REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the interim evaluation of the implementation of the Justice Programme 2014-2020
Date: 2018-06-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European judicial area, access to the courts, fight against crime, fundamental rights, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, mutual recognition principle, rights of the defence, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.6.2018  COM(2018) 507 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the interim evaluation of the implementation of the Justice Programme 2014-2020  {SWD(2018) 356 final} - {SWD(2018) 357 final}  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on the interim evaluation of the implementation of the Justice Programme 2014-2020  

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for the creation of a European 
area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  based  on  mutual  recognition  of  judicial  decisions  and 
mutual  trust  among  Member  States,  in  which  persons  are  free  to  move  and  can  rely  on  the 
respect of fundamental rights, as well as of common principles (such as non-discrimination, 
gender  equality,  effective  access  to  justice  for  all,  the  rule  of  law  and  well-functioning 
independent judicial systems).  

These ambitious goals, set by the Treaty, have also been reaffirmed by the European Council 
in the Stockholm Programme1. The achievement of a Europe of law and justice is one of the 
political priorities of the EU and the 2014-2020 Justice Programme is one of the instruments 
that contribute achieving this objective.  

This  report  sets  out  the  mid-term  results  obtained  by  the  Justice  Programme  and  the 
qualitative and quantitative aspects of the implementation of the Programme, as required by 
Article 14(2)(b) of Regulation establishing the Justice Programme for the period 2014-20202.  

The  reference  period  for  the  interim  evaluation  is  the  first  half  time  of  the  Programme’s 
implementation  from  2014  to  mid-2017.  The  evaluation  covered  the  2014,  2015  and  2016 
Annual Work Programmes. The 2017 Annual Work Programme, on the other hand, has been 
analysed chiefly in terms of design and structure, but not in terms of execution.  
This report is based on the findings of the evaluation prepared by the European Commission3 
and supported by an external evaluation4. 

1.  INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

The Justice Programme 2014-2020 was established by Regulation (EU) No 1382/2013 of the 
European Parliament and Council. 

The Regulation sets its general objective as being to: 

  contribute  to  the  further  development  of  a  European  area  of  justice  based  on  mutual 
recognition  and  mutual  trust,  in  particular  by  promoting  judicial  cooperation  in  civil  and 
criminal matters 

Its specific objectives are to: 

  facilitate and support judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters; 

  support  and  promote  judicial  training  of  professionals  (such  as  judges,  prosecutors, 
notaries, prison staff and lawyers) on civil and criminal law EU instruments, fundamental 
rights, judicial ethics and the rule of law, including language training on legal terminology, 
with a view to fostering a common legal and judicial culture; 

1 OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p. 1. 
2 Regulation (EU) No 1382/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a Justice Programme for 
the period 2014 to 2020 (OJ L 354 of 28.12.2013). 
3 Interim evaluation of the Justice Programme 2014-2020, Ernst & Young Financial-Business Advisors, Final Report, April 2018. 
4 Commission staff working document accompanying the report on the interim evaluation of the implementation of the Justice programme 
2014-2020. 

1 

 
 
 
                                                            
  facilitate effective access to justice for all, including to promote and support the rights of 
victims  of  crime  as  well  as  the  procedural  rights  of  suspects  and  accused  persons  in 
criminal proceedings; 

  promote  initiatives  in  the  field  of  drug  policy  as  regards  judicial  cooperation  and  crime 
prevention  aspects,  insofar  as  this  kind  of  initiatives  are  not  covered  by  the  Internal 
Security  Fund  for  financial  support  for  police  cooperation,  preventing  and  combating 
crime, and crisis management or by the Health for Growth Programme5. 

The  Programme  is  implemented  by  the  European  Commission  via  direct  centralised 
management.  

Geographically, the Programme is open to all EU Member States (the United Kingdom and 
Denmark  don't  participate),  but  also  to  the  European  Free  Trade  Association  States  that  are 
party to the European Economic Area, candidate countries, potential candidates and countries 
acceding to the Union, provided that they conclude an agreement with the Union laying down 
the details of their respective participation in the Programme. Albania joined the Programme 
as of 2017.  

2.  KEY ELEMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME 

According to Article 6 of the Regulation, the Programme finances a wide range of activities 
such  as  analytical  activities,  mutual 
learning,  cooperation,  awareness  raising  and 
dissemination  activities,  training  activities  and  actions  to  support  the  main  actors  whose 
activities  contribute  to  the  implementation  of  its  specific  objectives.  The  Programme 
supports organisations active in the area of judicial cooperation, judicial training, access to 
justice  and  drugs  prevention  across  Europe  such  as,  European  networks,  public  or  private 
organisations  that  are  usually  non-profit-oriented,  national,  regional  and  local  authorities  in 
EU Member States, non-governmental organisations; universities and research institutions as 
well as international organisations.  

