COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting for the period 2021-2027 (the ‘Pericles IV programme')
Date: 2018-05-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, counterfeiting, cross-border cooperation, euro, fraud, fraud against the EU

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.5.2018  SWD(2018) 281 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a  REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting for the period 2021-2027 (the ‘Pericles IV programme') {COM(2018) 369 final}  
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

ECB 

TFEU 

ETSC 

DG ECFIN 

SOCTA 

ECEG 

CCEG 

CNAs 

GAF 

European Central Bank 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

European Technical and Scientific Centre 

Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs 

Serious Organised Crime Threat Assessment 

Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group 

Coin Counterfeiting Experts Group 

Competent National Authorities 

Group Anti-Fraude 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  PROBLEM ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT 

1.1. 

Scope and context 

The euro is, as the single currency of the Union, a core European interest, the integrity of which needs to be 
protected in all its dimensions. Counterfeiting of the euro poses a true problem for the Union and for its 
institutions.  Counterfeits  harm  citizens  and  businesses  that  are  not  reimbursed  for  counterfeits  even  if 
received  in  good  faith.  More  generally,  it  impacts  the  legal  tender  status  of  and  trust  of  citizens  and 
businesses  in  genuine  euro  notes  and  coins.  Thus,  a  solid  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting 
forms an essential component of security as one of the focal points of EU action, as noted in the reflection 
paper on the future of the EU's finances. 

The  current ''Pericles  2020''  programme  is  specifically  dedicated  to  the protection of  euro banknotes and 
coins  against  counterfeiting1.  The  Programme  is  an  exchange,  assistance  and  training  programme.  It 
supports the pillars on which the Commission's anti-counterfeiting policy is based: prevention, repression 
and  cooperation.  The  programme  was  established  by  Regulation  (EU)  No 331/2014  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11 March  20142.  Its  application  was  extended  to  the  non-
participating Member States by Council Regulation (EU) 2015/768 of 11 May 20153.  

Since  the  introduction  of  the  euro  as  a  single  currency,  there  is  the  need  to  protect  the  euro  against 
counterfeiting at EU level and to have a specific programme dedicated for this purpose. The euro entails, as 
the Unions' single currency, a high risk of counterfeiting which in turn has the potential to undermine the 
trust in the euro. Therefore the Pericles programme was established in 2001, which is the predecessor of 
the Pericles 2020 programme. The legal basis of the programme for the euro area Member States is Article 
133 of the TFEU. The Pericles 2020 It is the only programme at the EU and international level exclusively 
dedicated to the protection of the euro. 

This ex-ante evaluation concerns the initiative to continue the Pericles 2020 programme, beyond 2020. 

The status of counterfeiting 

According to the latest bi-annual information on euro banknotes prepared by the ECB , 363,000 counterfeit 
euro  banknotes  were  withdrawn  from  circulation  in  the  second  half  of  2017.  This  corresponds  to  an 
increase of 9.7% when compared with the first half of 2017 and 2.8% more than in the second half of 2016. 
According  to  the  latest  Europol  Serious  Organised  Crime  Threat  Assessment,  the  €20  and  €50  notes 
continued  to  be  the  most  counterfeited  banknotes  in  the  first  half  of  2017.  Together,  they  accounted  for 
85%  of  the  counterfeits4.  According  to  the  latest  Europol  data,  approximately  548,191  counterfeit 
banknotes were seized by the police in 2016. The total face value of these banknotes is approximately 30 
million euro. 19 print shops and 3 illegal mints were dismantled within and outside the EU in 2016. Over 
the  last  years,  an  increasing  number  of  deceptive  counterfeit  banknotes  have  been  found,  with  security 
features (such as holograms) from China. 

The quality of counterfeit coins continued to improve in 2016, as demonstrated by an increasing number of 
counterfeits  having  electromagnetic  properties  close  to  the  specification.  In  this  respect,  12  new  2-euro 
variants  and  1  1-euro  variant  of  already  existing  common  classes,  were  registered.  They  all  have  quite 
deceptive  electrical  or  magnetic  properties. A  number  of  actions  were  carried  to define  the  extent  of the 
problem and to improve the detection by the coin-processing machines.  

When  compared  to  2015,  2016  marks  an  increase  in  two  (2-euro  and  50-cent)  of  the  three  higher 
denomination coins. In particular, 2 euro denomination counterfeits increased by 4.35 %, 1 euro decreased 
by  6.33  %  and  50  cent  increased  by  0,84  %  in  comparison  to  2015.  In  particular,  in  2016  the  50  cent 
denomination maintains the second position, from a quantity point of view, (16.87 %) continuing the trend 
of the last three years. The 2 euro remains by far the most counterfeited denomination, constituting 87.10 

1 It replaces the Pericles programme that was established in 2001 and ran during the period 2002-2013. 
2  Regulation  (EU)  No  331/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  an  exchange,  assistance  and  training 
programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020' programme) (OJ L 103, 5.4.2014, p. 1). That 
Regulation repealed Council Decisions 2001/923/EC, 2006/75/EC, and 2006/849/EC. 

3 Council Regulation (EU) 2015/768 of 11 May 2015 extending to the non-participating Member States the application of Regulation 
(EU) No 331/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for 
the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles 2020’ programme) (OJ L 121, 14.5.2015, p. 1). 

4 ECB, press release, 26 January 2018. 

2 

 
                                                            
%  in  terms  of  value  (up  from  86.19  %  in  2015).    Overall,  2  144  633  counterfeit  euro  coins  have  been 
removed from circulation since the introduction of euro coins in 2002 and 20165. When compared to 2016, 
2017 marks an increase in two (2-euro and 50-cent) of the three higher denomination coins. In particular, 2 
euro denomination counterfeits increased by 8.58 %, 1 euro decreased by 5.49 % and 50 cent increased by 
10.18  %  in  comparison  to  2016.  Furthermore,  in  2017  the  50  cent  denomination  maintains  the  second 
position, from a quantity point of view (17.36 % of the total) continuing the trend of the last three years. 
The 2 euro remains by far the most counterfeited denomination, constituting 87.9% in terms of value (up 
from  87.10  %  in  2016).   Overall,  2  305  547  counterfeit  euro  coins  have  been  removed  from  circulation 
since the introduction of euro coins in 2002 until 2017. 

With respect to the criminal phenomenon of counterfeiting, the long-term view held by Europol, Member 
State national experts, the Commission and the European Central Bank, confirms the growing interest in 
euro  counterfeiting  of  organised  crime  groups  located  outside  EU.  The  involvement  of  organised  crime 
groups  continues  to  be  a  characteristic  of  this  crime  and  contributes  to  the  maintenance  of  a  high  level 
criminal threat. Moreover, 2017 Serious Organised Crime Threat Assessment (SOCTA) states that together 
with an increased sale of counterfeit on the Darknet, the trafficking of counterfeits is also increasing. Trade 
on  the  Darknet  market  places  has  no  country  borders  and  affects  countries  within  as  well  as  outside  the 
EU6. 

