their 
own objectives. 

2.3.1 

Programme achievements 

Overall,  the  implemented  actions  have  addressed  the  objectives  of  the  programme,  in  particular  the 
specific  objectives  on  training  of  the  judiciary  and  judicial  cooperation.  It  is  difficult  to  assess  the 
extent to which project outputs were achieved (in comparison to planned outputs). This is because a 
requirement for grant applicants to identify a measurable target for their outputs was only introduced 
towards the end of the programme. Based on the self-reporting of grant beneficiaries, it appears that 
most projects (around 70 %) were effective at achieving their outputs as proposed, while nearly two 
thirds managed to achieve all their outputs and results.26 

Overall  JPEN  action  grants  and  operating  grants  produced  outputs  and  positive  results,  in  particular 
on27: 

 

 

training  of  the  judiciary,  which  contributed  to  enhancing  mutual  trust,  although  its  extent 
could  not  be  measured,  and  benefited  nearly  26 000  judges,  prosecutors  and  other 
professionals in nearly all Member States; 
improved  cooperation  between  the  judiciary  and  justice  ministries  of  Member  States,  with 
nearly a thousand partnerships created, most of which bilateral;   

  greater  compatibility  of  rules  (or  better  understanding  of  the  differences),  through  studies, 
mutual learning and the promotion of good practices aimed at harmonising rules. These also 
favoured the (better) implementation of EU legislation by increasing the knowledge and skills 
of those applying it at national level; 
addressing  various  obstacles  to  current  judicial  cooperation  by  developing  appropriate 
services, research, mutual learning and networking. Types of obstacles addressed included: a 
lack  of  understanding  and  knowledge,  communication  channels  and  cooperation  platforms, 
linguistic differences, etc.; 
increasing the capacity of organisations providing support to victims and the accused. 

 

 

JPEN  had  a  notable  impact  on  improving  judicial  cooperation  between  the  judiciary  and  justice 
ministries  of  Member  States,  not  least  because  of  the  number  of  bilateral  partnerships  it  created.  At 
least 947 partnerships were formed, of which 826 were between Member States. Some of the outputs 
and  results of transnational projects have included28: 

 

improved bilateral cooperation between Member State prosecutors on joint investigation 
teams in cross-border cases; 

25 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Criminal 
Justice Programme (JPEN), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 21 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jpen_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 
26 Ibid., p.22 
27 Ibid., p. 45 
28 Ibid., p. 26 

11 

 
 
 
 

 

increased expertise on the processing of EU nationals accused of crimes in another Member 
State; 
joint dialogue on common problems, also through the creation of cross-EU working groups 
such as the Legal Experts Advisory Panel. 

JPEN clearly promoted judicial cooperation and compatibility between Member State rules and also 
contributed to reducing some legal obstacles. 
The programme promoted the compatibility of rules between Member States by29: 

 

improving  knowledge  of  differences  between  Member  State  legislation/practices  and 
identifying possible solutions to reduce these differences; 

  promoting good practices and greater harmonisation; 
 

increasing dialogue between those responsible for maintaining and amending rules on criminal 
justice,  including  the  creation  of  working  groups  between  Member  States  to  discuss  and 
identify solutions to obstacles in implementing EU legislation; 

  promoting  the  (better)  implementation  of  EU  legislation  by  increasing  Member  States’ 

knowledge of it and capacity to implement it. 

To  reduce  linguistic  obstacles,  JPEN  identified  access  to  interpretation  services  as  a  priority  for 
funding,  awarding  grants  for  linguistic  training  of  judges  and  prosecutors  and  the  evaluation  of 
linguistic services in Member States. Given the small scale of this linguistic training, it is unlikely that 
it  had  a  major  impact  on  reducing  linguistic  obstacles.  However,  it  contributed  to  the  training  of 
judiciary  and  promoted  the  linguistic  training  of  legal  professionals30,  which  is  a  Commission 
priority31. 

One of the key types of action funded (47 action grants plus 10 procurement contracts amounting to 
EUR 4.2 million) was support to Member States in amending their criminal records systems to make 
them compatible at EU level to enable the exchange of the records through ECRIS. Although project 
partners  noted  some  implementation  issues  with  the  set-up  of  the  ECRIS  in  Member  States,  ECRIS 
was  successfully  set  up  in  2012,  meaning  that  the  JPEN  actions  in  this  area  were  at  least  partly 
successful.32 

To  the  extent  that  JPEN  actions  supported  the  improvement  of  dialogue  and  exchanges  between 
Member  States  and  the  fostering  of  judicial  cooperation,  the  programme  has  improved  contacts  and 
exchange of information and  best practices between legal, judicial and administrative authorities. At 
least  187  funded  actions  (out  of  334)  had  mutual  learning,  the  exchange  of  good  practices  and 
cooperation  incorporated  into  their  projects.  These  actions  contributed  to  information  exchange  and 
the  increasing  of  contacts  between  national  members  of  the  judiciary.  National  authorities  from  21 
Member States33 led one or more JPEN grant, including 15 ministries of justice. Many of these grants 
were  used  to  amend  national  criminal  records  systems  to  make  them  compatible  with  the  European 
system (ECRIS).34 

In  addition  to  actions  funded  through  grants,  JPEN  funding  was  used  to  procure  contracts  with 
consultants who developed and maintained the e-Justice portal.35 