In terms of target groups, intended as the groups that can benefit, directly (by participating in 
Justice  projects'  activities)  or  indirectly  from  the  implementation  of  the  Programme, 
potentially  all  EU  citizens  are  included,  since  the  Justice  Programme  aims  at  creating  a 
European Area of Justice where all citizens are aware of and can exercise their rights. 

As  provided  in  the  Regulation,  the  Programme  uses  action  grants,  operating  grants  and 
procurement  actions  as  main  funding  mechanisms  to  support  actions  related  with  its 
objectives. 

2.1. The Programme’s specific objectives 

  Specific objective 1: Judicial cooperation  

The Programme supports activities that contribute to the effective and coherent application of 
the EU acquis relating to judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters, also by building-
up and/or improving data collection and statistics on the application of the EU acquis. Funded 
activities  also  contribute  to  the  enforcement  of  EU  instruments  and  judicial  decisions,  in 
particular resulting from cross-border disputes. The Programme also finances projects aiming 
to  improve  the  exchange  of  information  among  professionals  in  order  to  enhance  the 
operational cooperation and mutual trust in the EU.  

5 For more info, see https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/financing/fundings/security-and-safeguarding-liberties/internal-security-fund-police_en 
and https://ec.europa.eu/health/funding/programme/2014-2020_en. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                            
  Specific objective 2: Judicial training  

The Programme supports actions which encourage the training of justice professionals on EU 
law,  including  language  training  on  legal  terminology,  with  a  view  to  fostering  a  common 
legal and judicial culture in the EU. Judicial training can involve “basic” components, such as 
linguistic skills and terminology, and more specialised aspects, such as seminars on specific 
aspects  of  both  civil  and  criminal  law,  e-learning  and  exchanges  of  staff  and  experience. 
Activities funded mainly support training of the members of the judiciary and judicial staff, 
but also other justice practitioners associated with the judiciary, as well as the development of 
tools for training providers. 

  Objective 3: Access to justice  

Actions financed in this area aim at providing EU citizens with effective remedies in case of 
violation of EU law, especially where national procedures are too difficult for citizens to be 
enabled. In particular, the Programme promotes the use of other types of remedies and non-
remedies  developed in  the EU that can  provide a quick, efficient  and less costly solution to 
disputes, as supported, for example, by the e-Justice Portal. It aims also to encourage a close 
cooperation  between  national  authorities  or  administrative  bodies,  which  is  particularly 
important for the effectiveness of certain EU rights.  

  Objective 4: Drugs policy 

In the area of drugs policy, the Justice Programme promotes initiatives that focus on judicial 
cooperation and crime prevention. The main priorities are to promote practical application of 
drug-related research, support civil society organisations and key stakeholders and expand the 
knowledge  base  and  develop  innovative  methods  of  addressing  the  phenomenon  of  new 
substances.
psychoactive 

3 

 
 
2.2. Budget 

The  initial  total  Justice  Programme's  budget  for  the  period 2014-2020  is  EUR  377 604 000. 
The highest commitment rate was met in 2016 (94.60%).  

EUR 143 million have been planned in the 2014-2016 Annual Work Programmes. According 
to available sources, the total requested and committed EU contribution still not reached 
the amount planned (see Table 1). In general, most resources allocated to grants have been 
committed  (with  a  commitment  rate  of  close  to  90%),  but  the  commitment  rate  for 
procurement activities was much lower, hovering around 60%-70%. 

Table 1: 2014 – 2016 Programme’s annual commitment 

Year 

Amount committed (EUR) 
                                                 36 671 240.16  

 39 675 719.11 

 47 535 032.81 

2014 

2015 

2016 

123 881 992.08 
Total 2014-2016 
Sources: Annual monitoring reports (reports on the implementation of the Annual Work Programmes (AWP) and data extracted from Sygma 
for 2016) 

In  particular,  the  budget  committed  to  grants  has  been  divided  between  the  Programme’s 
specific objectives as shown in Figure 1. 

25,0%

20,0%

15,0%

10,0%

5,0%

0,0%

Figure 1: Budget committed per typology of intervention by specific objective 

15,5% 

15,4% 

16,6% 

21,6% 

7,5% 

2,8% 

8,7% 

5,0% 

5,9% 

0,1% 

0,5% 

0,0% 

0,4% 

AG

OG

PROC OTHER

AG

OG

PROC

AG

OG

PROC

AG

OG

PROC

JCOO

JTRA

JACC

JDRU

Source: Annual Working Programme Monitoring Reports for 2014 and 2015, Project database for 2016. AG (action grant), OG (operating 
grant), PROC (procurement), JCOO (judicial cooperation), JTRA (judicial training), JACC (access to justice), JDRU (drugs policy). 