Interaction with other instruments/programmes 
Pericles  2020’s  distinct  transnational  and  multi-disciplinary7  approach  and  focus  on  capacity-building  to 
protect  the  euro  makes  it  unique  among  EU-level  programmes.  Two  Commission  programmes  may  be 
viewed  as  complementary.  DG  HOME’s  Police  instrument  of  the  Internal  Security  Fund  (ISF  Police) 
covers the prevention of and fight against crime in general, but only includes (indirect) efforts to prevent or 
combat  euro  (or  currency)  counterfeiting  if  linked  to  other  types  of  crimes  prioritised  by  the  instrument 
(namely  terrorism,  organised  crime,  cybercrime,  and  environmental  crime).  Furthermore,  DG  NEAR’s 
Technical Assistance and Information Exchange (TAIEX) instrument has supported activities related to 
euro counterfeiting, but these activities are of a different scale, duration and nature compared to Pericles 
2020  actions  and  are  often  in  support  of  accession  negotiations.  Several  national  and  third  country 
authorities have confirmed this effective complementarity8. Both Commission programmes are also under 
consideration for renewal under the next Multi-annual Financial Framework. 

1.2.  Lessons learned from previous programmes 

Midterm evaluation of the Pericles 2020 programme 

A mid-term evaluation of the programme was carried out by an independent contractor on the basis of Art 
13(4) of Regulation (EU) No 331/2014. The Commission adopted Communication COM(2017) 741 to the 
European Parliament and to the Council on the results of the Mid-Term Evaluation of the programme on 6 
December  2017,  in  which  it  shares  the  conclusion  that  the  programme  should  continue  until  its 
natural expiry in 2020, supports the continuation of the programme beyond 2020 given its EU added 
value, its long-term impact and sustainability, and concurs with the assessment of the Evaluation on 
the continuation of the programme as a standalone programme beyond 2020. 
The midterm evaluation of the Pericles 2020 programme9 concludes that all findings converge towards an 
unambiguously positive overall assessment. In particular, it notes that10: 

5  ETSC,  The  protection  of  euro  coins  in  2016,  Situation  as  regards  euro  coin  counterfeiting  and  the  activities  of  the  European 
Technical & Scientific Centre (ETSC) Based on Article 4 of Commission Decision C (2004) 4290 of 29 October 2004. 
6 Europol (2017), Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment. 
7  Police, judicial  authorities,  national  central  banks,  technical  analysis  laboratories  and  scientific  institutions can  all  be  included  in 
Pericles 2020 actions. 
8 Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2017) 443 final Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission 
to the Council and the European Parliament on the mid-term evaluation of the Programme for exchange, assistance and training for 
the protection of the euro against counterfeiting ('Pericles 2020' Programme), 6 December 2017. 
9 Communication COM(2017) 741 final - Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the 
mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Programme  for  exchange,  assistance  and  training  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting 
('Pericles 2020' Programme), 6 December 2017. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                            
 

  The programme’s EU added value lies essentially in its ability to support forms of international 
cooperation that are beyond the reach of national authorities. As an example, all EU stakeholders 
concur  that  initiatives  such  as  the  establishment  of  a  dialogue  (however  initial  and  preliminary) 
with  Chinese  authorities  or  the  setting  up  of  anti-counterfeit  units  in  Latin  America  would  not 
have  been  feasible  without  the  support  provided  by  the  programme.  In  a  similar  vein,  a 
discontinuation  of  the  programme  would  have  serious  detrimental  effects,  de  facto  making  it 
impossible to perform the same type of transnational activities on a comparable scale 
In terms of coherence, the evaluation highlights that Pericles 2020 activities can be regarded as 
fully  complementary  and  additional  to  national  euro  protection  initiatives,  without  overlaps. 
Pericles  2020  activities  also  effectively  complement  other  EU  and  international  euro  protection 
initiatives.  Several  Competent  National  Authorities  (CNAs)  and  third  country  authorities  have 
been  involved  in  other  euro  protection  initiatives  run  by  the  European  Central  Bank  (ECB), 
Europol,  Interpol  or  other  Commission-managed  programmes  (e.g.  TAIEX  in  South  Eastern 
Europe).  Stakehlders  regard  Pericles  2020  as  fairly  unique;  effectively  complementing  other 
initiatives. . 
In  terms  of  the  programme's  relevance,  the  general  and  specific  objectives  are  relevant.  All 
stakeholders concur that the strengthening of institutional capacity in national authorities, Pericles 
2020’s ‘core business’, is regarded as an essential element to safeguard the euro. Despite the fact 
that the phenomenon seems to be currently under control11, counterfeiting continues to be a major 
threat  to  the  euro.  The  increased  number  of  counterfeit  banknotes,  the  rise  of  'sophisticated' 
counterfeits,  the  increasing  availability  of  technology  and  the  interest  in  counterfeiting  of 
Organised Crime Groups require our continuous attention12. All stakeholders concur that vigilance 
must  remain  high.  In  a  similar  vein,  the  strengthening  of  institutional  capacity  in  national 
authorities, which constitutes the programme's ‘core business’, is regarded as an essential element 
to safeguard the euro. Regarding EU MS and particularly Euro area MS, most Competent National 
Authorities have reached a good, sometimes excellent, level of preparedness, but some gaps still 
exist  or  may  emerge  due  to  the  evolving  nature  of  the  threat.  Most  stakeholders  concur  that 
institutional strengthening needs are still substantial. 

 

  Regarding  the  effectiveness,  Pericles  2020  actions  were  typically  implemented  as  planned  and 
achieved the intended outputs, and evidence suggests that the outputs delivered did translate into 
tangible outcomes13. The programme contributed to the setting up of institutions and the adoption 
of  legislation  aimed  at  improving  euro  protection,  and  supports  investigations  in  counterfeiting 
cases.    The quality of  support  provided  is also  high. Participant feedback  provided  immediately 
after  events  shows  a  high  degree  of  appreciation,  with  97%  expressing  a  positive  or  highly 
positive assessment. More importantly, survey results show that a large share of participants claim 
to  have  learned  about  best  practices,  acquired  useful  skills,  and  established  contacts  with 
colleagues  in  other  countries.  The  quality  of  actions  is  also  judged  positively  by  the  authorities 
involved. 

  With regard to the programme's sustainability, available evidence suggests that the improvements 
in institutional capabilities resulting from Pericles 2020 actions are likely to have a lasting effect. 
In order to further support the long-term effects of the programme, it is suggested in the mid-term 
evaluation to continue the Programme beyond 2020. 

  Finally, in terms of the programme's efficiency, the institutional arrangements established for the 
implementation of the programme are well suited to the purpose. Administrative procedures are 
broadly  appropriate  and  do  not  constitute  an  appreciable  obstacle  for  participation  in  the 
programme.  The  current  level  of  EU  contribution  is  also  broadly  appropriate.  According  to  the 
evaluation,  the  funds  deployed  for  the  implementation  of  Pericles  2020  actions  are  used 
judiciously,  yielding  a  good  value  for  money.  When  grant  applications  are  selected,  cost-
effectiveness considerations play a major role, with beneficial effects on unit costs. Since it is a 
small programme, Pericles 2020 shows a high incidence of overhead costs. Yet given the specific 
focus on the protection of the euro, merging with another EU programme to achieve economies of 
scale would in all likelihood lead to a decline in the effectiveness of euro protection, potentially 
offsetting any financial savings.  