A total of 93 JPEN grants worth more than EUR 44 million (26 % of the total planned budget for the 
2007-2013 programme) went specifically on training the judiciary and legal practitioners. This training 

29 Ibid., p. 27 
30 Ibid., pp. 27-28 
31 See the 2011 Communication on Building trust in EU-wide justice: a new dimension to European judicial training http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0551:FIN:EN:PDF. 
32 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Criminal 
Justice Programme (JPEN), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 28 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jpen_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 
33 All except for Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Hungary, Malta, Sweden and Slovakia. 
34 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Criminal 
Justice Programme (JPEN), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 27 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jpen_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 
35 Ibid., p. 28 

12 

 
 
 
benefited 25 863 judges, prosecutors and other professionals during the evaluated period, an average 
of  3 695  beneficiaries  per  year.  Figure  2-1  shows  the  number  of  legal  practitioners  participating  in 
these  training  events  each  year.  This  includes  training  funded  through  action  grants,  framework 
partnership agreements and operating grants to the EJTN. 

Figure 2-1 Number of participants benefiting from JPEN-funded EU legal training 2007-2013 

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

5381 

2067  2518 

4095 

3562 

2509 

5731 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

The Commission has set targets to train half  of all EU legal practitioners (an estimated 700 000) by 
2020. To do this, at least 5 % of all legal professionals in each Member State must be trained each year 
until 2020, whether the training is organised at local, national or European level or by local, national 
or EU-level actors36. A 2014 Commission report on European judicial training demonstrated that the 
target for judges in 2013 was reached (see top graph of Figure 2-2), while the target for annual training 
for prosecutors was reached in 19 Member States. 

Figure 2-2 Number of judges and prosecutors participating in 2013 in continuous training in their own Member State 
and (for prosecutors) abroad 

Source: European Judicial Training 2014. Figures include training funded through other EU programmes or by EU agencies, 

such as the PROGRESS, Civil Justice and Fundamental Rights and Citizenship programmes. 

A  large  proportion  of  JPEN  grants  went  to  projects  directly  or  indirectly  focusing  on  the  rights  of 
victims and the accused. One of the main ways that JPEN contributed to building mutual trust on the 
rights of victims and of the accused in the EU is by funding EU-level platforms working in these areas, 
particularly:  

36 COM(2011) 551 final ‘Building trust in EU-wide justice: a new dimension to European Judicial Training: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0551:FIN:EN:PDF. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
  Fair  Trials  International,  which  seeks,  among  other  actions,  to  ‘engage  and  support  an 
international  movement  [network]  of  fair  trials  defenders  [of  human  rights  professionals]’; 
and  

  Victim  Support  Europe  (VSE),  which  is  a  network  of  national  victim  support  organisations 
promoting  the  establishment  and  development  of  victim  rights  and  services  throughout 
Europe.37 

2.3.2 

Project achievements 

Most projects (around 70 %) were effective at achieving their outputs as proposed and at achieving the 
project objectives. However, nearly a third were not as effective because they did not achieve all their 
objectives (see  Table 2-2). Only in a handful of  cases (around 5 % of  all finalised projects) did  this 
significantly  affect  the  achievement  of  the  project’s  operational  objectives.  Although  some  of  the 
obstacles  encountered were due to unforeseen external factors, some  could have been  identified  and 
mitigated as part of a risk assessment strategy. 

Table 2-2 Drivers to the implementation issues experienced by projects 

Driver to the problem 

Staff departure / insufficient staff 

Lack of time 

Unforeseen (external) obstacle 

Financial issues / lack of funding 

Technical  reasons  (e.g.  problems  with  digital  systems,  with  the 
functioning of e-justice software) 

Circumstances  which  should  have  been  identified  as  part  of  the 
logic  model  (e.g.  lack  of  data,  lack  of  uptake  from  beneficiaries, 
timing issues, coherence with policy developments, etc.) 

Delays by the European Commission 

Changes to Logic model 
Source: all project documentation mapped by ICF (n = 334) 

No. projects affected 

5 

21 

17 

12 

5 

15 

2 

7 

More than two thirds of the finalised projects were implemented exactly as planned, while one third 
made at least some changes to the way the projects/work programmes were implemented as compared 
with the original design.38 

2.4 

SUSTAINABILITY AND TRANSFERABILITY 

The  evaluators  analysed  whether  the  results,  outcomes  and  impacts  achieved  by  the  projects  were 
sustainable  beyond  the  project  funding  period.  Three  levels  of  sustainability  were  identified  in  the 
evaluation:  

1.  short-term sustainability, achieved mainly through dissemination of projects’ results;  

2.  medium-term sustainability, implying continuation of project results and/or partnerships;  

3. 

