COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the 2011-2020 European judicial training strategy
Date: 2019-10-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU law, EU strategy, continuing vocational training, in-service training, judicial cooperation, legal profession, professional qualifications

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.10.2019  SWD(2019) 380 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION        of the        2011-2020 European judicial training strategy     {SWD(2019) 381 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

2. 

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

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 3 

Origin of the intervention ........................................................................................................................... 3 

The intervention’s objectives and logic ...................................................................................................... 5 

Functioning and implementation of the strategy ........................................................................................ 9 

Baseline and points of comparison ........................................................................................................... 11 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 13 

4.  METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 19 

Short description of methodology ............................................................................................................ 19 

Limitations and robustness of findings ..................................................................................................... 20 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 21 

5.1. 

Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................... 22 

5.1.1 Achieving the operational objectives .......................................................................................... 22 

a) 
The strategy’s contribution to having more judicial training activities on EU law, including 
judicial exchanges .......................................................................................................................... 23 

Contribution of the strategy to increasing the overall/co-funded number of beneficiaries of 
b) 
training sessions and exchanges, including via e-learning ............................................................. 25 

c) 

d) 

e) 

f) 

g) 

Channel more EU financial support to judicial training ..................................................... 26 

Reach of training activities ................................................................................................. 28 

Contribution of the strategy to improved capacity among training providers .................... 33 

Contribution of the strategy to an improved quality of training on EU law ....................... 34 

The strategy’s support to training on legal terminology in foreign languages.................... 37 

5.1.2 Achievement of the specific objectives ....................................................................................... 38 

a) 
Legal  practitioners’  knowledge  of  EU  law,  EU  judicial  cooperation  instruments  and  the 
laws of other Member States .......................................................................................................... 38 

b) 

c) 

Legal practitioners’ mutual trust in cross-border judicial proceedings ............................... 38 

Quality of cross-border proceedings for citizens and businesses ....................................... 39 

5.1.3 Achievement of the general objectives ....................................................................................... 39 

a) 
Effective  implementation  of  EU  law,  including  correct  application  and  uniform 
interpretation .................................................................................................................................. 39 

b) 

Access to justice and legal certainty for businesses and the public .................................... 39 

5.2. 

Efficiency .................................................................................................................................... 40 

5.2.1 Efficiency of the strategy’s governance ...................................................................................... 40 

5.2.2 The efficiency of the funding programmes supporting the strategy’s implementation ............... 41 

5.2.3 Factors which influenced the efficiency of the strategy .............................................................. 44 

1 

 
 
 
5.3. 

Relevance .................................................................................................................................... 45 

5.3.1 The relevance of the strategy’s scope ......................................................................................... 45 

5.3.2 Relevance of the strategy’s objectives ........................................................................................ 53 

5.4. 

Coherence .................................................................................................................................... 54 

5.4.1 Internal coherence ....................................................................................................................... 54 

5.4.2 External coherence ...................................................................................................................... 55 

a) 

b) 

With other EU legal instruments ........................................................................................ 55 

Coherence with national judicial training policies.............................................................. 60 

5.5. 

EU added value ........................................................................................................................... 61 

5.5.1 Benefits from EU-level action .................................................................................................... 62 

5.5.2 Limitations in the strategy’s EU added value ............................................................................. 65 

5.5.3 Likely consequences of withdrawing the strategy ...................................................................... 66 

5.6. 

Sustainability ............................................................................................................................... 67 

5.6.1 Internal and external factors linked to sustainability ................................................................... 67 

5.6.2 Lasting effect on direct target audiences and other main stakeholders ....................................... 70 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 72 

ANNEXES.................................................................................................................................................... 76 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 77 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 80 

ANNEX 3: EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS ..................................................................... 89 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................................................................................... 91 

ANNEX 5 FUNDING DEDICATED TO JUDICIAL TRAINING ............................................................. 95 

ANNEX 6 EXTERNAL EVALUATION SUPPORT STUDY .................................................................... 97 

ANNEX 7 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... 98 

2 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Any  rule,  no  matter  how  carefully  drafted  and  prepared  is  only  effective  if  it  is 
implemented  properly  in  practice,  as  emphasised  in  the  Juncker  Commission’s  ‘Better 
regulation  and  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU  law’1  priority.  Legal 
practitioners  involved  in  the  administration  of  justice  (judges,  prosecutors,  court  staff, 
lawyers, notaries, bailiffs, etc.) play a special role in guaranteeing that laws are applied 
correctly.  Training of legal  practitioners on EU law is  therefore  essential to  ensure that 
EU  legislation  is  correctly  understood  and  applied  throughout  the  EU.  The  European 
Commission  adopted  a  European  judicial  training  strategy  in  20112,  which  set  specific 
objectives for training justice professionals to be reached by 2020. 

The  purpose  of  evaluating  the  European  judicial  training  strategy  is  to  assess  to  what 
extent  the  implementation  of  the  strategy  was  successful  between  2011  and  2017, 
whether  there  were  drawbacks  and  whether  the  current  strategy  is  still  fit  for  today’s 
challenges. The evaluation will help to improve the implementation of the strategy until 
end  2020  and  will  serve  as  a  basis  for  designing  a  potential  post-2020  strategy  for 
European judicial training. 

The  evaluation  includes  an  assessment  of  EU  financial  support  related  to  European 
judicial training covering the period 2011 to 2017. The evaluation covers all EU Member 
States,  as  well  as  candidate  countries  and  potential  candidates  that  are  preparing  for 
membership  and  neighbourhood  countries3  that  want  to  model  their  systems  on  that  of 
the EU. 