10 Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2017) 443 final Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission 
to the Council and the European Parliament on the mid-term evaluation of the Programme for exchange, assistance and training for 
the protection of the euro against counterfeiting ('Pericles 2020' Programme), 6 December 2017. 
11 Annex 1: Law Enforcement Action table update 2017. 
12 Annex 2: Counterfeiting statistics as part of the Pericles Annual Report for 2016. 
13 Economisti Associati, Mid-Term Evaluation of the Pericles 2020 Programme – Final Report, 27 June 2017, p. 43-56. 

4 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                 
Suggestions for improvement made in the midterm evaluation 

  The need for encouraging greater participation of Competent National Authorities14: consideration 
should be given to the establishment of contacts with national decision makers to ensure that the 
opportunities offered by the programme are well understood.  

  The  possibility  of  submitting  applications  and  other  relevant  documentation  online  should  be 

explored. 

  A  possible  modification  of  the  programme's  key  performance  indicators  to  include  qualitative 

indicators is recommended (please see section 6 for a detailed overview). 

Evaluation of the previous programme 
An  internal  evaluation  report  of  the  Pericles  programme  was  adopted  in  June  201315  under  Art.  article 
13(3a) of Council Decision 2001/923/EC, as amended by Council Decision 2006/849/EC. The evaluation 
positively  assessed  the  programme's  European  and  overall  added  value  and  its  complementarity  and 
coherence  with  other  existing  activities  at  Member  State  and  European  level.  As  for  suggestions  for 
improvement, the evaluation noted that a multi-annual strategy for the programme with a clearly defined 
timeframe was not in place and the existing annual reporting did not provide sufficient information on the 
results achieved by the programme. Based on this, an (multi)annual Pericles strategy paper was introduced 
for  the  Pericles  2020  generation  of  the  programme,  which  allows  the  programme  to  respond  to  new 
priorities  or  threats.  The  evaluation  also  concluded  that  the  sustainability  of  the  results  achieved  by  the 
programme will depend significantly on the possibility to continue financing similar activities to maintain 
the  existing  level  of  cooperation  among  the  competent  authorities  and  a  continuous  training  of  the  staff 
concerned as well as to respond to new threats and needs. Turnover of staff concerned in the competent 
authorities  (particularly  in  third  countries)  also  represents  a  risk  for  the  sustainability  of  the  impact  of 
Pericles  actions.  The  continuation  of  the  Pericles  programme  ensured  the  sustainability  of  the  results 
achieved by the previous programme. 

2.  EU ADDED VALUE 

EU added value and legal basis 

The protection of the European single currency as a public good has a clear transnational dimension, and 
therefore euro protection goes beyond the interest and the responsibility of individual EU Member States. 
Considering the cross-border circulation of the euro, the deep involvement of international organised crime 
in  euro  counterfeiting  (production  and  distribution),  national  protection  frameworks  need  to  be 
complemented in order to ensure homogeneous national and international cooperation, and to face possible 
emerging transnational risks. 

According to the midterm evaluation of the programme, ''The programme’s added value lies essentially in 
its ability to support forms of international cooperation that are beyond reach for national authorities, 
due  to  its  unique  transnational  dimension16.''  The  programme  has  clearly  promoted  transnational  and 
cross-border cooperation within the EU as well as internationally ensuring a global protection of the euro 
against counterfeiting, and has in particular, taken responsibility for countering specific emerging threats 
(such as the deep/dark web) and the (challenging) relationship with certain countries (for instance China) 
as it is difficult for individual Member States to effectively address these threats on their own.  Initiatives 
such as the establishment of a dialogue with Chinese anti-counterfeiting authorities17 and support to euro 
protection activities in Latin America18 would not have been feasible without the programme. Research on 
innovative  security  features  of  second  generation  euro  coins  also  falls  into  this  category  of  transnational 
themes. 

Competent national authorities confirm that they would ‘definitely not’ or ‘probably not’ have been able 
to carry out the implemented transnational actions without Pericles 2020 support and would not be able 
to implement similar actions in the future should the programme be discontinued, since national resources 

14 The Competent National Authorities are the authorities designated by the Member States for the fight against counterfeiting,  and 
include  Police,  judicial  authorities,  national  central  banks  and  mints.  The  full  list  can  be  found  in  the  Official  Journal  (2015/C 
264/02). 
15 OLAF, Evaluation of the Pericles Programme, Final Report”, Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2013) 304 final, June 
2013.    
16 Economisti Associati, Mid-Term Evaluation of the Pericles 2020 Programme – Final Report, 27 June 2017, p. 64-70. 
17 To address the threat of counterfeited security features (such as holograms) of euro banknotes. 
18 To address euro counterfeiting hotspots in Colombia and Peru. 

5 

 
 
                                                            
are limited and individual Member State actions would be much more national in focus. In conclusion, the 
programme fulfils the subsidiarity and proportionality dimensions of EU funding priorities. 

The  Pericles  programme  for  euro-area  Member  States  will  be  based  on  Article  133  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as it lays down measures necessary for the use of the euro as 
the single currency. The application of the Pericles programme will be extended to the Member States that 
have not adopted the euro as their single currency, through a proposal for a parallel Regulation based on 
Article 352 TFEU. 

3.  POLICY AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 

General objective 

The  general  objective  of  the  programme  will  be  to  prevent  and  combat  counterfeiting  and  related  fraud, 
thus  enhancing  the  competitiveness  of  the  Union’s  economy  and  securing  the  sustainability  of  public 
finances. 

Specific objective 

The specific objective of the programme will be to protect euro banknotes and coins against counterfeiting 
and  related  fraud,  by  supporting  and  supplementing  the  measures  undertaken  by  the  Member  States  and 
assisting  the  competent  national  and  Union  authorities  in  their  efforts  to  develop  among  themselves  and 
with the Commission a close and regular cooperation and an exchange of best practice, where appropriate 
including third countries and international organisations.  

MFF objectives 
The  cross-cutting  MFF  objectives  of  flexibility,  coherence  and  synergies,  simplification  and  focus  on 
performance will be addressed on an annual basis through the programme's annual work programme. 

Simplification 

The  midterm  evaluation  of  the  Pericles  2020  programme  suggests,  as  simplification  measure  for  the 
continuation  of  the  programme,  to  make  available  the  possibility  of  submitting  applications  and  other 
relevant  documentation  online.  Furthermore,  to  simplify  the  financial  implementation  of  Pericles  2020 
grants, a unit cost for subsistence19 has been introduced in 2017. 

Encouraging differentiation of beneficiaries of the programme 

The  Commission  concurs  with  the  assessment  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  that  a  limited  number  of 
Competent  National  Authorities  (hereafter:  CNA)  apply  for  funding  under  the  programme,  although 
participation  in  the  programme  is  more  diversified20.  In  particular,  Italy,  France  and  Spain  are  the  most 
frequent  implementers  of  the  Programme's  actions.  These  countries,  together  with  Germany,  account  for 
approximately  three-quarters  of  all  counterfeit  euros  detected  in  circulation  and  therefore  regard  the 
problem  of  euro  counterfeiting with  greater  concern  than  other  Member  States.  Applications  for  funding 
under the programme from CNAs of other Member States are sometimes limited due to lack of personnel 
or lower prioritisation. Moreover, the Evaluation noted that some CNAs are no longer operational or are 
only nominally involved in euro protection activities21. 