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

37 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Criminal 
Justice Programme (JPEN), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 28 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jpen_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 
38 Ibid., p. 31 

14 

 
 
 
 
2.4.1 

Continuation of project activities and outputs and dissemination 

Out of the 121 finalised projects demonstrating some evidence of sustainability in their final reports, 
39  (32 %)  stated  in  their  final  reports  that  they  would  continue  the  project  in  full  because  they  had 
been  able  to  secure  further  funding.  These  39  projects  dealt  with  the  development  of  tools  such  as 
ECRIS, victim support services and restorative justice programmes — that is they dealt with systems 
or  services  which  had  been  developed  and  which  would  require  further  funding  for  their  continued 
implementation. However, this was not the case for all JPEN projects. Indeed, where the action grant 
or  operating  grant  focused  on  research,  the  project  would  not  necessarily  require  funding  for  its 
continuation. Similarly, projects that focused on training or mutual learning would only require further 
funding if the training were to be expanded to new participants.39 

A  further  28  projects  stated  in  their  final  reports  that  the  project  would  continue  in  part,  e.g.  when 
aspects of the training continue, or when the findings resulting from the project are used to develop or 
contribute to new projects. In these cases, it can be assumed that funding has been identified for this 
part continuation. The results of the online survey suggested that most grant beneficiaries (71 %, or 61 
out  of  86  respondents)  would  require  further  funding  to  continue  the  project/activities.  In  follow-up 
interviews, 25 out of 33 interviewees stated that further funding was needed for follow-up aspects of 
the projects such as training and translations; testing of the products developed; and implementation of 
methodologies.  

However,  20  out  of  33  interviewees  also  stated  that  items  such  as  dissemination  activities  and 
awareness raising could be continued without additional funding.40 

Overall,  the  dissemination  of  the  projects’  results  by  the  Commission  was  limited,  since  it  mostly 
relied on its beneficiaries to disseminate the outputs directly to their target groups, and its own human 
resources were reserved mostly to the financial management. There was some publication of training 
materials,  and  the  monitoring  of  project  expenditure  and  budgets  was  prioritised  over  results 
monitoring.  Only  some  outputs  from  training  projects  were  published  on  the  e-Justice  portal.  The 
training  materials  were  only  uploaded  onto  the  e-Justice  portal  in  cases  where  the  products  were 
comprehensive, relevant and fit a gap in coverage (mostly European Institute of Public Administration 
(EIPA) seminars, links to the EJTN and the ‘Building Mutual Trust’41 project websites).42 

Dissemination was a requirement of the calls for proposals and was encouraged by the Commission. 
The  calls  for  action  grants  encouraged  grant  applicants  to  demonstrate  a  plan  for  dissemination. 
Operating grant applicants were not required to outline a strategy for dissemination. Out of 95 online 
survey  respondents,  92 %  (87  respondents)  stated  that  they  had  a  clear  plan  for  disseminating  the 
results of their project/activities. An analysis of 12 action grant application forms covering all priority 
areas and all years of the programme shows that dissemination strategies varied in quality.43 

The quantitative analysis of the documentation of 334 JPEN grants shows that at least 197 (59 %) of 
all  grant  beneficiaries  implemented  awareness-raising  or  dissemination  activities  as  part  of  their 
projects/work  programmes.  The  analysis  of  project  outputs  (see  Figure  2-3)  reported  in  grant 
beneficiaries’  final  reports  shows  that  the  main  tools  for  dissemination  were  events,  newsletters  or 
brochures  and  other  outputs.  Some  grant  beneficiaries  also  set  up  websites  to  disseminate  project 
information,  but  at  the  time  of  the  evaluation  it  was  found  that  not  all  project  websites  were 
maintained once project funding had ended. 

39 Ibid., p. 36 
40 Ibid. 
41 The project supports linguistic training for legal professionals. 
42 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Criminal 
Justice Programme (JPEN), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 33-34 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jpen_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 
43 Ibid., p. 34 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2-3 Outputs of dissemination and awareness-raising activities (n=221) 

-
s
s
e
n
e
r
a
w
a
f
o
s
t
u
p
t
u
O

,

o
f
n

i

,
g
n
i
s
i
a
r

s
e
i
t
i
v
i
t
c
a
n
o
i
t
a
n
m
e
s
s
i
d

i

published materials (newsletters, brochures)

61 

press conferences / releases

16 

 policy briefs

2 

other outputs (e.g. books, films, promotional…

51 

events (e.g. conference, seminar, etc.)

149 

campaigns

22 

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160

Source: analysis of 221 grants for which final reports were available. 

However,  the  fact  that  such  activities  were  effective  at  attracting  the  attention  of  policy-makers  and 
increasing contacts between authorities in different Member States suggests that dissemination was at 
least somewhat effective. A total of 44 respondents to the online survey reported that they had already 
successfully  implemented  outputs  in  Member  States  other  than  their  own.  29  also  reported  that  the 
results of the project/activities had fed into policy activities in one or more other countries.44 

2.4.2 

Continuation of partnerships after the project’s completion 

Based  on  the  information  in  final  reports,  17  partnerships  functioning  to  implement  JPEN  grants 
would continue either in full or part after the project had ended. However, it is likely that the number 
of  partnerships  that  continued  was  higher,  because  71  out  of  91  respondents  to  the  online  survey 
(78 %) stated that their partnership was already continuing or would likely continue after completion 
of the project. Another factor was that grant beneficiaries interviewed and participating in the online 
survey reported positively on the benefits of the partnerships formed under JPEN. Evidence from the 
follow-up  interviews  with  grant  beneficiaries  suggested  that  some  of  these  partnerships  had  already 
been formed before the start of the project. This previous partnership experience helped in facilitating 
team  building,  team  communication  and  problem  solving  and  made  it  easier  to  form  initial  contacts 
within the new project.45 Data was not collected on the reasons of not continuing the partnerships.  

2.4.3 

Potential sustainability and transferability of outputs 

Disseminating  outputs  and  results  to  a  wide  audience  can  increase  their  sustainability.  Many  of  the 
outputs were already designed to be used at EU level (e.g. 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  of  those  that  were  not  designed  for  cross-EU  application  were  otherwise 
designed to be transferable to other Member States.  