The specific objectives concerning "drug policy" and "judicial training" are those which are 
most  closely  aligned,  in  terms  of  committed  expenses,  to  the  corresponding  Annual  Work 
Programmes  and  the  specific  objective  concerning  "Judicial  training"  has  also  achieved  the 
highest commitment rate. The commitment rate of the specific objective on "effective access 
to  justice"  was  initially  relatively  low;  however  the  situation  has  been  improving  over  the 
years. Finally, the specific objective with  the widest gap in terms of planned vs. committed 
resources was judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters, due to the high reliance on 
procurement actions.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3. Applications received and projects selected 

Data  for  2014  and  2015,  concerning  both  action  grants  and  operating  grants,  show  that  the 
demand  for  funding  outstripped  supply  significantly  for  the  initiatives  in  the  field  of  drugs 
policy SO (see Figure 2).  

Figure 2: Number of action grants and operating grants awarded and number of applications by specific 
objective and year (2014, 2015 and 2016) 

2014 awarded

2014 applied

2015 awarded

2015 applied

2016 awarded

2016 applied

0
1
1

7
0
1

0
9

5
9

9
7

0
6

8
3

9
2

8
2

6
1

0
4

3
3

8
2

7
3

2
3

2
3

8
3

2
3

7

6

5

J C O O  

J T R A  

J A C C  

J D R U  

Source: Annual reports on the implementation of the 2014 and 2015 AWPs, analysis of 2016 awarded projects and Sygma data (no complete 
data on applicants for 2016 were available). JCOO (judicial cooperation), JTRA (judicial training), JACC (access to justice), JDRU (drugs 
policy). 

On average, by looking at the awarding rate of calls for proposal of years 2014 and 2015, the 
awarding rate of almost all  specific objectives ranged between around 16% and about 47%. 
However,  under  the  judicial  cooperation  and  judicial  training  objectives,  almost  half  of  the 
applications submitted were awarded. 
A slight decrease in the number of grant applications received  (and therefore awarded), was 
been  observed  for  2015  for  almost  all  the  specific  objectives.  Moreover,  for  2016  calls  for 
proposal,  a  significant  drop  in  applications  (almost  51%)  was  registered:  in  total,  only  127 
applications for action grants were received, compared to 262 applications in the 2015 calls. 
This  is  partly  explained  by  the  rollout  of  the  Participant  Portal  that,  according  to  the 
evaluation  results,  is  not  adapted  to  typical  Justice  Programme  applicants  (such  as  training 
organisations), as the Portal was initially designed with research institutions and voluminous 
grants  in  mind6.  This  drop  in  applications  notwithstanding,  the  number  of  awarded  projects 
remained,  in  general,  stable  across  the  four  specific  objectives  and  even  increased 
significantly in the case of judicial cooperation projects. The drop also led to an increase of 
the awarding rate7.  

6 The Participant Portal is an electronic platform used to manage the applications received for calls published in the framework of the Justice 
Programme. 
7  To  see  the  list  of  all  projects  financed  under  the  Programme  and  examples  of  successful  projects,  see  the  following  links: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/closed-calls/index_en.htm (then select "Results: closed calls"  "selected projects"  "award decisions" 
"Justice 
and 

and  https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/index.html 

"summaries") 

select 

(then 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4. Main achievements of the Programme 

The introduction of a system of indicators for the current Justice Programme has proved to be 
adequate for measuring the achievements of the Programme.  
The  "Judicial  training"  related  indicator  is  measured  through  the  number  and  percentage  of 
members  of  the  judiciary  and  judicial  staff  that  participated  in  training  activities,  staff 
exchanges,  study  visits,  workshops  and  seminars  funded  by  the  Programme.  "Judicial 
cooperation  in  civil  and  criminal  matters"-related  indicators  focus  on  the  streamlined 
application  of  European-level  instruments  in  criminal  law  (average  time  of  the  surrender 
procedure  under  the  European  Arrest  Warrant)  and  the  use  of  IT  systems  (number  of 
exchanges of information in the European Criminal Records Information System8). "Access to 
justice"-related indicators are likewise focused on the role of IT systems (number of hits on 
the  E-Justice  portal9),  as  well  as  on  the  issue  of  victims’  rights  (number  of  Victim  Support 
Organisations per Member States). Finally, the "drugs policy" indicators focus on the number 
of new psychoactive substances researched and the number of opioid users in drug treatment. 

Concerning  the  attainment  of  the  general  objective  of  the  Programme  (namely  "to 
contribute  to  the  further  development  of  a  European  Area  of  Justice  based  on  mutual 
recognition  and  mutual  trust,  in  particular  by  promoting  judicial  cooperation  in  civil  and 
criminal matters"), the main indicator (i.e. the percentage of legal practitioners trained, not 
only  through  this  Programme,  on  EU  law  or  law  of  another  Member  States,  including  civil 
justice, criminal justice and fundamental rights) has shown constantly significant progress 
towards  the  achievements  of  its  target  (i.e.  700  000  legal  practitioners  trained  by  2020). 
Indeed, the number of legal practitioners trained has constantly increased between 2013 and 
2016 and the 2020 target was almost reached already in 2017. 