The  Commission  is  taking  steps  to  encourage  greater  CNA  participation  through  a  more  promotional 
approach in its experts meetings such as the ECEG, CCEG and the Council's GAF. This has led to a growth 
in  first-time  CNA  applicants  over  the  past  two  years  with  CNAs  in  Bulgaria,  Austria,  Portugal  and 

19 A unit cost for the daily subsistence allowance is intended to cover subsistence expenses for a given country (lunch and dinner, 

local transportation and other personal expenses. 

20 COM(2017) 345 final, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council concerning the implementation 

and the results of the Pericles 2020 programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting in 2016, 29 June 2017. 

21 Economisti Associati, Mid-Term Evaluation of the Pericles 2020 Programme – Final Report, 27 June 2017, p. 60-62. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Romania applying for funding for the first time. For the future programme, the Commission shall continue 
to  take  steps  to  encourage  greater  participation  of  the  Member  States  CNA's  in  the  programme.  In 
particular, the annual work programmes will continue to include the possibility of a 90% co-financing rate 
for first time applicants or applicants that have not applied in the previous 3 years to the applicable call for 
proposals. 

Continuing threats and priorities 

With  the  use  of  an  annual  Pericles  strategy  paper,  identifying  both  emerging  and  recurrent  threats  and 
priorities,  the  programme  will  need  to  be  able  to  continue  to  respond  to  these  threats  and  priorities  in  a 
flexible  and  effective  way.  Current  threats  (based  on  the  Pericles  strategy  for  201822)  which  the  future 
programme will need to address include the distribution of counterfeits and high quality components on the 
internet  and  high  quality  euro  coin  counterfeits.  As  there  is  a  significant  risk  of  euro  counterfeiting  in 
certain third countries outside of the EU as well, the programme should also ensure high participation from 
third  country  authorities  in  its  actions.  Through  the  Pericles  strategy  paper,  the  programme  shall  also 
identify  priority  'hotspots'  and  threats  coming  from  outside  the  EU,  such  as  the  South-East  of  Europe, 
China, Colombia and Peru. 

4.  CONTINUATION OF THE PROGRAMME BASED ON THE CURRENT PROGRAMME 

The  present  ex-ante  evaluation  calls  for  a  continuation  of  the  porgramme  based  on  the  current 
programme23.  This  implies  maintaining  the  financial  envelope  of  7,7  mio  EUR  in  current  prices,  as 
originally proposed by the Commission in 201124.  

The continuation of the current programme would ensure its continued effectiveness, notably by ensuring 
targeted  Commission  direct  actions  complementing  Member  States'  actions,  and  would  sustain  the  long-
term effects of the programme as confirmed by its midterm evaluation.  As explained, the high-level of EU 
added value of the programme is derived from its unique focus, reflected in its legal basis in Article 133 of 
TFEU, which along with its transnationality and multi-disciplinarity makes it stand out in relation to other 
EU  programmes  and  national  modes  of  action.  Furthermore,  the  Commission  /  DG  ECFIN25  being  in 
charge  of  both  the  direct  management  of  the  programme  and  the  designing  and  implementation  of  EU 
policy  and  legislation  for  the  protection  of  the  euro,  covering  prevention,  enforcement  and  cooperation, 
allows achieving an optimal degree of synergy. This guarantees the effective achievement of the objectives 
of  the  programme,  since  it  links  legislation  and  policy  with  the  implementation  of  the  programme. 
Participation  of  the  Commission  in  nearly  every  action  supports  preparation  and  presentation  of  the  EU 
legislative and policy dimensions. 

a. Beneficiaries 
Potential applicants to the Pericles programme are limited to the Competent National Authorities of the 
Member  States,  including  law  enforcement  authorities,  judicial  authorities,  national  central  banks  and 
mints, for whom the implementation of a Pericles action is subsidiary to their professional tasks. They are 
officially  appointed  by  Member  States'  governments  and  are  included  in  the  list  of  Competent  National 
Authorities  which  is  published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union,  with  the  most  recent  list 
published in 2015 and including 94 authorities26. Together with representatives of the ECB and Europol, 
they  are  members  of  the  Euro  Counterfeiting  Experts'  Group  (ECEG),  managed  by  the  Commission. 
The group endorses a Pericles strategy on an annual basis (which includes the identification of emerging 
threats and priorities), discusses possible future Pericles applications and analyses the results of the Pericles 
events. The ECEG represents a key tool to coordinate the implementation of the Pericles strategy, to avoid 
duplications and to identify unaddressed priorities/threats.  

22  C(2018)  470  final,  COMMISSION  DECISION  concerning  the  adoption  of  the  work  programme  for  2018  of  the  Pericles  2020 
Programme, ANNEX 1 – PART 2/2 update of the Pericles strategy for 2018. 
23  Regulation  (EU)  No  331/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  an  exchange,  assistance  and  training 

programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020' programme) (OJ L 103, 5.4.2014, p. 1). 

24  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  an  exchange,  assistance  and  training 
programme  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting  (the  'Pericles  2020'  programme)  /*  COM/2011/0913  final  - 
2011/0449 (COD) */. 

25  The  President  Elect  of  the  Commission  decided  to  centralise  all  activities  related  to  the  euro,  including  its  protection  against 

counterfeiting, within DG ECFIN. 

26 See Notice 2015/C 264/02 in the Official Journal: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015XC0812(01 ).   

7 

 
 
  
 
                                                            
b. Actions to be funded 
The current programme  provides, as defined in Article 8 of the regulation and under the conditions set out 
in annual work programmes, financial support for the following actions:  
(a) exchange and dissemination of information, in particular through organising workshops, meetings and 
seminars, including training, targeted placements and exchanges of staff of competent national authorities 
and other similar actions. The exchange of information shall, inter alia, be targeted at:  
— methodologies for monitoring and analysing the economic and financial impact of counterfeiting;  
— operation of databases and early warning systems;  
— use of detection tools with computer back-up;  
— enquiry and investigation methods;  
— scientific assistance, including monitoring of new developments;  
— protection of the euro outside the Union;  
— research actions;  
— provision of specific operational expertise;  
(b) technical, scientific and operational assistance, as appears necessary as part of the programme including 
in particular:  
—  any  appropriate  measure  which  establishes  teaching  resources  at  Union  level,  such  as  a  handbook  of 
Union legislation, information bulletins, practical manuals, glossaries and lexicons, databases, especially in 
the area of scientific assistance or technology watch or computer support applications, such as software;  
— relevant studies with a multidisciplinary and transnational dimension, including research on innovative 
security features of the euro;  
— development of technical support instruments and methods to facilitate detection actions at Union level;  
— financial support for cooperation in operations involving at least two States when such support is not 
available from other programmes of European institutions and bodies; 

(c)  the  purchase  of  equipment  to  be  used  by  specialised  anti-counterfeiting  authorities  for  protecting  the 
euro against counterfeiting. 

c. Delivery mechanisms 
Due  to  the  limited  and  public  nature  of  potential  beneficiaries,  delivery  mechanisms  such  as  interest 
subsidies, guarantees, loans and financial instruments are not applicable.   
Financial support under the current programme for eligible actions take the form of either:  
(a) grants(‘CNA-implemented actions’),; or  
(b) public procurement(‘direct actions’). 

