COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION Accompanying the document 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  SWD(2018) 357 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION Accompanying the document 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  {COM(2018) 507 final} - {SWD(2018) 356 final}  
 
 
The report and the staff working document (accompanying the report) represent the results of 
the interim evaluation of the first half time  implementation of the Justice Programme  (from 
2014  to  mid-2017).  The  Justice  Programme  was  designed  to  overcome  the  obstacles  in  the 
functioning  of  an  effective  European  Area  of  Justice  and  to  encourage  national  judicial 
systems to have faith in each other’s standards of fairness and justice.  

Its general objective is to contribute to the further development of a European Area of Justice 
based  on  mutual  recognition  and  mutual  trust.  The  Programme  is  further  broken  down  into 
four specific objectives, namely: 1. The support to judicial cooperation in civil and criminal 
matters; 2.The promotion of judicial training; 3. The support to an effective access to justice 
for all; 4. The promotion of initiatives in the field of drug policy.  

The evaluation carried out assessed the Programme's current progress towards its objectives. 
The findings will contribute to the last work programmes for 2019-2020 and will also inform 
the design of the Programme for the post-2020 funding period.  

The interim evaluation illustrated that the Justice Programme is performing generally well at 
midterm with regard to its specific objectives. In particular, in terms of: 

  Effectiveness 

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 do not capture 
certain underlying dynamics. 

Overall,  the  2014-2020  Justice  Programme  is  broadly  perceived  by  applicants, 
beneficiaries  and  stakeholders  as  an  improvement  compared  to  the  three  predecessor 
programmes,  both  in  terms  of  better  policy  targeting  and  better  involvement  of  the  right 
stakeholder groups. The merging of predecessor programmes has been particularly effective 
in the field of European judicial training since this has reduced the overlaps and enhanced the 
capacity of training providers. 

Given the wide scope of the general objective of the Programme, a large number of external 
factors  influenced  its  effectiveness.  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. 

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. 

  Relevance 

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.  This  can  be 

2 

 
 
achieved thanks to the unique structure of the Justice Programme, as the Programme has been 
devised with broad specific objectives.  

The specific objective concerning the initiatives in the field of drug policies is sometimes 
difficult  to  reconcile  with  other  Programme  priorities.  In  general,  however,  the  needs 
identified at the time of the Programme’s adoption are still actual and relevant. 

With respect to stakeholder needs, there is still scope to further increase the relevance of the 
Programme so as to ensure that priorities related to each specific objective 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.  This  is  however 
currently not possible under the legal basis of the Justice Programme.  

  Efficiency 

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.  

  Coherence, Complementarity, Synergies 

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 2020) 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.  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. 

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.  

The  Justice  Programme  is  coherent  also  with  international  obligations,  such  as  the  UN 
2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. Moreover, the EU is party to The Hague Conference 

3 

 
 
on  Private  International  Law  and  pursues  its  international  action  in  relation  to  civil  justice 
mainly through this international organisation. 

  EU added value 

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. 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  or  to  lack  of 
national  funding.  Moreover,  the  Justice  Programme  ensures  the  continued  existence  of 
European networks, such as the European Judicial Training Network. 

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. 

  Equity 

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. 
However,  the  evaluation  showed  that,  in  terms  of  projects  developed,  gender  issues  and 
equality are hardly a major theme in most of them.  

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  further  enhanced  by  the  fact  that 
organisations applying for funding, 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.  

Concerning the priority of rights of people with disabilities, it seems more in the background 
compared to the previous two.  

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, 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. 

4 

 
 
 
 
  Scope for simplification 

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. 
According  to  beneficiaries,  the  duration  of  projects  financed  by  the  Programme  could  be 
extended,  especially  with  regards  to  action  grants.  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.  Another  key  issue, 
according  to  small  civil  society  organisations,  is  the  difficulty  to  find  the  co-financing 
amounts required.  

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, 
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. 
However,  in  its  current  form,  the  Portal  appears  ill-adapted  to  typical  Justice  Programme 
applicants and 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. 

5