Since European judicial training is a shared competence and requires action by the justice 
professions,  the  Member  States  and  the  EU,  action  at  EU  and  national  levels  were 
assessed as far as possible. The analysis was based on the following evaluation criteria: 
effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, EU added value and sustainability. 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

Origin of the intervention 

The  2002  Commission  communication  on  ‘Better  monitoring  of  the  application  of 
Community  law’4  identified  training  for  judges  as  an  important  tool  to  enforce 

1  2019 European Commission Work programme, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/cwp_2019_en.pdf. 
2  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Building Trust in EU-wide Justice 
–  A  new  dimension  to  European  judicial  training,  COM(2011) 551,  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0551&from=EN. 
In particular Ukraine. 

3 
4  Commission Communication, Better monitoring of the application of Community law, COM(2002) 725 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

final, 
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1538569535013&uri=CELEX:52002DC0725. 

3 

 
                                                 
‘Community’  law.  The  2007  Commission  communication  ‘A  Europe  of  results  — 
applying Community law’5 reaffirmed this. 

The  origins  of  the  European  judicial  training  strategy  can  be  traced  back  to  policy 
developments  in  2006,  with  a  Commission  Communication  on  judicial  training  in  the 
EU6.  This  Communication  mentioned  three  key  areas  for  improvement  in  the  judicial 
profession: language skills, familiarity with EU law and familiarity with the law in other 
Member States7. 

The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty provided a legal basis8 for the EU to create a 
strategy for judicial training. In the same year, the 2010 action plan from the Stockholm 
programme9 and the EU citizenship report10 both declared judicial training in the EU to 
be  a  priority.  The  2010  Monti  report,  ‘A  new  strategy  for  the  Single  Market’11,  also 
invited the Commission and the Member States to further support training programmes 
and structures, so that judges and other legal practitioners have a solid knowledge of the 
Single  Market,  ensure  the  correct  application  of  EU  law,  and  therefore,  improve  the 
effectiveness of the Single Market. 

In 2010, the European Commission  launched a  wide consultation  of all stakeholders in 
the EU on training for legal practitioners on EU law. From the consultation, it emerged 
that  legal  practitioners  believed  training  on  EU  law  to  be  extremely  important,  yet 
underfunded and taken up by an insufficient number of legal practitioners12. Differences 
in training on EU law depended on several factors, such as the nationality, age, academic 
background  and  profession  of  legal  practitioners.  This  was  a  problem  both  for 
individuals, who would not be able to make use of EU legislation relevant to their case, 
and for the EU, as it posed a major obstacle to the effective implementation of EU law. 

5  Communication  from  the  Commission  —  A  Europe  of  Results  —  Applying  Community  Law, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

final, 

COM(2007) 
content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52007DC0502. 

502 

6  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on judicial training 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
COM(2006)356 

European 

final, 

the 

in 
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52006DC0356. 
Ibid., points 24 to 27. 

Union, 

7 
8  Articles  81(2)(h)  and  82(1)(c)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU) 
concerning judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters state that the EU should take measures to 
‘support the training of the judiciary and judicial staff’. 

9  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  Action  Plan  Implementing  the 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
Stockholm 
content/EN/ALL/?uri=COM:2010:0171:FIN. 

COM(2010) 171, 

Programme, 

10  European  Commission,  EU  citizenship  report  2010:  Dismantling  the  obstacles  to  EU  citizens’  rights, 
http://eur-

COM(2010) 603, 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0603:FIN:EN:PDF. 
strategy 

9 May 

2010, 

Market, 

Monti, 

Single 

11  M. 

new 

the 

for 

A 

http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/15501/attachments/1/translations. 

12  European  Commission  2010  Consultation  on  European  judicial  training  General,  Synthesis  of 
https://e-justice.europa.eu/fileDownload.do?id=901f343a-a884-4279-869b-

p. 3-4, 

responses, 
39393084f027. 

4 

 
                                                 
The  creation  of  a  European  judicial  culture  was  deemed  essential  to  create  a  European 
judicial area in the framework of the European area of freedom, security and justice13. 

As a result, in 2011, the Commission published a Communication entitled ‘Building trust 
in EU wide justice — A new dimension to European judicial training’14 (‘the European 
judicial training strategy’ or ‘the strategy’). 

The intervention’s objectives and logic 

In  the  European  judicial  training  strategy,  the  Commission  set  objectives  for  training 
legal practitioners on EU law and the law of other countries to improve the application of 
EU  law  and  mutual  trust  in  cross-border  judicial  proceedings.  Legal  practitioners  are 
judges,  prosecutors,  courts’  staff,  and  the  other  legal  professions  involved  in  the 
administration  of  justice,  such  as  lawyers  and  notaries.  The  Commission  called  on  all 
stakeholders at national and EU level to ensure the strategy was implemented effectively 
and European judicial training was improved quantitatively and qualitatively. 

The strategy’s  intervention logic shows how the  strategy’s various inputs and activities 
inter-relate to achieve its higher-level objectives. 

As shown in Figure 1 below, the strategy was adopted based on the  need to ensure the 
proper  functioning  of  the  European  judicial  area  and  internal  market.  On  this  basis,  its 
general  objectives  have  been  to  contribute  to  the  effective  implementation  of  EU  law 
and to improve access to justice and legal certainty for citizens and businesses. This was 
to be accomplished by focusing on the following specific objectives: 

 

legal  practitioners  should  have  a  good  knowledge  of  EU  law,  of  EU  judicial 
cooperation instruments and of the laws of other Member States; 
 
legal practitioners should trust each other in cross-border judicial proceedings; 
  citizens  and  businesses  across  the  EU  should  benefit  from  their  rights  deriving 

from EU law. 

To achieve this, the operational objectives set at the time of the adoption of the strategy 
included: 

 
 

increasing the number of judicial training activities, including judicial exchanges; 
increasing the number of overall / co-funded beneficiaries of training sessions and 
exchanges, including via e-learning; 

  channelling more financial support to European judicial training activities; 
 

improving  the  reach  of  training  activities  on  EU  law,  by  targeting  all  groups  of 
legal  practitioners  and  covering  all  EU  Member  States,  candidate  countries  and 
potential  candidate  countries;  priority  was  given  to  judges  and  prosecutors, 
however the strategy recognises the need to train other legal professionals such as 
court staff, lawyers, and notaries; 

13  European  Commission,  EU  citizenship  report  2010  –  refer  to  footnote  10  of  this  Staff  working 

document. 