It was difficult for grant beneficiaries to demonstrate sustainability of their project in final reporting. 
This  was  because  there  were  only  two  or  three  months  between  project  closure  and  the  reporting 
deadline, which is not really sufficient time to show sustainability. 

Many  of  the  project  partners  interviewed  for  the  evaluation  indicated  that  they  had  designed  their 
projects  around  clear  products,  or  outputs,  many  of  which  would  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, while an additional 
22 reported that outputs could be transferred to more than one country with some minor changes. More 
than two thirds (61 respondents) also reported that the results of the project/activities could be fed into 
the policy activities in one or more other countries.46 

44 Ibid., p. 35 
45 Ibid., p. 36 
46 Ibid., p. 37 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Factors  that  could  be  a  barrier  to  the  full  transferability  of  the  result  were  also  identified  by 
interviewees. These included adaptation to countries’ specific legislation; translation requirements; the 
maturity  of  other  Member  States’  judicial  systems;  the  level  of  priority  of  a  specific  topic  in  a 
particular  Member  State’s  agenda;  and  the  need  for  a  specific  project  output  (i.e.  training  tool  or 
method). 

2.5 

EFFICIENCY AND SCOPE FOR SIMPLIFICATION 

This section assesses the efficiency of the programme in terms of:  

 

 

 

the sufficiency and efficiency of financial resources available;  

the appropriateness of the money spent in comparison to the positive impacts achieved;  

the extent to which the allocation of funds among the different funding tools was appropriate 
and sufficient to implement the project’s objectives.  

This  section  also  reviews  the  Commission’s  management  efficiency  and  considers  whether  there  is 
scope for simplifying the programme management. 

2.5.1 

Sufficiency and efficiency of available financial resources 

The  analysis  showed  that  the  budget  made  available  to  achieve  the  objectives  was  sufficient, 
considering  that  the  programme  objectives  were  well  expressed  and  not  overly  ambitious.  Grant 
beneficiaries also reported that on the whole the grants were sufficient to enable them to realise their 
objectives and to make a difference in their area. 

A comparison of allocated funds with (finally) committed funds suggests that project underspend was 
common  towards  the  beginning  of  the  programme:  commitments  per  call  were  systematically  lower 
than  initial  allocations,  although  some  improvements  occurred  with  later  calls  (see  Figure  2-4).  The 
reason for this initial mismatch was that JPEN was a new programme, which addressed a stakeholder 
group  relatively  inexperienced  with  funding  applications.  The  funding  tools  used  followed  a  clear 
logic and overall were used efficiently. 

Figure 2-4 JPEN total allocated, committed and up-to-date paid funds and total over/under commitment and 
underspending by call for proposals (action grants above, operating grants below) 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
Note:  The  operating  grant  funding  numbers  also  include  the  framework  partnership  agreements  and  operating  grant 

monopolies. Figures on allocations and projects funded in the years 2011-2012 were merged. Underspending is calculated as 

the  difference  between  committed  and  paid  funding  for  all  finalised  projects.  *  Not  all  projects  have  been  finalised  (the 

spending  and  underspending  figures  only  relate  to  finalised  projects).  CR-criminal  records,  EJ-e-justice,  EJT-European 

Judicial Training. 

2.5.2  Money spent in comparison with the impacts achieved 

JPEN  provided  EUR 131  million  to  fund  334  mostly  transnational  projects  representing  more  than 
1 200 lead and partner organisations47. In the end, with an additional EUR 21 million, JPEN financed 
174 procured projects. This also contributed to the programme’s general and specific objectives, by for 
example  supporting  the  preparation  of  legislation;  bringing  together  experts  to  discuss  certain 
obstacles; and communicating key messages.48 

The expected impacts of JPEN were to contribute to the emergence of a European area of justice  in 
criminal matters, based on mutual recognition and mutual confidence. The expected outcomes related 
to  reinforcement  of  judicial  cooperation;  support  for  European  networks  working  to  promote  EU 
criminal  justice;  the  further  development  of  cross-border  training  for  professionals;  and  a 
strengthening of mutual trust so as to protect the rights of victims and the accused.49 

While the expected impacts were certainly ambitious and challenging, the JPEN resources have made 
some  contribution,  although  difficult  to  measure,  to  the  wider  EU  objective  of  building  a  European 
area of justice by adding a dedicated funding stream which complemented a range of other means (e.g. 
legislation, policy, EU agencies). The programme also helped the Commission to realise several  EU 
objectives which are part of the European area of justice.50 The analysis of the finalised projects for 
which  information  was  provided  shows  that  as  much  as  73 %  of  the  finalised51  action  grants  and 
operating  grants  show  evidence  of  obtained  outcomes  and  impacts,  whereas  only  16 %  showed  no 
evidence of these52.  