The Commission makes use of 'direct actions' with an aim to complement the grant actions and therefore 
meet the highest number of emerging threats and priorities. 
The co-financing rate for grants awarded under the programme cannot exceed 75 % of the eligible costs. In 
exceptional and duly justified cases, defined in the annual work programmes, the co-financing rate cannot 
exceed 90 % of the eligible costs. These justified cases are specified in the annual work programme and are 
updated on a yearly basis. 
The annual work programme indicates the budgetary allocation between grants and public procurement on 
an annual basis, and includes a 20% flexibility depending on the demand for grants and need for procured 
Commission actions27. Cumulative changes to the allocation to the specific actions referred to in the annual 
work  programme  not  exceeding  20%  of  the  total  annual  budget  are  not  considered  to  be  a  substantial 
change  within  the  meaning  of  Article  94(4)  of  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  1268/2012,  provided  that 
they do not significantly affect the nature and objectives of the work programme.   

27 Cumulative changes to the allocation to the specific actions referred to in the annual work programme not exceeding 20% of the 
total annual budget are not considered to be a substantial change within the meaning of Article 94(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 
No 1268/2012, provided that they do not significantly affect the nature and objectives of the work programme. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
5.  RESULTS AND IMPACTS 

The  preferred  policy  solution  is  to  continue  the  programme  based  on  the  current  programme  with  a 
constant  financial  envelope  has  been  estimated  at  (7,7  million  EUR28)  in  line  with  the  current  MFF 
programme29.  

Expected results: 

The beneficiaries targeted by the proposal will be exclusively the competent authorities of Member States 
for the protection of the euro. Target groups for the action of the programme will be all staff in public and 
private sector related to the protection of the euro. 
Expected results would comprise: 

 

 

 

 

 

positive impact on national and cross-border actions for prevention and repression of euro related 
counterfeiting and fraud; 
possibility  for  the  competent  authorities  of  Member  States  to  obtain  support  in  their  efforts  to 
achieve and maintain a high and equivalent level of protection of the euro banknotes and coins; 
benefit for relevant staff from an appropriate dissemination of general and specific knowledge and 
the development of cooperation and dedicated networks for the protection of the euro banknotes 
and coins; 
assistance to Member States in improving their institutional and legal framework to a harmonised 
high standard for the protection against currency counterfeiting and related fraud. 
assistance  to  third  countries  in  which  there  is  an  active  and  substantial  threat  of  euro 
counterfeiting, in improving their institutional and legal framework to a harmonised high standard 
for the protection against currency counterfeiting and related fraud. 

Expected impact: 

The following impacts are expected if the programme is continued:  

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

increased number of people trained at national level; 
increased quality of trainings by adding an international and multidisciplinary dimension; 
increased awareness of the need to protect the euro; 
reinforced framework for the protection of the euro; 
establishment of a training framework complementary and additional to the national trainings; 
direct impact on operational results, e.g. in the case of police activities, staff trained by Pericles 
gave its direct contribution to the most successful operations against euro counterfeiting; 
targeted and flexible support to Member States activities; 

6.  MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Ex-ante monitoring and evaluation 

  The programme will be implemented by the Commission in cooperation with the Member States, 
through regular consultations at different stages of the implementation of the programme, within 
the committee referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001, taking into account relevant measures 
undertaken by other competent entities, in particular the ECB and Europol. The Commission will 
prepare a Pericles strategy on an annual basis, which will be endorsed by the members of the Euro 
counterfeiting  Experts  Group.  The  Strategy  will  include  continuing  and  emerging  threats  to  the 
euro and priorities to address. The priorities of the Pericles strategy will be included in the annual 
work programme. 

  The  Commission  will  seek  to  ensure  consistency  and  complementarity  between  the  programme 
and  other  relevant  programmes  and  actions  at  Union  level  when  preparing  the  annual  work 
programme.  

Ex-post monitoring and evaluation 

28 Based on a 7 year duration. 
29  This  is  on  the  basis  of  the  current  implementation  rate  of  the  programme  which  approaches  a  100%  consumption  of  its  annual 
budget, reflecting a high demand for the programme, see Annual Activity Reports. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                            
  The  Commission  shall  provide  annual  information  on  the  results  of  the  programme  to  the 
European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council,  taking  into  account  the  key  performance  indicators  set 
out below. All participating countries and other beneficiaries shall provide the Commission with 
all the data and information necessary to permit the monitoring and evaluation of the programme. 

  An  interim  evaluation  of  the  programme  shall  be  performed  once  there  is  sufficient  information 
available about the implementation of the programme, but no later than four years after the start of 
the programme implementation. 
At the end of the implementation of the programme, but no later than two years after the end of the 
budgetary period (2021-2027), a final evaluation of the programme shall be carried out by the 
Commission. 

  The  implementation  of  the  programme  will  be  regularly  monitored  through  the  Annual  Activity 

Report and Programme Statements. 

Key performance indicators 

The  midterm  evaluation  recommended  a  possible  modification  of  the  programme's  key  performance 
indicators to include the following qualitative indicators: 

o 
o 
o 
o 

reinforced legal and institutional frameworks for the protection of the euro; 
the level and intensity of the interinstitutional cooperation established;  
the nature and scale of the dissemination activities undertaken;  
the frequency of utilisation of certain techniques or tools. 

The Pericles 2020 programme currently uses a set of four specific quantitative performance indicators as 
laid down in the basic legal act: the number of (i) counterfeits detected, (ii) illegal workshops (print shops 
and  mints)  dismantled,  (iii)  individuals  arrested,  and  (iv)  penalties  imposed.  Despite  the  fact  that  the 
numbers  for  these  indicators  approach  their  targets,  the  primary  challenge  with  some  of  the  performance 
indicators  is  that  the  linkage  with  Pericles  2020  actions  appears  weak,  as  other  external  factors  can 
influence the indicators, and they primarily measure the repression (and not the prevention) aspect of the 
phenomenon. Moreover, for indicators (iii) and (iv) it has been proven difficult to acquire the data and/or to 
adequately  measure  the  indicator.  Therefore,  for  the  future  programme,  indicators  (iii)  and  (iv)  shall  be 
replaced  with a  qualitative  indicator  which is  measurable  through  the  output  of  the  implemented  actions, 
thereby ensuring that there will be an effective performance framework in place (see point 2.2). 

For the future programme, the implementation results for the specific objectives of the programme shall be 
monitored and measured through the following key performance indicators: 

 
 
 

level of counterfeit euro banknotes and coins (before and after circulation); 
number of counterfeit workshops dismantled; 
feedback received from participants in the actions financed by the programme. 

The results of the key performance indicators shall be reported on an annual basis, and shall be included as 
part  of  the  Pericles  annual  reports.  The  data  and  information  for  the  key  performance  indicators  shall  be 
collected and measured in the following ways: 

 

 

 

the data for the level of counterfeit euro banknotes and coins (before and after circulation) shall be 
received  from  the  European  Technical  and  Scientific  Centre  (ETSC)  for  coins,  and  from  the 
European Central Bank for banknotes; 
the data for the number of counterfeit workshops dismantled shall be received from the Member 
States' National Central Offices (NCO's) as part of the annual study on the effectiveness of action 
against euro counterfeiting; 
the data for the feedback received from participants to the actions financed by the programme shall 
be gathered after each Pericles action through evaluation forms to be filled out by each participant. 