14  COM(2011) 551 – refer to footnote 2 of this Staff working document. 

5 

 
                                                 
 

 

 

improving  national  training programmes  and regulations, e.g. by  integrating EU 
law  into  national  initial  training  and  ensuring  mutual  recognition  of  training 
attended abroad; 
improving  the  capacity  of  training  providers  to  train  more  practitioners  in  high 
quality  training  activities,  e.g.  by  strengthening  the  European  Judicial  Training 
Network (EJTN)15 and encouraging consortia and public-private partnerships; 
improving  the  quality  of  training  on  EU  law,  e.g.  by  developing  the  European 
e-Justice Portal as support, drafting guidelines on methodologies and sharing best 
practice; 

  supporting training on legal terminology in foreign languages. 

As  an  input, the  EU  and  the  Member  States  provide  funding,  which  facilitates  various 
types of activities implemented by the European Commission, EU-level partners (e.g. the 
EJTN,  the  Academy  of  European  Law  –  ERA,  and  the  European  Institute  of  Public 
Administration  –EIPA-Luxembourg)  and  Member  States’  training  providers  and 
organisations  for  justice  professions.  These  activities  included,  for  example,  training 
activities,  conferences,  staff  exchanges,  drafting  guidelines  and  methodologies  and 
publication of an annual report on European judicial training. Through its activities (such 
as annual conferences and methodological guidelines), the Commission acts as an active 
partner of the EU Member States, candidate countries and training providers. Through its 
funding,  the  Commission  aims  to  support  high-quality  cross-border  judicial  training 
projects.  As  another  input,  the  Member  States  set  up  rules  governing  training  of  legal 
practitioners.  This  led  to  activities  by  the  national  authorities  responsible  for  training 
legal  practitioners,  such  as  training  regulations,  obligations  and  programmes16  and 
mutual recognition of training. Private-sector bodies, such as training providers or justice 
professionals  associations,  also  provide  some  funding  via  their  share  of  the  co-funding 
when taking part in EU financial programmes. 

In terms of outputs, these inputs and activities were expected to lead to: 

  an  increased  number  of  judicial  training  activities  at  national  and  EU  level, 
including a minimum of 1,200 exchanges for experienced judges and prosecutors 
organised by the EJTN; 

  by 2020, half of all legal practitioners in the EU to have taken part in at least one 
European judicial  training  activity,  including e-learning,  and  20,000 participants 
per year supported by EU financing; new judges and prosecutors should take part 
in  an  exchange  programme  and  all  legal  practitioners  should  have  at  least  a 
week’s training on EU law during their career; 

  an increased proportion of financial support devoted to judicial training; 
  enlarged  reach  of  European  judicial  training  with  more  professions  of  legal 

practitioners receiving training on EU law and a wider geographical reach; 

15  The EJTN brings together the judicial training institutions of the EU Member States, as members, and 

those of some candidate countries and potential candidates to the EU, as observer members. 

16  The content of these can vary and can cover inter alia who is in charge of delivering training, whether 
there is any initial training, whether ongoing professional training is obligatory, what topics should be 
covered by the training, etc. 

6 

 
                                                 
 

improved  national  regulatory  framework, for example  EU law to  be included  in 
initial training programmes and mutual recognition of training attended abroad; 
  A  strengthened  EJTN,  new  partnerships,  including  public-private  partnerships; 

increased capacity of training providers; 
improved quality of training activities, published guidelines on methodology and 
evaluation and an improved training section of the European e-Justice Portal; 
increased support for training on legal terminology in foreign languages. 

 

 

Flagship quantitative objectives of the 2011 strategy, to be reached by 2020: 

-  Half of all EU legal practitioners should have taken part in training on EU law; 
-  EU  financing  should  support  training  on  EU  law  for  at  least  20,000  legal 
practitioners per year; 
-  The EJTN should organise at least 1,200 exchanges for (experienced) judges and 
prosecutors; 
-  All new judges and prosecutors should take part in an exchange programme; 
-  All legal practitioners should have at least 1 week of training on EU law during 
their career. 

As  for  the  results,  it  was  expected  that  legal  practitioners  would  gain  knowledge  and 
know-how relevant to applying EU law, that they would increasingly trust each other in 
cross-border  proceedings  and  that  citizens  and  businesses  would  benefit  from  better 
enforcement  of  their  rights  derived  from  EU  law.  Overall,  the  impact  of  the  strategy 
would be to improve the implementation of EU law and access to justice. 

7 

 
Figure 1 — the European judicial training strategy’s intervention logic 

8 

 
 
Functioning and implementation of the strategy 

The  implementation  of  the  strategy  is  based  on  intertwining  political,  logistic  and 
financial contributions, from four main categories of actors: 

  Participating  countries,  which  set  training  obligations  (if  any)  and  training 
programmes at national level, provide both initial (where it exists) and continuous 
training,  and  base  their  action  on  existing  training  institutions  and  organisations 
for justice professionals; 

  EU-level  training  providers,  whose  role  is  to  develop  and  deliver  cross-border 

training activities; 

  EU-level organisations for justice professionals, whose role is to promote and/or 

 

to organise cross-border training activities; 
the European Commission, which has a supporting role and provides a financial 
and  operational  framework  notably  to  EU  and  national  training  providers  and 
organisations for justice professionals. 

Figure  2  provides  an  overview  of  the  way  the  strategy  works  and  the  stakeholders 
involved. 