Moreover, also the main indicator used to measure the achieving of the specific objective on 
judicial training (i.e. the number and percentage of members of the judiciary and judicial staff 
that participated in training activities, staff exchanges, study visits, workshops and seminars 
funded  by  the  Programme)  has  shown  relevant  progress  and  the  goal  of  training  20  000 
practitioners (for the whole Commission) by 2020 has been already achieved in 2015. In this 
regard, the Justice Programme has provided the single greatest contribution to achieving the 
training  targets  set  for  2020.  The  number  of  judicial  staff  trained  yearly  in  the  Justice 
Programme stands at about 14 000 as of 2016 (2017 data as of yet not available).  
All these achievements reflect the judicial training priority of the Programme. 

Concerning  the  specific  objectives  of  the  Programme,  in  general,  the  indicators 
adequately  reflect  the  priorities  for  each  specific  objective  and  are  measurable  with 
respect  to  their  baseline.  Moreover,  the  evaluation  carried  out  has  shown  significant 
progress on several fronts, since a number of targets are close to being achieved. 
More  specifically,  important  achievements  can  be  observed  regarding  the  specific  objective 
"judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters", where the 2020 target (i.e. the number of 
exchanges  of  information  in  the  European  Criminal  Records  Information  System),  is  likely 
that will be reached. Also concerning the specific objective "access to justice", the 2020 target 

Programme").  Moreover, see the Annex 4 of the Interim report (ibid) to see 4 case studies of projects connected to each specific objective of 
the Justice Programme. 
8 The European Criminal Records Information System is a database established to improve the exchange of information on criminal records 
throughout the EU. All EU Member States are currently connected to this system. 
9  The  e-Justice  Portal provides  information  on  justice systems  and  improves  and facilitates  the  access  to  justice  throughout  the  EU,  in  23 
languages. More info available at the following link: https://e-justice.europa.eu/home. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
(i.e.  the  number  of  hits  on  the  e-justice  portal  and  the  number  of  Victim  Support 
Organisations with national coverage) has already exceeded the stated goals. 
However, sometimes the selected indicators are difficult to measure because, for example, 
they are influenced by exogenous factors (such as the different degree of incorporation of EU 
directives  at  national 
level,  different  national  political  priorities  and  emergencies, 
macroeconomics  conditions  etc.)  and,  therefore,  it  is  difficult  to  estimate  the  exact 
contribution of the Programme to their realization. 

There is still room for further improvements also due to a lack of adequate tools (e.g. there 
is no satisfaction survey to help gauge the perception of participants that took part in training 
activities). Moreover, some indicators, concerning for instance the geographical coverage of 
the  Programme,  do  not  capture  certain  underlying  dynamics,  such  as  the  fact  that  the 
Programme,  so  far,  has  been  dominated  by  beneficiaries  from  a  small  number  of  Member 
States. 

2.5. Participants and partnerships 

The  data  collected  in  the  interim  evaluation  suggest  that  the  Programme  is  successful  in 
attracting more transnational partnerships and that this is one of the key vectors through 
which the area of justice in Europe is supported.  
According  to  beneficiaries,  partnerships  developed  through  operating  grants  and  action 
grants  under  the  Justice  Programme  have  had  beneficial  effects  on  the  capabilities  of 
their  respective  organisations,  especially  on  their  capacity  to  ensure  the  sustainability  of 
results and to implement the projects. Through operating grants, the Programme funds mainly 
European  networks  active  in  the  areas  of  facilitating  and  supporting  judicial  cooperation  in 
civil  and/or  criminal  matters  and  access  to  justice  that  have  signed  Framework  Partnership 
Agreements with the Commission.  
A number of organisations participating in the Justice Programme are also active in the 
Rights,  Equality  and Citizenship Programme. It thus  appears that the Justice Programme 
has facilitated the growth of durable European networks in the area of justice policy and that 
structured networks of collaborations exist also in relation to other EU funding programmes. 
However, it emerged that the Justice Programme did not involve all the Member States in 
a  homogeneous  way.  Indeed,  about  25%  of  all  beneficiaries  come  from  either  Italy  or 
Belgium and about half of the partner organisations come from five countries. The remaining 
50%  are  organisations  from  the  remaining  21  Member  States.  This  entails  an  uneven 
distribution of Programme resources, especially in relation to organisations in Central and 
Eastern European Member States.  