The  targets  for  the  key  performance  indicators  against  which  success  will  be  measured  shall  be  the 
following: 

  The target for the level of counterfeit euro banknotes and coins (before and after circulation) shall 
be for levels to remain within a range of +/- 5% (increase or decrease) compared to the baseline on 
an annual basis. The baseline shall be the level of counterfeit euro banknotes and coins in the year 
2019. 

  The target for the number of counterfeit workshops dismantled shall be for the number to remain 
within a range of +/- 5% (increase or decrease) compared to the baseline on an annual basis. The 
baseline shall be the number of counterfeit workshops dismantled in the year 2019. 

  The target for the feedback received from participants  in the actions financed by the programme 

10 

 
 
shall be that at least 90% of respondents to the Pericles action evaluation forms give a 'positive' or 
'very positive' response to the question on the overall impression of the action.  

11 

 
 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1. 

LEAD DG(S), DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

This ex ante evaluation Staff Working Document and the related imitative falls under the responsibility of 
the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs  

2. 

ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

Work on the preparation of this initiative stated in XXX. This ex ante evaluation Staff Working Document 
was prepared with the involvement of the following services:  

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 

Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs 

Directorate-Gerneral for Budget 

Secretariat General 

the Commission's Legal Service 

The services were given the opportunity to  provide  written comments  on  the  draft  versions  of  the 
documents   presented.   

3. 

CONSULTATION OF THE REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD 

According  to  the  guidance  note  on  the  Preparation  of  the  post-2020  Multiannual  Financial  Framework: 
finalisation  of  programme  proposals,  the  proposal  for  the  continuation  of  the  Pericles  2020  programme 
falls under the list of 'Proposals requiring Ex-ante Evaluation in the Form of a Staff Working Document 
rather than Impact Assessment' . Ex – ante evaluations are not examined by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. 

4. 

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The  Commission  consulted  widely  for  the  preparation  for  this  Staff  Working  Document.  Evidence  was 
gathered  through  multiple  sources,  including  (mid-term)  evaluations  of  the  previous  and  current 
programmes,  impact  assessments  of  previous  versions  of  the  programme,  annual  reports  on  the 
implementation  of  the  programme,  reports  of  the  Euro  Counterfeiting  Experts  Group  (ECEG)  and 
stakeholder consultation (see Annex 2).  

Evaluations and impact assessments: 

Independent mid-term evaluation of the Pericles 2020 programme under article 13(4) of Regulation 
(EU) No 331/2014: 

Economisti Associati, Mid-Term Evaluation of the Pericles 2020 programme – Final Report, 27 June 2017   

Communication  COM(2017)  741  final  -  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the 
European Parliament on the mid-term evaluation of the programme for exchange, assistance and training 
for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting ('Pericles 2020' programme), 6 December 2017 

the  document 
Commission  Staff  Working  Document  SWD(2017)  443 
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  on  the  mid-term 
evaluation  of  the  programme  for  exchange,  assistance  and  training  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  against 
counterfeiting ('Pericles 2020' programme), 6 December 2017 

final  Accompanying 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
Independent  evaluation  of  the  Pericles  programme  under  article  13  (3a)  of  Council  Decision 
2001/923/EC, as amended by Council Decision 2006/849/EC: 

OLAF,  Evaluation  of  the  Pericles  Programme,  Final  Report,  Commission  Staff  Working  Document 
SWD(2013) 304 final, June 2013 

Impact Assessment for the Pericles 2020 programme 

Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  SEC(2011)  1615  final  –  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the 
document  proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  an 
exchange,  assistance  and  training  programme  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting,  19 
December 2011  

Pericles (multi)annual reports 

COM(2017)  345  final,  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council 
concerning  the  implementation  and  the  results  of  the  Pericles  2020  programme  for  the  protection  of  the 
euro against counterfeiting in 2016, 29 June 2017 

COM/2016/0419  final,  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council 
concerning  the  implementation  and  the  results  of  the  Pericles  2020  programme  for  the  protection  of  the 
euro against counterfeiting in 2015, 27 June 2016 

COM/2015/0507  final,  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council 
concerning  the  implementation  and  the  results  of  the  Pericles  programme  for  the  protection  of  the  euro 
against counterfeiting in 2014, 19 October 2015 

COM/2014/0550  final,  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council 
concerning  the  implementation  and  the  results  of  the  Pericles  programme  for  the  protection  of  the  euro 
against counterfeiting 2006 -2013, 5 September 201430 

ECEG reports 

75th Meeting of the ECEG: Ares(2017)4638994 - 22/09/2017 

74th Meeting of the ECEG: Ares(2017)3150985 - 23/06/2017 

73rd Meeting of the ECEG: Ares(2017)700927 - 08/02/2017 

72nd Meeting of the ECEG: Ares(2016)5942703 - 14/10/2016 

71st Meeting of the ECEG: Ares(2016)2256088 - 13/05/2016 

70th Meeting of the ECEG: Ares(2016)248627 - 18/01/2016 

69th Meeting of the ECEG: Ares(2015)2578289 – 20/11/2015 

68th Meeting of the ECEG: Ares(2015)2038289 - 13/05/2015 

67th Meeting of the ECEG: Ares(2014)4147908 - 10/12/2014 

66th Meeting of the ECEG: Ares(2014)3010217 - 15/09/2014 

65th Meeting of the ECEG: Ares(2014)1081482 - 07/04/2014 

Pericles strategies 

C(2018) 470 final, COMMISSION DECISION concerning the adoption of the work programme for 2018 
of the Pericles 2020 programme, ANNEX 1 – PART 2/2 update of the Pericles strategy for 2018 

C(2016) 8778 final, COMMISSION DECISION concerning the adoption of the work programme for 2017 
of the Pericles 2020 programme, ANNEX 1 – PART 2/2 update of the Pericles strategy for 2017 

30 Under Art. 13 (3b) of Council Decision 2001/923/EC, as amended by Council Decision 2006/849/EC. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
C(2016) 316 final COMMISSION DECISION concerning the adoption of the work programme for 2016 
of the Pericles 2020 programme, ANNEX 1 – PART 2/2 update of the Pericles strategy for 2016 

Euro counterfeiting statistics 

ECB, press release, 26 January 2018,  
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2018/html/ecb.pr180126.en.html 

ECB, press release, 21 July 2017, 
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2017/html/ecb.pr170721.en.html 

ECB, press release, 27 January 2017, 
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2017/html/pr170127.en.html 

ECB, press release, 22 July 2016, 
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2016/html/pr160722.en.html 

ECB, press release, 22 January 2016, 
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2016/html/pr160122.en.html 

ECB, press release, 17 July 2015, 
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2015/html/pr150717.en.html 

ECB, press release, 23 January 2015, 
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2015/html/pr150123.en.html 

ECB, press release, 18 July 2014, 
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2014/html/pr140718.en.html 

ECB, press release, 13 January 2014, 
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2014/html/pr140113_1.en.html 

ETSC, The protection of euro coins in 2016, Situation as regards euro coin counterfeiting and the activities 
of  the  European  Technical  &  Scientific  Centre  (ETSC)  Based  on  Article  4  of  Commission  Decision  C 
(2004) 4290 of 29 October 2004 

ETSC, The protection of euro coins in 2015, Situation as regards euro coin counterfeiting and the activities 
of  the  European  Technical  &  Scientific  Centre  (ETSC)  Based  on  Article  4  of  Commission  Decision  C 
(2004) 4290 of 29 October 2004 

ETSC, The protection of euro coins in 2014, Situation as regards euro coin counterfeiting and the activities 
of  the  European  Technical  &  Scientific  Centre  (ETSC)  Based  on  Article  4  of  Commission  Decision  C 
(2004) 4290 of 29 October 2004 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation  

The theme of the protection of the euro against counterfeiting and the MFF proposal on the continuation of 
the Pericles 2020 programme was included in the (clustered) Public consultation on EU funds in the area of 
security, for which the consultation period was 10 January 2018 - 9 March 2018. The consultation referred 
to the Pericles 2020 programme under question 6  (Please let us know whether you have experience with 
one or more of the following funds and programmes) and included several open questions which could be 
answered  whilst  referring  to  the  Pericles  2020  programme  or  the  protection  of  the  euro  against 
counterfeiting. 