Figure 2 — the functioning of the European judicial training strategy 

Governance  is  provided  by  two  main  bodies:  the  European  Commission’s  interservice 
group  and  the  European  Commission  Expert  Group  on  European  judicial  training17, 
which  is  responsible  for  supervising  the  strategy  and  assessing  the  needs  and  gaps  in 

17  http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2241 

9 

 
 
                                                 
judicial training at EU level. The Commission monitors the activities carried out as part 
of the strategy and provides an annual progress report on implementation of the strategy. 
In  these  reports,  implementation  is  measured  through  the  number  of  legal  practitioners 
trained against the quantified objectives of the strategy. 

Several  EU  financial  programmes  support  the  implementation  of  the  strategy.  Since 
2014,  the  main  funding  for  judicial  training  has  been  provided  by  the  Justice 
programme18,  which  replaced  the  Civil  Justice  programme19  and  the  Criminal  Justice 
programme20.  This  provides  financial  support  for  training  activities  such  as  exchanges, 
workshops and the development of training modules. Another financial programme is the 
Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme (REC21), with an allocated budget of €439 
million for the 2014-2020 period22. It funds, among other activities, training activities on 
equality, non-discrimination and fundamental  rights,  such as  those  to support the rights 
of women, children and minorities. 

the  Erasmus+  programme23,  Jean  Monnet  Activities  support  designated 
Under 
institutions that pursue objectives of European interest and provide training activities for 
legal practitioners. Among these, the Academy of European Law (ERA) is the main EU-
level judicial training provider which receives a Jean Monnet operating grant24. 

Three other funding programmes for judicial training are sector-specific. In the Hercule 
III programme25, judicial training is part of a broader European strategy of the European 
Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF)  to  fight  against  fraud  and  corruption.  The  part  of  this 
programme  dedicated  to  legal  and  antifraud  training  finances  studies,  conferences, 
training,  seminars  and  exchanges,  but  is  not  exclusive  to  legal  practitioners.  The 
Instrument  for  Pre-accession  Assistance  (IPA)26  provides  funds  for  the  EU  candidate 

of 

18  Justice  programme  2014-2020,  Regulation  (EU)  No 1382/2013,  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1398443724131&uri=CELEX:32013R1382;  2014-2017  annual  Justice  work 
programmes 
the 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/programmes-2014-
2020/justice/index_en.htm. 

programme: 

Justice 

19  Decision  No 1149/2007/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25 September  2007 
establishing  for  the  period  2007-2013  the  Specific  Programme  Civil  Justice  as  part  of  the  General 
Programme 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
Justice: 
and 
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1431351221457&uri=CELEX:32007D1149. 

Fundamental 

Rights 

20  Council Decision of 12 February 2007 establishing for the period 2007 to 2013, as part of the General 
Programme on Fundamental Rights and Justice, the Specific Programme Criminal Justice: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1424945199344&uri=CELEX:32007D0126. 

21  Regulation (EU) No 1381/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 
establishing  a  Rights,  Equality  and  Citizenship  programme  for  the  period  2014  to  2020,  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R1381. 

22 This amount refers to the whole programme, not only to the envelope dedicated to judicial training. 
23  Erasmus+  programme  2014-2020,  Regulation  (EU)  No 1288/2013,  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
Activities: 

Jean  Monnet 

content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013R1288 
https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-plus/actions/jean-monnet_en. 

and 

via 

the 

24  The European Centre for Judges and  Lawyers in Luxembourg is not supported by the operating grant 

received by EIPA. 

25  Hercule  III  programme  2014-2020,  Regulation  (EU)  No 250/2014,  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.084.01.0006.01.ENG. 

26  Regulation (EU) No 231/2014 establishing an Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance 2014-2020 (IPA 

II), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014R0231. 

10 

 
                                                 
countries  and  potential  candidate  countries27,  while  the  European  Neighbourhood 
Instrument  also  supports  judicial  training  activities  for  countries  of  the  eastern  and 
southern  neighbourhood28.  Since  2008,  the  LIFE  programme29  has  funded  training 
activities on EU environmental law for the judiciary (under a procurement contract). 

Finally,  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF)30,  as  part  of  its  thematic  objectives,  provides 
funding for vocational training and lifelong learning, including judicial training, as well 
as support for increasing the institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders, 
and efficient public administration. Support for judicial training was included in some of 
the ESF’s national implementation programmes31. 

Baseline and points of comparison 

The baseline sets out the situation before the strategy was adopted and provides a point of 
comparison against which the functioning of the strategy is to be evaluated. The proposal 
for the strategy was not accompanied by an impact assessment or systematic analysis of 
the  situation  at  the  time,  so  baseline  data  comes  from  studies  and  reports  from  the 
European Parliament and the Commission prior to 2011. 

The  provision  of  judicial  training  is  not  one  of  the  domains  in  which  legislation  is 
supposed to be harmonised across EU Member States. The EU does not have competence 
to  regulate  the  requirements  of  legal  professions,  and  each  Member  State  sets  its  own 
requirements  for  legal  practitioners in  terms  of recruitment,  preliminary experience and 
training.  Training  activities  are  usually  divided  into  initial  training  activities,  and 
continuous  training  activities32.  However,  differences  exist  in  how  Member  States 
organise  ‘initial  training’.  In  addition,  due  to  different  national  requirements,  legal 
practitioners do not need to undertake initial training in some Member States. 

From the 2011 data available, three main trends emerged regarding participation in EU 
law  training  activities  by  judges  and  prosecutors33.  First,  the  extent  of  participation 
depended  on  the  age  of  the  practitioners:  younger  practitioners  attended  more  training 

27  The candidate countries are Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. The potential 
candidates are Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo (this designation is without prejudice to positions 
on  status,  and  is  in  line  with  UNSCR  1244/1999  and  the  ICJ  Opinion  on  the  Kosovo  declaration  of 
independence). 

28  Regulation  (EU)  No 232/2014  establishing  a  European  Neighbourhood  Instrument  (ENI),  https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014R0232. 

29  Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

Action 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2013.347.01.0185.01.ENG. 

(LIFE), 

30  Regulation  (EU)  No 1304/2013  on 

the  European  Social  Fund,  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R1304. 