Although the evidence collected as part of the evaluation is still insufficient to firmly conclude that the 
resources spent on the programme were reasonable in relation to the outcomes and impacts achieved53, 

47 This figure does not account for double counting of organisations who received more than one grant. 
48 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Criminal 
Justice Programme (JPEN), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 45 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jpen_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 
49 Ibid., p. 45 
50 Ibid. 
51 In total, 210 action grants and 50 operating grants are considered to be nearly or fully finalised. 
52 For the remaining projects no clear evidence was available or there was no information. 
53 Also considering that around one third of the actions funded were still to be completed and that it takes time for certain outcomes and 
impacts to be realised. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
the  outcomes  and  impacts  identified  would  certainly  suggest  that  spending  was  reasonable  when 
looking at the programme’s achievements, as reported already under the ‘effectiveness’ criterion.54 

2.5.3 

Appropriateness of the allocation of funds among the different funding tools 

According to the annual work programmes, the total budget allocations for implementing JPEN 2007-
2013  were  EUR 196  million,  averaging  EUR 28  million  per  year.  The  largest  share  of  funding  was 
allocated  to  action  grants  (EUR 115  million,  or  58 %  of  the  total  programme  value),  followed  by 
operating  grants  (EUR 50  million,  or  25 %).  Public  procurement  had  an  initial  allocation  of 
EUR 32 million,  or  16 %  of  the  total.  However,  when  looking  at  the  amounts  allocated  through  the 
calls  for  proposals,  action  grants  were  allocated  a  total  of  EUR 123  million,  which  is  around 
EUR 8 million  more than what was initially planned in the annual work programmes (see  Table 1-1 
and Table 1-2).55         

The  relatively  low  numbers  of  applications  per  call and  their  high  success  rates  in  particular  for  the 
first action grant calls (67 % for 2007 action grants, 87 % for 2007 action grants on criminal records-
CR, 48 % for 2008 action grants and 77 % for 2008 action grants CR) again hint at the relatively low 
initial  visibility  of  the  programme  and  possible  difficulties  in  attracting  stakeholders  to  submit 
applications (see Figure 2-5). 

Figure 2-5 Selected grants as a proportion of total applications per call  

250

200

150

100

50

0

67% 

87% 

48% 

77% 

50% 

47% 

42% 

53% 

21% 

22% 

33% 

AG AG CR AG AG CR AG AG CR AG AG EJ AG

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011-
2012

Success Rate

AG

AG
EJT

2012 2013

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

[VALUE]0
% 

88% 

81% 

23% 

59% 

54% 

OG

OG

OG

OG

OG

OG

2,007 2,008 2,009 2,010 2,012 2,013

Success Rate

When looking at the absorption rates of action grants and operating grants (i.e. payments as a share of 
commitments),  it  appears  that  overall  the  granted  budgets  were  slightly  higher  than  the  grant 
beneficiary  could  successfully  absorb  and  deliver.  The  average  absorption  rate  was  76 %  for  action 
grants and 80 % for operating grants. Operating grants also showed some improvements over time and 
hence a reduced underspend. On procurement, the data showed that out of the EUR 32 million initially 
allocated,  EUR 21  million  was  committed.  This  would  suggest  that  the  funding  made  available  was 
overall sufficient.56 

In addition, considering  the particular stakeholder groups addressed, there is a risk  of reaching  their 
‘full absorption capacity’ for this type funding. There are two reasons for this:  

54 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Criminal 
Justice Programme (JPEN), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 45 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jpen_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 
55 Ibid., p. 40 
56 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Criminal 
Justice Programme (JPEN), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 42 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jpen_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 

19 

 
 
 
 
               
 
 
 

 

the  relatively  ‘limited’  number  of  such  stakeholders  (in  contrast  to  programmes  such  as 
Daphne III, for which there is much higher demand due to the much wider variety and higher 
numbers of stakeholders addressed);  

for many, the implementation of the grant is something done in addition to their ‘day-to-day’ 
activities. 

2.5.4 

Commission management and scope for simplification 

Based on the online survey results, requirements for applicants to access JPEN funding were deemed 
appropriate overall, as presented in Figure 2-6 below.   

Figure  2-6  Responses  on  the  online  survey  related  to  the  perception  of  the  Commission’s  support  during  the 
application process 

Source:  Survey  for  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  five  DG  Justice  programmes  2007-2013.  Question  36:  With  regard  to  the 
Commission’s  management  of  the  five  programmes,  including  the  Commission’s  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  your 
project/activities, please comment on the following statement: [statements in the graph] 

The information provided in the calls for proposals was straightforward throughout the funding period, 
explaining the different elements relating to the application. However, the document became lengthier 
over time, partly reflecting the increased level of detail required in the application form, the number of 
priorities  presented  and  the  introduction  in  2008  of  the  IT  PRIAMOS  system.  The  information 
included  in  the  calls  was  clear  and  easy  to  understand  according  to  most  respondents  to  the  online 
survey  (i.e.  87 %  of  respondents  answered  ‘strongly  agree’  and  ‘agree’  to  both  statements).  For  the 
2013  call,  the  single  Guide  for  Applicants  was  in  place,  covering  the  five  DG  Justice  programmes, 
ISEC  and PROGRESS. The Single Guide contributed to simplification and efficiency for applicants 
submitting proposals for different projects.57 

Throughout the programme, the application form asked applicants to describe the project in terms of 
general  project  information;  implementation;  financial  management;  results;  evaluation;  and 
dissemination.  

In addition, the applicants were required to complete budget estimation forms, staff-cost analysis and a 
partnership  declaration.  From  2010,  applicants  were  also  requested  to  provide  indicators  to  assess 
results; provide evidence of previous programme experience; and add more detail on the partners and 
work streams.  

This  increased  the  potential  for  quality  in  the  projects,  motivating  the  applicants  to  develop  a  more 
rigorous plan and cost estimation of each of their activities.  