A  total  of  153  contributions  were  received  from  respondents,  out  of  which  20  (13,07%)  contributions 
referred to the Pericles 2020 programme under question 6 (Please let us know whether you have experience 
with one or more of the following funds and programmes). In light of the limited number of responses, in 
order  to  process  the  data,  it  was  possible  to  make  a  qualitative  assessment  of  the  answers  to  the  open 
questions  of  the  20  respondents  referring  to  the  Pericles  2020  programme.    Apart  from  one  respondent 
from  the  Bank  of  Montenegro,  one  respondent  from  Europol  and  one  respondent  from  the  European 
Central Bank, all respondents represent one of the Competent National Authorities of the Member States, 
including  law  enforcement  authorities,  judicial  authorities,  national  central  banks  and  mints,  which  are 
officially  appointed  by  Member  States'  governments  and  are  included  in  the  list  of  Competent  National 
Authorities  which  is  published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union,  with  the  most  recent  list 
published  in  2015  and  including  94  authorities31.  These  authorities  are  the  potential  applicants  to  the 
programme. 

Regarding the programme's EU added value, 11 respondents underline the programme's important role as a 
mechanism for ensuring international cooperation, stating that it ensures that ''Europe is speaking with one 
voice'',  that  it  ''brings  together  people  from  law  enforcement,  technical  experts  and  judiciary  which, 
especially  for  smaller  countries  would  not  be  financially  viable/possible''  and  that  ''considering  that  the 
euro is also used and counterfeited in countries outside the euro area and EU,  Pericles is the only forum to 
facilitate the exchange of information with these stakeholders.'' Counterfeiting of the euro is a ''European 
issue as the national authorities do not prioritise this'' 

As  for  a  need  to  modify  or  add  to  the  objectives  of  the  programmes/funds  in  this  policy  area,  four 
respondents propose to maintain the level of funding as it is, while three respondents favour an increase in 
funds,  with  one  respondent  noting  that  ''the  Pericles  programme  could  see  their  funds  strengthened  in 
order to allow further development in the Chapter of Research and Development'', while another notes that 
''it would be desirable for all activities supported by an EU programme to be exempted from VAT''. One 
respondent  favours  a  more  flexible  administrative  procedure  for  the  application  to  the  programme,  and 
another stresses the need for more staff exchanges with third countries.  

31 See Notice 2015/C 264/02 in the Official Journal: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015XC0812(01 ).   

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 3: Evaluation results 

Mid-Term Evaluation of the Pericles 2020 Programme - SWD (2017) 443  

Main  findings  based  on  the  report  by  Economisti  Associati  of  27  June  2017,    in  the  framework  of  the 
independent evaluation under article 13(4) of Regulation (EU) No 331/2014: 

Relevance. All available evidence suggests that the general and specific objectives are relevant and are likely to 
remain  so  during  the  programme’s  life.  Stakeholders  concur  that  the  strengthening  of  institutional  capacity  in 
national  authorities,  which  constitutes  Pericles  2020’s  ‘core  business’,  is  regarded  as  an  essential  element  to 
safeguard the euro.  

Effectiveness  and  Sustainability.  Pericles  2020  actions  were  typically  implemented  as  planned  and  achieved 
the intended outputs. Actions were usually implemented in a timely manner, with marginal changes in the work 
plans; only one action out of 27 incurred significant delays, due to justified reasons. The number of participants 
in events was largely in line with expectations. The programme was successful in broadening its reach beyond 
the  EU  with  two  thirds  of  participants  coming  from  non-euro  countries,  as  well  as  beyond  the  ‘traditional 
constituency’ of  law  enforcement  officers, with  a  significant  increase  in the  participation of representatives  of 
judiciary, but also monetary, authorities.  

Efficiency.  The  analysis  of  programme's  documentation  and  the  comparison  with  documentation  on  other  EU 
programmes  suggest  that  the  funds  deployed  for  the  implementation  of  Pericles  2020  actions  are  used 
judiciously. Cost-effectiveness considerations play a major role in the selection of actions to be financed, with 
beneficial effects on unit costs.  

Pericles  2020  is  a  small  programme  and  overhead  costs,  although  limited  in  absolute  terms,  shows  a  high 
incidence. However, the programme  is highly specific and its possible merging with other EU programmes to 
achieve  economies  of  scale  would  in  all  likelihood  lead  to  a  decline  in  the  effectiveness  of  euro  protection 
actions, which in turn may well more than offset possible financial savings.  

Coherence and EU Added Value. Feedback from stakeholders highlights that Pericles 2020 activities can be 
regarded as fully complementary and additional to national euro protection initiatives, without overlaps. Pericles 
2020  activities  also  effectively  complement  other  EU  and  international  euro  protection  initiatives.  Several 
Competent  National  Authorities  (CNAs)  1  and  third  country  authorities  have  been  involved  in  other  euro 
protection initiatives run by the European Central Bank (ECB), Europol, Interpol or other Commission-managed 
programmes  (e.g.  TAIEX  in  South  Eastern  Europe).  They  regard  Pericles  2020  as  fairly  unique;  effectively 
complementing other initiatives.  

The programme’s added value lies essentially in its ability to support forms of international cooperation that are 
beyond the reach of national authorities. As an example, all EU stakeholders concur that initiatives such as the 
establishment of a dialogue (however initial and preliminary) with Chinese authorities or the setting up of anti-
counterfeit units in Latin America would not have been feasible without the support provided by the programme. 
In a similar vein, a discontinuation of the programme would have serious detrimental effects, de facto making it 
impossible to perform the same type of transnational activities on a comparable scale.  

Conclusions and Recommendations  

All  the  findings  converge  towards  an  unambiguously  positive  overall  assessment,  reflected  in  the  feedback 
received from stakeholders including the ECB and Europol. There is room for small improvements, but from the 
evaluation it is clear that Pericles 2020 performs well in respect of all the six evaluation criteria informing this 
Evaluation. The recommendations of earlier assessments were properly followed up on and this contributed to 
improve performance.  