3.  WHAT HAS THE JUSTICE PROGRAMME ACHIEVED? 

As  demonstrated  by  the  evaluation,  the  Justice  Programme  is  performing  generally  well  at 
mid-term  with  regard  to  its  specific  objectives,  in  terms  of  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
relevance, coherence, complementarity, and synergies and EU added value. Improvements are 
needed, in particular, regarding its equity. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
3.1. Effectiveness10 

The  analysis  of  indicators  has  shown  that  significant  progress  has  been  achieved on  several 
fronts since some targets are close to being achieved and others have already been achieved. 
Therefore,  the  Justice  Programme  contributes  positively  to  the  general  objective  of  the 
Programme through the progress under its specific objectives.  
The  Programme-specific  indicators  are  adequate  to  monitor  progress  towards  the 
objectives of the Programme, but sometimes they are difficult to measure or need some 
improvements. 
Overall,  the  2014-2020  Justice  Programme  is  broadly  perceived  by  applicants, 
beneficiaries  and  stakeholders  as  an  improvement  compared  to  the  three  predecessor 
programmes (namely the Civil justice programme, the Criminal justice programme and the 
Drug  prevention  and  information  programme),  both  in  terms  of  better  policy  targeting  and 
better involvement of the right stakeholder groups.  
Given the wide scope of the general objective of the Programme, a large number of external 
factors influenced its effectiveness, such as the migration crisis (concerning, in particular, the 
specific objective on “access to justice”) and, in general, the uneven pace at which Member 
States transpose and enforce the EU acquis. This, however, did not undermine its intervention 
logic  and  its  operational  flexibility:  the  annual  work  programmes  can  be  easily  adapted  to 
emerging needs in the area of justice (see more under “Relevance”). 
Finally, compared to the 2007-2013 period, the sustainability of projects (with their results 
and  outputs)  beyond  the  end  of  their  life-cycle  has  become  an  increasingly  important 
factor  to  consider  in  the  evaluation  process.  However,  projects  focused  on  creating 
tools/outputs  might  have  a  more  difficult  sustainability  landscape  since,  in  these  cases, 
sustainability depends on whether the organisations that implemented the projects can receive 
sufficient resources to maintain the tools once the EU funding is over. 

3.2. Efficiency11 

The  Justice  Programme  has  been  cost-effective  relative  to  the  actions  it  has  funded  so 
far. Indeed, the results of the evaluation have shown that the beneficiaries’ perception of the 
efficiency  of  the  Programme  is  positive.  This  is  true  for the  Programme  as  a  whole,  but,  in 
particular, for the specific objective on judicial training. 
A  key  achievement  of  the  Programme,  compared  to  its  predecessors,  has  been  the  lower 
burden  on  beneficiaries  in  terms  of  time  and  financial  resources.  Nevertheless,  there  is 
still  room  for  improvement  in  terms  of  easing  requirements  and  obligations  to  make  the 
Programme  even  more  efficient  in  its  implementation  (see  more  under  “Scope  for 
simplification”).  
According to beneficiaries, the current instruments (action grants, operating grants and 
procurement  activities)  are  adequate  for  the  needs  of  the  Programme  and,  therefore, 
using alternative and innovative funding instruments is not necessary. However, the efficiency 
of their implementation should continue to be improved, notably with regard to procurement 
actions, to ensure that the allocated funding is indeed used.  

10 Effectiveness: whether and to what extent the Justice Programme has achieved its general objective, as well as its four specific objectives, 
and which are the factors that have contributed to these achievements. 
11  Efficiency:  whether  and  to  what  extent  the  costs  of  the  Programme  were  proportionate  given  the  benefits  achieved  and  which 
parameters/factors participated in these results. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.3. Relevance12 

According to all interviewed beneficiaries, the Programme is highly relevant to address 
the needs of selected target groups. Indeed, one of the key features of the Programme has 
been  its  ability  to  adapt  and  modify  the  priorities  in  light  of  emerging  needs.  For  instance, 
following  a  string  of  terrorist  attacks  in  Europe,  two  calls  were  issued  to  combat  the 
radicalisation of inmates in prison. This can be achieved thanks to the unique structure of the 
Justice Programme, as the Programme has been devised with broad specific objectives, due to 
the fact that it has aggregated the three programmes from the previous programming period. 
The  general  and  specific  objectives  allowed  the  Commission  to  adapt  the  Programme  to 
evolving needs within the EU, especially in terms of the judicial cooperation. However, the 
specific  objective  concerning  the  initiatives  in  the  field  of  drug  policies  is  sometimes 
difficult  to  reconcile  with  other  Programme  priorities,  such  as  judicial  cooperation  and 
access to justice, as drug-related prevention policies tend to be broader in scope.  
In general, however, the needs identified at the time of the Programme’s adoption are still 
actual  and  relevant,  in  particular  the  general  objective  of  further  developing  a  European 
Area of Justice based on mutual recognition and mutual trust. 
With respect to stakeholder needs, there is still scope to further increase the relevance of the 
Programme  through  systematic  analyses  per  main  stakeholder  type,  as  well  as  per  specific 
objective and Member States, so as to ensure that priorities related to each specific objective 
for each call, as set out in the annual work programmes, are in line with the current key needs 
of the stakeholders. Moreover, the Programme could include additional target groups that are 
relevant to the achievement of its general objective. These groups include staff in regulatory 
agencies,  young  judicial  professionals  and  students  and  judicial  professionals  in  candidate 
countries  and  countries  within  the  scope  of  the  European  Neighbourhood  policy.  This  is 
however currently not possible under the legal basis of the Justice Programme.  