31  2018, European Commission, Study on the extent to which and how Member States used the ESF and 
the  ERDF  in  the  2007-2013  and  2014-2020  programming  periods  to  support  their  justice  system, 
p. 59, 127. 

32  Initial training is training that takes place at the earliest stage of a practitioner’s career, and is usually 
part  of  the  requirements  for  entering  legal  practice;  continuous  training  is  training  that  takes  place  at 
various stages of a practitioner’s career. 

33  Source: Deloitte final report, page 32. 

11 

 
                                                 
activities  on  EU  law  than  older  ones.  Second,  participation  differed  across  the  EU: 
training  on  EU  law  in  2011  was  more  prevalent  in  the  newer  Member  States.  Third, 
training on other fields of law was generally more common than training on EU law. 

Training  activities  ranged  from  traditional  courses  and  seminars,  case  studies  and 
practice-oriented  activities,  to  videoconferences  and  training  based  on  e-learning 
resources.  Overall,  data  suggest  a  clear  preference  for  activities  that  put  legal 
developments  in  context,  such  as case studies,  and for the use of modern technologies, 
e.g. e-learning. One of the constraints that emerged from the 2011 European Parliament 
survey,  namely  a  lack  of  time  for  some  practitioners  to  take  part  in  training  activities, 
helps  to  explain  this  preference.  However,  national  stakeholders  based  most  of  their 
training exclusively on traditional training activities (such as conferences, seminars and 
face-to-face lectures). Only a minority used information and communication technology. 
One can also distinguish between activities carried out with participants all coming from 
the  same  Member  State,  and  activities  involving  a  cross-border  (or  transnational) 
element,  mainly  judicial  exchange  programmes.  Most  training  activities  were  not 
cross-border, providing training solely within the territory of each Member State. 

A 2011 European Parliament survey inquired into knowledge of EU law, showing that 
up  to  that  year,  respondents  (judges,  prosecutors  and  some  court  staff)  perceived  their 
level of knowledge as insufficient to guarantee a high quality of decisions involving EU 
law34. This was also emphasised by a number of policy documents published up to 2011, 
which all highlighted the problem that a large proportion of judges and prosecutors had 
never received sufficient training on EU law to master relevant legislation and case-law 
in their daily practice35. Of the respondents to the 2011 survey, as many as 28% of judges 
(30% of last instance judges) admitted to knowing only to a minor extent when EU law 
must  be  applied  directly  —  68%  of  the  responding  judges  did  know  at  least  to  some 
extent. Dismal figures were also observed in relation to knowledge of the procedure for a 
preliminary  ruling36  before  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  EU.  As  many  as  40%  of  the 
respondents had no or scarce awareness of the circumstances under which they could or 
must  trigger  this  procedure,  and  60%  of  respondents  had  no  or  scarce  awareness  as  to 
how to do so. In addition to these low levels of knowledge of EU law before the strategy 
was adopted, mastery of foreign languages among legal practitioners was also not very 
common. The 2011 survey showed that many respondents had insufficient knowledge of 
foreign languages. 

34  European Parliament (2011), Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Judicial training in the European 
at: 

Union  Member 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/453198/IPOL-
JURI_ET(2011)453198_EN.pdf. 

following, 

available 

p. 139, 

States, 

112 

and 

pp. 

35  See: COM(2006) 356 on judicial training in the European Union, and COM(2011) 551 final Building 

trust in EU-wide justice a new dimension to European Judicial training. 

36  This procedures allows (or obliges, in case of last instance courts) national courts to refer a question on 
the  interpretation  or  validity  of  EU  law  to  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  EU,  when  such  a  judgment  is 
needed to resolve a national dispute. See Article 267 TFEU. 

12 

 
                                                 
Despite  the  inherent  difficulty  in  measuring  mutual  trust,  most  policy  documents 
indicate that the level of trust prior to the strategy’s adoption needed improvement37. 

the  strategy  was 

Before 
implemented,  no  study  had  focused  specifically  on 
comprehensively examining the level of recognition and enforcement of cross-border 
judgments  in  civil  and  commercial  matters.  However,  the  findings  of  two  detailed 
studies on the Brussels I Regulation38 indicate that, before 2011, the EU procedural rules 
on  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial  matters  in  other 
Member States were generally understood and applied in a satisfactory manner. The 2005 
study, however, showed that there was still uncertainty among judges regarding specific 
procedural issues39. 

The results of a public consultation carried out by the Commission in 2010 indicated that 
many  stakeholders40  placed  high  importance  on  strengthening  training  activities  on  EU 
procedural law related to cross-border judgments41. These results suggest that, despite the 
good  overall  level  of  recognition  and  enforcement  of  foreign  decisions,  many 
practitioners  did  not  feel  sufficiently  familiar  with  the  day-to-day  application  of  the 
underlying rules. In addition, a report from the Council of Europe European Commission 
for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ) on the efficiency of enforcement of court decisions 
in  Europe42  noted  that  enforcement  officers  employed  by  Member  States  should 
undertake training that met the same standards set for judges and lawyers43. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

Various  studies,  annual  monitoring  and  other  activities  conducted  in  the  course  of 
implementing the strategy and its evaluation provide data on the current state of play44. 
These are compared with the baseline in more detail in Section 5. 

This section sets out the state of play in 2017 (and compares this with the baseline) for: 

 

legal practitioners participating in training activities on EU law45; 

37  See  e.g.  European  Parliament,  Directorate-General  for  Internal  Policies,  Workshop  on  Judicial 

Training, Session II — Improving Mutual Trust (2013), pp. 6, 13, 18 and 20. 

38  Brussels I Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the 
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). Study JLS/C4/2005/03  — 
Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States. COM(2009) 174 final, Report 
by the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Economic and Social Committee 
on  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 44/2001  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. 

39  Mainly  related  to  different  national  practices  on  how  to  understand  the  notion  of  ‘recognition’  and 

‘enforcement’. 