Relevance. Continued Emphasis on Chinese counterfeiters and the internet is recommended. The risks posed by 
Chinese counterfeiters and by the internet have already been the subject of significant work under Pericles 2020; 
the two themes continue to rank quite high in the list of the ‘new threats’ identified by stakeholders and there is a 
keen interest in further activities aiming at strengthening contacts with relevant government bodies (China) and 
improving investigative approaches (deep/dark net).  

Efficiency-Fine  Tune  Administrative  Procedures.  In  the  area  of  administrative  procedures,  two  themes  of 
potential improvement were identified: the (in)adequacy of daily subsistence rates used for CNAs-implemented 
actions and the possibility of submitting applications and other relevant documentation online.  

16 

 
Effectiveness and Sustainability. The Evaluation flags up the need for encouraging greater CNAs participation. 
Currently 11 CNAs from the MS most significantly affected by euro counterfeiting applied to the programme. 
However  the  potential  exists  to  attract  an  increased  number  of  applications  from  other  CNAs  Therefore 
consideration should be given to the establishment of contacts with high level decision makers to ensure that the 
opportunities  offered  by  the  programme  are  well  understood.  In  addition,  the  Evaluation  underlines  that  the 
sustainability of achieved results will depend significantly on the continuation of the programme as a standalone 
programme until its natural expiry and beyond 2020.  

Revise Performance Indicators. The Evaluation underlines that the performance indicators currently in use are 
not fully aligned with the capacity building nature of Pericles 2020 activities. Therefore, consideration should be 
given to replacing or at least complementing the current indicators with qualitative ones that can more accurately 
capture the results of Pericles 2020 actions.  

OLAF, Evaluation of the Pericles Programme, Final Report, Commission Staff Working 
Document SWD(2013) 304 final, June 2013    

Main  findings  as  noted  in  the  SWD  (2013)  304,  in  the  framework  of  an  independent  evaluation  under 
article 13 (3a) of Council Decision 2001/923/EC, as amended by Council Decision 2006/849/EC: 

Overall performance of the programme. The programme provides a clear European added value. The specific 
objectives  of  the  programme  are  highly  relevant  to  the  achievement  of  its  overall  objective.  The  activities 
financed by the programme and the target groups involved are highly relevant to achieve its specific objectives. 
The  transnational  and  multidisciplinary  dimensions  of  the  programme  activities  also  represent  a  clear  added 
value of the programme compared to activities carried out at MS and European level. Overall, the efficiency of 
the programme is satisfactory and the programme has been highly effective in contributing to the achievement of 
its  specific  objectives.  The  evaluation  has  identified  some  potential  improvements  which  could  enhance  the 
overall efficiency and effectiveness of the programme. 

Relevance.  The  specific  objectives  of  the  programme  are  highly  relevant  to  the  achievement  of  its  overall 
objective  of  protecting  the  euro  against  counterfeiting.  The  target  groups  and  activities  financed  by  the 
programme  are  also,  in  general,  highly  relevant  to  the  specific  objectives  and  the  programme  resources  have 
been used mainly to finance the activities with the highest relevance and for the most relevant target groups. 

European  and  overall  added  value  of  the  programme.  The  euro  is  the  single  currency  shared  by  the  17 
Member States of the euro area. It is also used at a large scale in international trading transactions and serves as 
an  important  reserve  currency  for  third  countries.  The  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting  is  clearly 
therefore of European interest which goes beyond the interest of individual MS. Addressing the threats posed by 
criminal groups involved in the production and/or distribution of counterfeit euro and operating in different MS 
and  third  countries  requires  the  cooperation  among  the  competent  authorities  in  the  MS  and  with  their 
counterparts  in  third  countries.  The  programme  facilitates  this  cooperation  by  providing  technical  and 
operational  training,  networking,  dissemination  and  exchange  activities  to  the  staff  of  relevant  competent 
authorities  in  the  MS  and  third  countries  and,  by  so  doing,  it  provides  a  clear  European  added  value.  The 
evaluation  also  showed  that  the  activities  implemented  by  a  competent  authority  in  one  MS  also  address  the 
needs  of  other  competent  authorities  in  the  same  or  other  MS.  The  combination  of  an  European/international 
dimension of the programme, together with a multidisciplinary dimension, represents a clear added value of the 
programme  compared  to  activities  carried  out  at  MS  and  European  level  (namely  by  the  ECB,  Europol  and 
Eurojust).  The  programme  is  also  the  only  specific  programme  at  European  level  which  finances  activities  on 
euro protection. 

Efficiency. Overall, the programme's activities and outputs are delivered at a reasonable cost and correspond to 
the priorities and needs identified, although there is some potential to improve efficiency. The complementarity 
and  coherence  of  the  programme  activities  are  in  general  satisfactory.  However,  these  and  other  efficiency 
aspects are not always clearly presented and reported. The meetings of the Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group 
(ECEG)  provide  an  adequate  mechanism  for  coordinating  and  steering  the  programme.  The  evaluation  has 
identified some potential improvements which could facilitate the role of the ECEG for coordinating and steering 
the programme. 

Effectiveness.  The  specific  objectives  of  the  programme  are  being  achieved  satisfactorily.  Overall,  the 
programme  has  been  highly  effective  in  contributing  to  the  achievement  of  its  specific  objectives.  Concrete 
results achieved with the programme's contribution have been reported by the competent authorities and include: 

17 

 
 
 
satisfactory cooperation among competent authorities in the EU and with third countries, improved capacity of 
competent  authorities  in  the  EU  and  third  countries,  successful  cross-border  operations,  and  the  promotion  of 
national  structures  and  the  development  of  relevant  legal  instruments  on  euro  protection.  Intangible  effects 
deriving  from  networking,  motivation  of  officials  and  facilitating  mutual  trust  among  officials  of  competent 
authorities are important contributions of the programme. The activities financed by the programme have a clear 
transnational  and  multidisciplinary  dimension.  The  programme  has  also  contributed  to  the  promotion  of 
convergence  among  the  MS  on  euro  protection,  mainly  by  providing  high  level  training,  which  is  one  of  the 
specific objectives of the programme. It has also contributed by facilitating the exchange of information and best 
practices  improving  the  understanding  of  the  various  situations  in  the  MS,  and  the  consequences  of  different 
levels  of  protection  resulting  from  different  criminal  law  systems.  The  role  of  the  programme  in  promoting 
convergence beyond these areas is more uneven. Overall, the complementarity and coherence of the programme 
activities with other existing measures in MS, and at European level, are satisfactory. The existing coordination 
and  cooperation  mechanisms  are  adequate  to  achieve  the  overall  objective  of  the  programme.  Nevertheless, 
while  the  existing planning process  has,  in general  ensured  coordination and  flexibility to  address new  threats 
and priorities, a multi-annual strategy for the programme with a clearly defined timeframe is not in place and the 
current annual reporting does not provide sufficient information on the results achieved by the programme. 

Prospects  for  sustainability.  The  sustainability  of  the  results  achieved  will  depend  significantly  on  the 
possibility  to  continue  financing  similar  activities  to  maintain  the  existing  level  of  cooperation  among  the 
competent authorities, a continuous training of the staff concerned and responding to new threats and needs (new 
counterfeits, new modus operandi of criminal groups, new MS or third countries affected by counterfeiting, new 
euro notes issued by the ECB as from 2013, etc.). The evaluation showed that the continuation of the activities 
currently implemented by the MS with the programme support would be at risk without financing at EU level.  

18