The vast majority of respondents seemed to have been quite comfortable with the application process 
(i.e. with submitting the application and concerning the information included in the calls). However, 
when  respondents  were  asked  if  they  requested  help  from  persons  with  specific  expertise  and 
knowledge on the procedures, only 45 % strongly to partially disagreed. 35 % of respondents knew of 
organisations/projects/practitioners  that  did  not  respond  to  the  call  for  proposals  due  to  the 

57 Ibid., p. 49 

20 

 
 
 
 
complex/difficult requirements, compared with only 21 % who said that they did not know of any such 
organisations/projects/practitioners. Overall, the reporting requirements (for both the financial aspects 
and the non-financial aspects of projects) were considered as appropriate by the vast majority of the 
respondents (81 out of 95, or 85 %).58 

The  Commission’s  monitoring  arrangements  were  at  least  partially  considered  as  good  and  helpful 
during  the  implementation  of  the  project/activities  by  about  79 %  of  the  respondents  to  the  online 
survey (71 out of 90, or 79 %), while 21% were not fully satisfied (reasons are that the financial rules 
are  quite  complex,  so  the  financial  reporting  becomes  complicated  for  beneficiaries;  the  monitoring 
process is too bureaucratic; Commission staff sometimes gave differing answers throughout the life of 
the project). The requirement to submit a progress report was introduced in the 2011-2012 call. This 
made  reporting  more  efficient.  The  final  reporting  was  a  fairly  simple  exercise,  consisting  of  a 
narrative of the project’s results including problems encountered and methods used.59 

Overall, the Commission’s management became more efficient over time thanks to the introduction of 
the single unit dealing with programme management; the publication of a handbook for Commission 
officials; and indirectly, through the dissemination of a project management guide with the 2011 call.  

Overall, grant beneficiaries’ experience of cooperation with the Commission was positive. The grant 
application  requirements  followed  a  similar  process  to  other  programmes  managed  centrally  by  the 
Commission and required more detailed information from the 2010 call onwards, which was beneficial 
for  the  quality  of  the  applications  and  the  projects.  The  changes  to  reporting  also  created  a  more 
balanced approach between financial justification on the one hand and evaluation/assessment of actual 
results and potential impacts of the projects on the other.60 

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. This is a starting point for identification of a EU added value. The EU added 
value is then analysed in terms of outputs that brought value to the EU and to beneficiaries. However, 
it has not been yet possible to identify and measure EU added value in terms of impacts.    

JPEN had a strong transnational dimension. This is borne out by the objectives of the programme and 
by  the  kinds  of  actions  deemed  eligible,  as  stressed  in  the  2007  Council  Decision.  Article  4  of  the 
Decision  states  that  JPEN  ‘shall  support  […]  specific  transnational  projects  of  Union  interest 
presented by at least two Member States or by at least one Member State and one other country which 
may  either  be  an  acceding  or  a  candidate  country.’  JPEN  also  involved  a  large  number  of  EU 
platforms. Eligible actions also included national projects. 

2.6.1 

Geographical coverage and involvement of Member States 

All  Member  States  participated  in  JPEN.  Overall,  there  was  quite  good  geographical  coverage  of 
activities across the EU. Some Member States received a larger number of grants and participated in a 
larger number of partnerships funded than others.  

Figure 2-7 below presents the geographical location of organisations that participated in JPEN projects 
per  Member  State.  Lead  organisations  were  clustered  within  four  Member  States:  Italy,  Belgium, 
United Kingdom and Germany. Together these Member States led 48 % (161) of all projects. Many 
EU  networks/platforms  are  registered  in  Belgium.  No  projects  were  led  by  organisations  based  in 
Croatia. Looking at the partner organisations, the Member State participation is more evenly spread: 
out of all Member States, 15 participated, involving more than 25 partner organisations. 

58 Ibid. 
59 Ibid., p. 39 
60 Ibid. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2-7 Total number of organisations per Member State participating in JPEN, including lead (left) and partner 
(right) organisations 

Furthermore,  while  lead  organisations  on  average  developed  a  higher  number  of  partnerships  with 
organisations from their own Member State than with organisations from other EU Member States61, 
up  to  826  transnational  partnerships  were  developed  as  a  result  of  the  programme62.  Indeed,  the 
average number of transnational partnerships per Member State was just under 32, with organisations 
based in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom each partnering with more than 100 
organisations from other EU Member States.  

In  terms  of  partnership  structure,  Germany,  Spain,  United  Kingdom,  Belgium  and  Italy  were  the 
Member  States  whose  organisations  partnered  with  organisations  in  the  highest  number  of  different 
Member  States,  each  having  organisations  partnering  with  peer  organisations  in  21-26  different  EU 
countries.63  

Figure 2-8 below highlights the partnership structure for projects led by Germany, Italy and the United 
Kingdom,  since  these  were  the  three  Member  States  with  the  highest  number  of  lead  organisations. 
German lead organisations partnered with 26 different EU Member States (other than Germany), while 
organisations  from  the  United  Kingdom  partnered  with  23  other  Member  States  and  organisations 
from Italy partnered with 21.     