40  Mainly:  EU-level  training  providers,  EU-level  organisations  of  justice  professionals,  ministries  of 

justice of the EU Member States. 

41  European  Commission,  2010  Consultation  on  European  judicial  training:  General  synthesis  of 

responses, pp. 3, 9. The public consultation received 572 replies. 

42  European  Commission  for  the  Efficiency  of  Justice  (CEPEJ),  Report  on  the  Enforcement  of  Court 

Decisions in Europe, 2007. 
Ibid. p. 109. 

43 
44  Except for mediators, for whom data are incomplete and unreliable. 

13 

 
 
                                                 
 
 

legal practitioners’ knowledge of EU law and level of mutual trust; 
the activities of the European Commission46. 

Table 1 below shows the numbers of legal practitioners who participated in training 
activities on EU law between 2011 and 201747. 

Table 1. Number of justice professionals per professions who participated in 
training activities on EU law between 2011 and 2017 

Judges 

Prosecutors 

Court staff 

Private  practice  lawyers, 
solicitors, barristers 

Bailiffs, judicial officers 

Notaries 

Mediators 

Total 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

27,002 

24,697 

26,868 

37,483 

28,346 

48,544 

60,846 

8,072 

6,907 

8,292 

3,434 

7,945 

6,976 

9,886 

10,635 

11,276 

14,397 

6,191 

11,065 

12,024 

15,830 

26,676 

23,000 

57,495 

65,342 

59,945 

59,988 

71,418 

3,013 

4,969 

195 

1,445 

3,372 

1,405 

2,102 

5,797 

237 

3,673 

3,129 

2,731 

3,744 

9,508 

11,806 

9,173 

15,470 

557 

N/A 

146 

281 

Total 

76,834 

65,645 

107,420 

132,640 

124,926 

143,882 

181,986 

833,333 

Sources: Deloitte based on European Commission data 

As shown in  the table above, except  for  a slight  dip  in  2012, the total  number of  legal 
practitioners participating in training on EU law or on the law of another Member State 
has  been  continuously  increasing  since  the  strategy  was  launched  in  2011.  In  2017, 
181,986 legal practitioners across the EU were trained on EU law. This figure represents 
11.3%  of  all  practitioners  active  in  the  EU  in  that  year,  and  is  more  than  double  the 
percentage of legal practitioners trained in 2011 (5%). Participation percentages followed 
patterns similar to the previous years, varying greatly depending on the target group. As 
many  as  60,846  judges  (73.4%  of  all  active  judges)  were  trained  in  2017,  followed  by 
14,397 prosecutors (38.7%) and 15,470 notaries (29.2%). With regard to bailiffs, 3,744 

45   The  numbers  of  practitioners  in  each  legal  profession  (used  for  calculating  the  percentages)  and  the 
definitions  of  the  professions  were  taken  from  the  2018  CEPEJ  study  on  European  judicial  systems 
(data 2016): Efficiency and quality of justice. 

46  The  activities  of  EU-level  training  providers  are  described  in  section  5.1  Effectiveness.  No  overview 

exists of national activities organised in this area. 

47  See  
An example of progress on reaching as many justice professionals as possible is provided by the efforts to 
make  training  accessible  to  people  with  disabilities.  ERA  training  courses  and  some  online  training 
provided via the European e-Justice Portal were made accessible to people with disabilities. ERA also 
provides special accommodation to participants with disabilities. 

Figure 6 for the proportion of and changes to the numbers of trained legal practitioners between 2011 and 

2017. 

14 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
(12.9%)  received  training  in  2017.  The  number  of  trained  lawyers  is  71,418  (7%)48. 
There  were  15,830  trained  court  staff  (4%),  continuing  the  ongoing  improvement  from 
2016 compared to previous years. 

It is worth looking at the geographical trends in the participation of legal practitioners 
over  the  years  in  order  to  understand  how  the  situation  in  some  Member  States  has 
affected the overall picture. 

From  2011  to  2012,  there  was  a  drop  in  the  total  number  of  trained  practitioners  as  a 
result of only half the number of court staff taking part in continuous training activities. 
This was due to decreases in participating court staff in the majority of Member States, in 
particular in Czechia, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain. A fall in the number of trained 
lawyers  was  caused  by  significant  drops  in  the  number  of  lawyers  participating  in 
training  in  the  Netherlands,  Portugal  and  Spain,  despite  increases  in  France  and 
Germany. With regard to notaries, the decreases in Germany and Italy explain in part the 
general decrease at EU level, but the decrease in the percentage of trained notaries was 
largely due to  a major increase (10,000) in  the number of total  active notaries in  2012. 
Conversely,  the  slight  increase  in  the  number  of  trained  judges  resulted  from  initial 
training activities being undertaken by twice as many judges as the previous year. In this 
category,  the  increases  in  Austria,  Croatia,  France,  Hungary  and  the  United  Kingdom 
more than outweighed the decreases, which were mainly in Germany and Poland. 

From 2012 to 2013, there was an extraordinarily steep increase of the lawyers’ figures on 
participation  in  initial  training  and  especially  in  continuous  training  activities.  This 
resulted  from  steep  increases  in  participation  in  both  initial  and  continuous  training 
activities  in  Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Estonia,  France  (an  eight-fold  increase  in  continuous 
training),  Greece,  Lithuania,  Portugal,  Romania  (a  more  than  ten-fold  increase  overall) 
and Spain (from 0 to more than 13,000 lawyers in continuous training)49. 

From 2013 to 2014, we saw an overall increase in judges participating in initial training 
activities, which was mainly a result of increases in France, Germany (a more than ten-
fold  increase),  the  Netherlands  and  the  United  Kingdom.  In  addition,  the  number  of 
lawyers  taking  part  in  initial  training  increased  considerably,  mainly  as  a  result  of 
increases in Austria, Croatia and especially Poland (an almost ten-fold increase). 