3.4. Coherence, Complementarity, Synergies13 

The Programme presents a good level of coherence and complementarity with other EU 
instruments, programmes and actions (for instance, there is a very high coherence with the 
European  Agenda  for  Justice  202014)  and  the  risk  of  duplications  or  incoherence  is  very 
low.  Especially  in  the  case  of  judicial  training,  the  merging  of  the  predecessor  programmes 
has increased the coherence with other EU initiatives and among different training objectives 
and reduced the possibility of duplications, both in scope and in funding. A strong coherence 
and complementarity in the access to justice specific objective exist with Connecting Europe 
Facility Telecommunications Programme that also contributed to the development of e-Justice 
Portal and e-Codex.  
Some  exceptional  overlaps  in  terms  of  objectives,  target  groups  and  actions  still  exist  as  a 
natural  consequence  of  the  broad  objectives  and  target  groups  covered  by  the  Programme, 
ranging  from  judicial  cooperation  in  civil  and  criminal  matters  (thus  essentially  the  full 

12 Relevance: whether and to what extent the Justice Programme addresses needs and problems of the target groups identified in the 2011 
Impact Assessment and in the legal basis of the Programme (as well as emergent needs related to the creation of a European Area of Justice) 
and whether its objectives are still relevant for the needs and problems of the beneficiaries. 
13 Coherence/Complementarity/Synergies: whether and to what extent the Programme is coherent with other interventions at the EU and 
international level, such as with the predecessor EU programmes in the field, with activities supported by other Union instruments and, in 
general, with the European priorities in the fields covered by the Programme. 
14  The  objectives  and  addressed  areas  of  the  European  Agenda  for  Justice  for  2020  are  very  much  in  line  with  the  Justice  Programme, 
especially in the area of judicial cooperation, even if the Agenda prioritises areas such as terrorism and cybercrime that are less present under 
the Justice Programme. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
spectrum of judicial activity) to drug policy and judicial training, as well as since it targets all 
EU citizens. 
In  any  case,  there  is  still  potential  for  strengthening  the  synergies  with  other  EU  funding 
programmes and initiatives. This is the case, for instance, of the drugs policy area, where the 
coordination with the Health for Growth Programme could be increased. 
According to interviewed stakeholders, the coherence with national policies and initiatives 
with similar objectives and/or targeting the same areas is high. The Programme fills the 
gaps left by national actions, while existing national projects and initiatives complement the 
Programme rather than being in contrast with it or a mere duplication. Indeed, when both the 
Justice  Programme  and  national  initiatives  have  the  same  (or  similar)  objectives  and  target 
groups,  there  are  always  differences  between  them,  in  terms  of  size  of  geographical  scope 
(with  enlarged  scope  in  terms  of  target  groups),  available  resources  and  number  of  projects 
funded. 
The  Justice  Programme  is  coherent  also  with  international  obligations,  such  as  the  UN 
2030  Sustainable  Development  Agenda.  Indeed,  some  general  principles  of  the  UN  agenda 
can be linked to objectives and areas targeted by the Justice Programme. This is the case of 
the  UN  objective  of  ensuring  peace  and  security,  to  be  achieved  through  just  and  inclusive 
societies that provide equal access to justice, effective rule of law, as well as transparent and 
effective  judicial  institutions.  All  these  elements  can  be  found  as  integrative  parts  of  the 
Justice Programme, both in terms of access to justice and judicial training. Moreover, the EU 
is party to The Hague Conference on Private International Law and pursues its international 
action in relation to civil justice mainly through this international organisation. 

3.5. EU added value15 

All  evidence  collected  confirms  the  high  added  value  of  the  Programme  intervention, 
which is considered de facto instrumental for a good and effective achievement of objectives 
in the area of justice.  
The results of the evaluation show that the survey respondents agree in saying that not only 
the  funded  activities  would  have  not  been  possible  without  the  EU  intervention,  but  also 
confirmed  that  the  same  results  would  have  not  been  achieved  with  Member  States 
intervention  only,  in  terms  of  creation  of  partnerships,  realisation  of  outputs,  funding  of 
innovative  actions,  sustainability  of  results,  and,  especially,  implementation  of  projects  of 
transnational size and scale. Indeed, the EU added value of the Justice Programme is evident, 
above  all,  in  the  promotion  of  transnational  projects  with  a  European  dimension  to  tackle 
cross-border issues and in the provision of financial resources to fund activities in key areas 
that  are  not  necessarily  high  on  the  agenda  of  Member  States  due  to  lack  of  political  will 
(according  to  stakeholders,  this  is  particularly  true  for  the  specific  objective  on  access  to 
justice).  
According to beneficiaries interviewed, the Programme can influence and align, at least to a 
moderate extent, national actions in the targeted areas. 
The Programme makes also beneficiaries able to work with partners in other Member States, a 
possibility  that  increased  their  knowledge  and  understanding  of  the  issues  covered  by  the 
Programme,  widened  their  approach  and  range  of  skills,  and  provided  them  with  access  to 
good  practice  examples and  tools  developed in  other  Member  States.  As  already  mentioned 