Figure 2-8 Partnership structure for the top three Member States in terms of lead organisations 

61 This is especially noticeable for Italy. For instance, Italian lead organisations partnered with 28 Italian partners, 21 Spanish partners and 13 
French partners. UK lead organisations partnered with 14 Dutch partners, 13 UK partners and 12 Spanish partners. German lead 
organisations partnered with 12 German partners, 11 Spanish partners and 9 Austrian partners. 
62 Based on a calculation of the number of non-national partners each lead organisation partnered with. This number is likely to be overly 
high as it does not account for partnerships involving the same organisations that were used for more than one project. 
63 Ex post evaluation of five programmes implemented under the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Specific programme evaluation: Criminal 
Justice Programme (JPEN), ICF, 28 July 2015, p. 54 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/files/expost_evaluations_2007_2013/jpen_programme_evaluation_final_report.pdf 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.6.2 

Added value for the EU and for grant beneficiaries 

The EU added value of the programme for grant beneficiaries lay in the fact that provided them with 
access  to  funding  to  support  them  in  implementing  their  obligations  under  EU  law  e.g.  through 
training,  tools  and  research  to  identify  how  obstacles  to  the  implementation  of  EU  law  could  be 
reduced,  but  also  to  get  the  necessary  knowledge  of  good  practices  which  could  help  their 
beneficiaries on the ground. The programme also facilitated judicial cooperation, which benefits those 
national  authorities  and  members  of  the  judiciary  who  may  have  to  work  on  transnational  cases  or 
cases  concerning  EU  criminal  justice  legislation.  The  programme  also  supported  mutual  learning 
between Member States.64 

Figure 2-9 shows the results of the online survey of grant beneficiaries’ opinions of the advantages of 
transnational partnerships in JPEN. 

Figure 2-9 Aspects that the transnational partnership brought to the organisations implementing JPEN projects 

64 Ibid., p. 57 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A network consisting of (more)
international partners
More knowledge/expertise
in the topic area
More knowledge on
relevant EU legislation
More knowledge on
relevant EU policies
More knowledge on policy and
practice in other countries

Other

3 

46 

37 

70 

75 

70 

Source: Survey for the ex post evaluation of the five DG Justice programmes 2007-2013. N=59. Question 29c: What did the 
transnational partnership bring to your organisation? (please select all that apply) 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

The  transnational  dimension  of  JPEN  was  also  dependent  to  some  extent  on  the  good  working 
relations  established  within  the  partnerships.  The  consultation  showed  that  the  partners  were  overall 
satisfied with the partnership formed in the context of JPEN projects. In particular, respondents were 
satisfied  with  the  task  allocation  between  partners,  the  number  of  organisations  involved  in  the 
implementation  of  projects,  the  exchange  of  experience  and  lessons  as  well  as  with  the  overall 
communication. More than half of the survey respondents (62 %) actually indicated that it would have 
been  useful  to  include  more  organisations  from  other  Member  States  —  indeed,  this  may  have 
multiplied the beneficial impacts. 

Out of 282 action grants, 40 were national. Of these, 33 focused on setting up criminal records systems 
that  would  be  compatible  with  ECRIS.  Three  projects  aimed  to  provide  innovative  ways  of  dealing 
with  EU  issues  (i.e.  a  permanent  support  structure  for  judges  working  with  the  European  arrest 
warrants, new methods for interpreting EU convictions and offences and a suicide prevention system 
for prison facilities) and four were studies mapping the application of EU legislation  or training. The 
outputs were disseminated across the EU and were of clear EU value.65 

Finally, it can be assumed that a significant part of activities developed under JPEN would have not 
been developed had the programme not existed, since the programme had created a demand for new 
activities.  The  organisations  involved  were  struggling  to  find  national  funding  opportunities  to 
maintain  their  activities,  especially  after  the  recent  financial  and  economic  crisis  or  develop  other 
projects  in  the  justice  area.  Most  projects/activities  did  not  receive  further  funding  from  other 
instruments. Moreover, 77 % of the online survey participants stated that the project/activities would 
not have been implemented without EU funding; only six people (6 %) indicated that it would have 
been implemented regardless of EU funding received.66 

65 Ibid. 
66 Ibid., pp. 57-58 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 

CONCLUSIONS 

Relevance of the programme67 

  The specific objectives and priorities of the programme were largely specific, attainable and 

realistic, but they were not always measurable or time-bound. 

  Because the priority areas of the calls for proposals were accompanied by a description of the 
expected content of the projects, this made them more specific and helped grant applicants to 
ensure  that  their  projects  were  relevant  to  EU  objectives.  Furthermore,  because  the  priority 
areas followed the programme objectives and EU policy objectives so closely, it was easy for 
the selected actions to target these objectives as well. 

  Services  procured  using  JPEN  funding  were  also  very  relevant  to  the  programme  and  wider 
EU objectives as they focused  mainly on developing e-Justice tools (especially the e-Justice 
portal and its modules) or on research to support the development of legislation and policy. 
  An  analysis  of  grant  application  forms  and  information  collected  through  consultation  with 
grant beneficiaries shows that many grant beneficiaries either did not design their projects on 
the  basis  of  a  needs  assessment  or  did  not  provide  sufficient  evidence  to  back  up  their 
assessment  of  needs  in  the  grant  application  form.  This  creates  a  risk  that  more  relevant  or 
useful approaches to the project objectives might have been available. 
In  spite  of  this,  reporting  by  grant  beneficiaries  suggests  that  end  beneficiaries  responded 
positively to the projects, indicating that they considered the actions relevant. It is, however, 
not possible to corroborate this without gathering the independent views of end beneficiaries. 