From 2014 to 2015, the figures relating to initial training of judges fell, in contrast to the 
previous year, dropping to values similar to 2013. This was mainly caused by the number 
of judges taking part in initial training in Germany going back down to 2013 levels, and 
even  fewer  judges  in  France  taking  part  in  training.  Decreases  in  Italy,  Spain  and  the 
United Kingdom also contributed to the general fall. There was an overall decrease in the 
number  of  trained  lawyers  participating  in  continuous  training,  mainly  due  to  drops  in 

48  The figures in relation to training for lawyers are incomplete, as private-sector training providers do not 

usually provide data when the annual monitoring reports are drawn up. 

49   Another explanation of the increase of lawyers’ training lies with improvement in data collection from 

some lawyers’ training providers. 

15 

 
                                                 
France,  Ireland,  Poland  (from  more  than  10,000  to  just  around  1,500)  and  Portugal. 
These  decreases  more  than  outweighed  the  increases  in  Bulgaria  and  in  the  United 
Kingdom. 

From 2015 to 2016, the trend in the number of judges undertaking initial training shows 
another drastic change, similar to that from 2013 to 2014. This was mainly the result of 
very significant increases in the number of German judges participating in initial training 
activities,  from  just above 600 to  more than 11,000.  In light  of this  and the  changes in 
previous years, Germany can be described as exerting the biggest influence, among EU 
Member States, on trends in the participation of judges in initial training  between 2013 
and 2016. The 2017 monitoring report50 also explains that the significant increase in the 
number  of  trained  judges  in  2016  reflects  a  growing  interest  in  EU  law  among  these 
practitioners.  The  number  of  lawyers  participating  in  continuous  training  activities  has 
also gone back up, particularly as a result of increases in France, Greece and Spain. The 
number of notaries participating in training generally decreased at EU level. According to 
the  2017  monitoring  report,  this  decrease  can  be  explained  by  the  fact  that,  in  2015, 
notaries  stopped  benefiting  from  an  EU  grant  that  helped  them  be  trained  in  the  latest 
developments  on  EU  law  relating  to  their  profession.  This  grant  had  been  one  of  the 
reasons for the increase seen in the training of notaries before 201551. 

From 2016 to 2017, both the absolute numbers and participation ratios improved for all 
justice professions. Despite the decrease in judges taking part in training in Portugal, the 
overall  number  in  the  EU  increased,  particularly  as  a  result  of  training  in  Bulgaria, 
Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Poland and Sweden. Germany and Portugal had the greatest 
effect  on  the  rise  in  the  total  number  of  trained  prosecutors.  Court  staff  members  also 
were  more  involved  in  training  activities  during  this  year,  particularly  in  Belgium, 
Bulgaria, Czechia and Romania. Despite a significant decrease in the numbers of lawyers 
taking part in training in France, steep increases in Austria and Spain, along with smaller 
increases in Belgium, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Sweden and Slovenia, meant that the overall 
number of trained lawyers rose to over 70,000. There was an increase in the number of 
trained  bailiffs,  mainly  as  a  result  of  increases  in  Spain  (but  also  in  Czechia,  Italy  and 
Slovakia).  Figures  for  notaries  also  rose,  as  a  result  of  increases  in  Spain  and  Italy 
particularly, as well as Czechia. 

Although  the  overall  number  of  trained  legal  practitioners  grew  each  year,  this 
increase  also  reflects  the  increased  number  of  legal  practitioners  in  the  EU  —  which 
grew by 9.4% since 2011. However, the increase in the number of trained practitioners 
has been far higher than the increase in the total number of practitioners, in particular for 
judges. 

With  the  financial  support  from  the  EU’s  Justice  programme,  the  EJTN  has  organised 
judicial  exchanges  for  judges  and  prosecutors  across  different  Member  States.  Since 

50  2017  Annual 

report 

on 

European 

judicial 

training.  Available 

here: 

https://e-

justice.europa.eu/content_the_european_judicial_training_policy-121-en.do. 

51  Ibid., p. 12. 

16 

 
                                                 
2011, the number of judges and prosecutors taking part in judicial exchanges has grown 
steadily.  In  2017,  the  EJTN  organised  almost  three  times  as  many  exchanges  as  in  the 
strategy’s first year (2,694 compared with 928 in 2011)52. 

theoretical 

Training  activities  took  place  using  a  variety  of  methods,  including  classrooms  (with 
teaching),  seminars,  webinars,  conferences, 
case  studies  or  more 
videoconferences, e-learning, blended learning and podcasts. According to the results of 
the  2018  targeted  consultation  carried  out  by  the  European  Commission  as  part  of  this 
evaluation,  respondents53  organised  or  took  part  in  multiple  types  of  training  activities, 
including exchanges, conferences, interactive workshops, class courses and roundtables, 
e-learning and blended learning54. (This latter was more frequent since 2011 than before 
then.) 

There was also variation in the duration of the training activities. Short-term (fewer than 
6  hours)  continuous  training  activities  increased  each  year  except  in  2016.  Overall,  the 
number of continuous training activities lasting 1 or 2 days  has increased from 2011 to 
2017. These activities, together with those lasting fewer than 6 hours, accounted for 66-
77% of the total number of continuous training activities, showing that legal practitioners 
have a clear tendency to take part in shorter training activities than longer ones55. 

The  share  of  longer  initial  training  activities  on  EU  law  (more  than  5  days)  increased 
between  2011  and  2017,  reaching  almost  50%  of  initial  training  activities  in  2017. 
However, training activities of 1 day and less still account for 20% of all reported initial 
training activities on EU law in 201756, while such duration seems surprisingly short to 
cater for the initial training needs on EU law of the concerned justice professionals. 