15  EU  added-value:  to  what  extent  the  effects  from  the  EU action  are additional  to  the  value  that  would have  resulted  from  action  at  the 
national level only. 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
above,  partnerships  are  a  key  element  for  the  success  of  the  Justice  Programme  and  are 
present in the majority of projects. 
The  lack  of  national  funding  is  one  of  the  main  reasons  why  the  Programmes’  funded 
activities  would  not  have  been  possible  through  single  Member  States  action.  This  is 
particularly true for the initiatives in the field of drug policies, where national initiatives are 
often missing a crucial transnational dimension that is pivotal in this field, and for EU-level 
judicial  training  that,  usually,  is  not  provided  at  national  level.  Moreover,  the  Justice 
Programme  ensures  the  continued  existence  of  European  networks  such  as  the  European 
Judicial Training Network. 
The  perceived  importance  of  the  Programme  can  be  explained  also  by  the  high  number  of 
projects awarded after just three years, compared to the three predecessor programmes16 and 
the  increase  in  the  number  of  yearly  applications  received  from  potential  beneficiaries 
indicates that the Programme remains a key source of funding across the EU.  
Moreover,  judicial  training  figures  more  prominently  in  the  intervention  logic  of  the 
Justice  Programme,  compared  to  the  predecessor  programmes.  This  is  an  important  step 
forward for the EU added  value of the Programme since judicial  training is  central to  build 
mutual  trust,  improve  cooperation  between  judicial  authorities  and  practitioners  in  the 
Member States and increase the coherence in the application of the EU legislation. 
The  results  of  the  evaluation  show  that  the  issues  and  areas  addressed  by  the  Justice 
Programme  would  require  further  action  and  involvement  at  EU  level.  Indeed,  the 
demand  of  EU  action  in  these  fields  and  the  fact  that  the  number  of  applications  to  the 
Programme are still higher than the number of awarded grants demonstrate a clear interest in 
the priorities addressed by the Programme.  

3.6. Equity17 

The  promotion  of  the  cross-cutting  priorities  of  gender  equality,  rights  of  child  and 
rights of people with disabilities is highly significant for the Justice Programme and it’s 
enshrined  in  its  legal  basis.  In  particular,  the  principles  of  gender  and  child  rights 
mainstreaming are evaluated during the evaluation process under the quality of proposals. The 
issue  of  gender  mainstreaming  is  specifically  mentioned  in  the  “part  B”  of  the  application 
form. However, the evaluation showed that, in terms of projects developed, gender issues and 
equality are hardly a major theme in most of them. Reference to women and gender equality 
are nonetheless found in five-six projects, which, still not focusing directly on the matter, take 
into account such element in their implementation.  
The  Justice  Programme  supports  the  rights  of  the  child  both  in  the  programming  phase 
(design  of  the  calls  for  proposals)  and  by  means  of  the  activities  of  projects  selected  for 
funding.  The  respect  of  the  rights  of  the  child  is  therefore  enhanced  by  the  fact  that 
organisations applying for funding (and any of their partners), which will work directly with 
children during the project implementation, must provide the Commission with a description 
of  their  child  protection  policy.  Moreover,  calls  for  proposals  funded  under  the  Justice 
Programme contain topics that are relevant to the subject. The results of the evaluation show 
that  the  majority  of  respondents  agree  to  further  mainstream  and  promote  the  rights  of  the 
child in the Programme. 

16 The Civil Justice Programme, the Criminal Justice Programme and the Drug Prevention and Information Programme awarded 806 projects 
over seven years (2007-2013). The Justice Programme awarded 418 just in the three-year period 2014-2016. 
17 Equity: whether and to what extent the Justice Programme has distributed the available resources fairly among beneficiaries in different 
Member States, took into consideration the needs of target groups, promoted gender mainstreaming, the rights of the child and the rights of 
people with disabilities. 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Concerning the priority of rights of people with disabilities, it seems more in the background 
compared to the previous two. Indeed, among the projects funded, only one directly targeted 
at people with disabilities, under the specific objective access to justice18. In terms of the need 
to  further  promote  the  rights  of  people  with  disability  in  the  Programme,  stakeholders  have 
quite  heterogeneous  opinions,  but  all  categories  tend  to  think  there  is  at  least  a  “moderate” 
need to do it. 
To  understand  how  the  Programme  promotes  equity  through  the  funded  activities, 
participants' data broken down by sex, disability status or age, as required by the Regulation, 
shall be collected. This is however not yet done. 
Finally,  as  already  mentioned,  in  the  future,  the  Programme  should  try  to  distribute  its 
resources  in  a  more  balanced  manner  across  the  different  target  groups  of  beneficiaries  and 
Member States. 