 

Coherence and complementarity 

  Complementarity  of  JPEN  with  other  EU  programmes  and  interventions  was  almost  fully 
achieved,  although  a  few  projects  did  risk  overlap  with  the  activities  of  other  EU 
interventions. 

  Complementarity was achieved through mechanisms that the Commission put in place at the 

programme design stage and at the stage of designing calls for proposals. 

  At  the  project  selection,  monitoring  and  reporting  stages  of  the  programme  cycle,  the 
Commission  applied  no  mechanisms  to  enhance  complementarity,  except  for  sharing 
resources (i.e. the e-Justice portal) with the Civil Justice Programme (JCIV). 

Effectiveness 

  Overall,  the  implemented  actions  addressed  the  programme  objectives,  in  particular  the 

specific objectives on the training of the judiciary and judicial cooperation.  

  Projects  that  involved  policy-makers  in  the  project  via  consultation  at  design  stage,  through 
briefings,  meetings  or  involving  them  on  the  project  steering  board  contributed  to  achieving 
the programme’s intended outcome of having policy-makers use project outputs to shape new 
policy or legislation or adjust existing ones. 
It  is  difficult  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  project  outputs  were  achieved  (in  comparison  to 
planned  outputs).  This  was  because  the  requirement  for  grant  applicants  to  identify  a 
measurable target for their outputs was only introduced by the Commission towards the end of 
the programme and final reports are not yet available for these projects. 

 

  However,  based  on  the  self-reporting  of  grant  beneficiaries  (in  final  reports  and  through 
consultations conducted for this evaluation), it appears that most projects (around 70 %) were 
effective  at  achieving  their  outputs  as  proposed,  but  nearly  a  third  were  not  as  effective 
because they did not achieve all their objectives. 

67 Ibid., pp. 59-61 

25 

 
 
 
 
Sustainability 

 

  Overall, the Commission’s efforts to disseminate the results of projects were limited except in 
relation  to  training  materials,  some  of  which  were  published  on  the  e-Justice  website.  The 
Commission mostly relied on its beneficiaries to disseminate the outputs directly to their target 
groups, and its own human resources were reserved mostly to the financial management. 
It  is  difficult  to  fully  assess  the  effectiveness  of  grant  beneficiaries’  dissemination  activities 
without  consulting  the  target  groups:  information  on  the  number  of  users  and  target  groups 
reached in final reporting is not comprehensive, since the reporting of such information was 
not an obligation under the programme. Nonetheless, the fact that activities were effective at 
attracting  the  attention  of  policy-makers  and  increasing  contacts  between  authorities  in 
different Member States suggests that dissemination was at least somewhat effective. 

  Of the 219 mapped action grants and operating grants for which final reports were available, 
121  (55 %)  demonstrated  some  evidence  of  sustainability,  either  because  further  project 
funding  had  been  secured,  because  some  activities  would  continue,  because  the  partnership 
would  continue  (in  part  or  in  full)  or  because  the  outputs  and  results  of  the  project  would 
continue to be used.  

  The  proportion  of  projects  (32 %)  that  identified  further  funding  to  continue  the  project 
(according  to  final  reports)  is  seen  as  particularly  positive.  However,  this  may  not  be 
surprising given that the outputs produced as a result of JPEN projects were often targeted at 
national  authorities and public services, which are well placed  to identify follow-on funding 
for useful outputs. 

Efficiency 

  The funding made available to JPEN was sufficient and could possibly have been less for both 
action grants and operating grants, considering that it was a ‘new’ programme, focusing on a 
‘new’ and relatively inexperienced stakeholder group. Commitments have systematically been 
lower than initial allocations, albeit showing some improvements. 

  Based  on  the  information  available  on  funding,  it  seems  that  there  was  sufficient  money 

available for grants to realise their objectives. 

  As  regards  scope  for  simplification,  the  Commission’s  management  became  more  efficient 
over  time  and  grant  beneficiaries’  experience  of  cooperation  with  the  Commission  was 
positive. 

  The  level  of  detail  required  in  the  application  form  increased  from  the  2010  call  onwards, 
which benefited both the Commission (in terms of quality and usefulness of the reports) and 
the  applicants  (allowing  them  to  plan  and  estimate  their  activities  more  accurately).  This 
increased detail included the introduction of work streams. Reporting requirements (for both 
the financial and non-financial aspects of projects) were considered as appropriate by the vast 
majority of the respondents (85 %). The Commission’s monitoring arrangements were at least 
partially considered as good and helpful during the implementation of the project/activities by 
about 79 % of the respondents to the online survey. 

EU added value 

  The  EU  nature  of  JPEN  was  present  through  a  strong  transnational  dimension  involving  all 

EU Member States. 

  The  transnational  partnerships  also  contributed  to  the  achievement  of  the  programme’s 
objectives,  e.g.  improving  cross-border  cooperation  and  contributing  to  the  elaboration  and 
dissemination  of  good  practices,  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  to  more  knowledge  on  relevant  EU 
legislation and policies. 

  The  EU  added  value  of  the  programme  for  grant  beneficiaries  lay  also  in  the  fact  that  the 
programme  provided  them  with  access  to  funding  to  support  them  in  implementing  their 
obligations  under  EU  law.  It  was  appropriate  that  the  EU  incentivised  and  facilitated  the 

26 

 
 
 
 
implementation of these obligations — and the achievement of EU objectives — through this 
fund.  

Key recommendations 

  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  logic68,  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. 

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

27