3.7. Scope for simplification19 

The  evaluation  did  not  identify  clear  scope  for  further  simplifications  concerning  the 
management  mode  of  the  Programme.  The  current  direct  management  mode  appears 
adequate given the size of the Programme.  
However,  notwithstanding  the  improvements  made  with  the  current  Programme,  both 
Commission  officials  and  beneficiaries  interviewed  expressed  critical  opinions  on  the 
implementation  process,  with  specific  regard  to  budget  management  and  reporting  duties. 
Among the reasons provided, beneficiaries indicate that the financial reporting is too detailed 
and inflexible when compared to the ones applied within other EU Programmes (e.g. Horizon 
2020 and Erasmus+). 
In  terms  of  administrative  burden,  nearly  70%  of  beneficiaries  and  applicants  perceived  as 
still  burdensome  the  proposal  drafting,  the  provisions  of  necessary  administrative  and 
financial information to participate in the calls and the monitoring and reporting requirements. 
In  general,  beneficiaries  agreed  that  the  application  and  reporting  procedures  were  complex 
and long, but recognised that it was probably hard to simplify them further, given the need to 
ensure accountability of European financial resources. 
According  to  beneficiaries,  the  duration  of  projects  financed  by  the  Programme  could  be 
extended,  especially  with  regards  to  action  grants.  In  particular,  an  extension  to  three  years 
was considered ideal, as it would be a timeframe that is aligned with the average duration of 
scientific  partnerships  between  higher  education  institutions.  Moreover,  beneficiaries 
mentioned that also operating grants could be extended to cover at least two years (instead of 
one)  in  order  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden,  in  terms  of  application  and  reporting. 
However,  the  annual  operating  grants  allow  the  Commission  to  have  oversight  of  the 
activities  of  the  funded  organisations  and  allow  for  more  flexibility  to  adapt  the  work  of 
beneficiaries to the emerging needs in their respective fields of expertise. 
Another key issue, according to small civil society organisations, is the difficulty to find the 
co-financing  amounts  required;  therefore,  small  non-governmental  organisations  could  be 
more supported by the Justice Programme20.  
Even if, at first, the rollout of the new Participant Portal created some difficulties, currently 
stakeholders consider the submission of proposals via the Participant Portal an improvement, 

18 Project “Enhancing Procedural Rights of Persons with Intellectual and/or Psychiatric Impairments in Criminal Proceedings: Exploring the 
Need for Actions”. 
19 Scope for simplification: whether and to what extent the management of the Justice Programme could be further simplified. 
20  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  average  amount  of  grants  has  been  increased  to  the  current  level  following  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  the 
predecessor  programmes  that,  as  already  said  above,  found  that  the  dilution  of  funds  amongst  many  small-scale  projects  had  had  limited 
impact and EU dimension. 

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
compared  to  the  previous  IT  system,  since  the  number  of  documents  required  for  the 
eligibility  check  has  decreased  and,  therefore,  also  the  related  administrative  burden.  In 
addition,  once  registered,  these  documents  will  not  be  required  any  more,  only  in  case  of 
changes.  However,  since  the  Participant  Portal  has  been  designed  with  research  institutions 
and voluminous grants in  mind,  in  its current form, the Portal  appears ill-adapted to typical 
Justice  Programme  applicants.  There  is,  therefore,  scope  for  some  improvements  in  this 
regard.  
Finally, monitoring requirements and indicators, both at Programme and project level, could 
be simplified and streamlined. 

4.  CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD 

The crucial role played by the Justice Programme in the development of a European area 
of justice based on mutual recognition and mutual trust was especially important at the start of 
the  Programme  itself,  where  the  effects  of  the  economic  crisis  could  still  be  felt  in  many 
Member States. 

This  report  on  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  2014-2020  Justice  Programme  confirms  the 
relevance of the Programme in contributing to upholding EU values (such as the rule of law, 
the  independence  of  the  judiciary  and  the  effectiveness  of  the  justice)  and  in  supporting 
Member  States  to  achieve  more  effective  justice  systems.  Since  its  very  beginning,  the 
Programme  has  shown  its  potential  in  fostering  the  acquisition  of  durable  legal  knowledge 
and competencies in the Member States.  

The Programme’s current structure appears to be adequate and sufficiently flexible to achieve 
its general and specific objectives. In these years it has demonstrated its high EU added value 
both in its positive impact on participants and target groups and in its role as a complement to 
other EU funding instruments and policy initiatives. 

In  the  framework  of  the  preparation  of  the  future  EU  budget  and  funding  programmes,  the 
Commission  based  on  the  findings  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  will  address  all  aspects  that 
have been identified for improvement, in particular the increase of the Programme's basin of 
potential recipients of the actions, the revision of the monitoring indicators, the achievement 
of a more geographic balance among the beneficiaries and the strengthening of synergies with 
other relevant EU funding programmes and initiatives. 

13