Participants attended training on a wide range of legal areas involving EU law (namely: 
substantial  civil  law,  civil  procedure  law,  substantial  criminal  law,  criminal  procedure 
law,  commercial  law,  EU  law  of  fundamental  rights,  EU  institutional  law,  and  law  of 
other  Member  States).  Civil  law  was  the  primary  focus  area  and  there  has  been  a 
consistent pattern across the years following a steep increase in substantial civil law from 
2011  to  2012.  Criminal  law  was  also  the  focus  of  a  significant  number  of  activities. 
However,  more  general  activities,  classified  as  ‘other  activities’,  appear  the  most 
frequent, possibly either because the data collected at national level does not specify the 
exact content of the activities or because the activities cover a mix of topics57. 

52   Refer to  

Table 7. EJTN funding and activities (2011-2017), Annex 5, p. 96. 

53  Respondents to this consultation included both training providers and practitioners. 
54  European Commission,  Analysis of the replies to the 2018 targeted consultation on training of justice 
professionals on EU law, 2018, pp. 5 and 32, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/cross-border-cases/training-
legal-practitioners-and-training-practices_en. 

55  Source: Deloitte based on European Commission’s data. Deloitte’s report, p. 44. 
56   Ibid, p. 46. 
57  Ibid, pp. 44-45. 

17 

 
                                                 
In 2018, around 61% of the respondents to the public consultation had some or good or 
very good knowledge of EU law and EU judicial cooperation instruments, and only 10% 
knew the legal system of another Member State well or very well. These figures appear 
slightly  less  positive  than  the  results  of  the  2011  European  Parliament  survey,  but  the 
figures of the 2011 survey on the same topic only concern judges and prosecutors so they 
are  only  comparable  to  some  extent.  Based  on  analysis  of  the  interviews  with  national 
stakeholders,  the  external  study  supporting  this  evaluation58  found  that  stakeholders 
believe that legal professionals’ knowledge of EU law has increased to some extent in all 
Member  States  since  the  strategy’s  inception;  in  some  cases  this  increase  is  deemed 
substantial. 

The two main reasons behind these results, which were indicated by the respondents in 
2018,  were  a  lack  of  time  to  attend  training  on  EU  law  and  the  difficulty  many 
practitioners  had  in  seeing  the  relevance  of  EU  law  in  their  daily  practice59.  In  2018, 
stakeholders agreed that the degree of mutual trust had increased from 2011 to 201760. 
Regarding  recognition  and  enforcement  of  cross-border  judgments  in  civil  and 
commercial  matters,  the  current  situation  results  from  the  adoption  of  the  Brussels  Ia 
Regulation61, which came into effect in 2015. It seems that the abolition of the exequatur 
procedures62  led  to  an  improved  situation.  The  2015  evaluation  of  the  Brussels  II  bis 
Regulation63 identified implementation hurdles linked to practitioners’ knowledge and/or 
understanding  of  the  rules.  However,  very  few  cases  of  non-recognition  were  reported, 
and  enforcement  was  considered  to  be  hindered  mainly  by  legal  procedures  and,  to  a 
lesser  extent,  by  a  lack  of  knowledge  and  training  on  the  relevant  provisions.  The 
European Commission’s proposal to recast the Brussels II bis Regulation acknowledged 
the need to train judicial practitioners on the Regulation’s provisions64. 

After  the  strategy  on  European  judicial  training  was  adopted  in  2011,  the  European 
Commission  took  up  a  coordinating  role  in  this  field.  It  organised  regular  EU 
conferences, bringing together relevant stakeholders, and meetings of the Expert Group 
on  European  judicial  training  and  an  internal  interservice  group.  The  Commission 
published annual reports on European judicial training summing up the main EU judicial 
training achievements each year and gave statistical data and analyses (broken down by 

58   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/cross-border-cases/training-legal-practitioners-and-training-practices_en 
59  2018 European Commission, Public consultation, 2018, https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/training-

justice-professionals-eu-law-evaluation_en. 

60  Source: Deloitte based on European Commission’s data. Deloitte’s report, page 53. 
61  Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the  Council of 12 December 2012 on 
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast). 
62  Exequatur  is  a  concept  specific  to  private  international  law  and  refers  to  the  decision  by  a  court 
authorising the enforcement in that country of a judgment, arbitral award, authentic instrument or court 
settlement given abroad. 

63  European  Commission,  Study  on  the  assessment  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 2201/2003  and  the  policy 

options for its amendment, Final Report, Evaluation, p. 33. 

64  European  Commission,  Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  on  jurisdiction,  the  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  decisions  in  matrimonial  matters  and  the  matters  of  parental  responsibility,  and  on 
international child abduction (recast), p. 12. 

18 

 
                                                 
justice profession and Member State) and promoted best practice in the field through the 
European e-Justice Portal and by publishing the ‘Advice for training providers’65. 

EU  financial  support  for  judicial  training  from  various  financial  programmes  almost 
doubled  during  2011-2017,  from  €14.5  million  in  2011  to  €27.3  million  in 2017, 
amounting to more than €150 million over the period66. 

4.  METHOD 

Short description of methodology 

Desk  research  and  a  literature  review  were  complemented  by  a  comprehensive 
stakeholder consultation strategy, comprising a variety of complementary tools: meetings 
with  stakeholders67,  the  Expert  Group  on  European  judicial  training,  an  open  public 
consultation, a targeted consultation and a conference with stakeholders. Attendees at the 
conference were mainly training providers for justice professionals and representatives of 
the justice professions. A workshop involving the JURI and LIBE committees took place 
in April 2017, ensuring the European Parliament was consulted very early in the process. 
The  Commission  organised  two  meetings  of  the  Expert  Group  on  European  judicial 
training in 2017 and 201868. 

In  2018,  the  European  Commission  launched  a  public  consultation  and  a  targeted 
consultation69 as part of its evaluation. These consultations included questions to assess 
justice professionals’ training needs on EU law, the levels of knowledge of EU law and 
mutual  trust  among justice professionals,  the scope of training activities on EU law for 
justice professionals, the scope of the European judicial training strategy, its results, its 
means and actors and the monitoring of the strategy. While the public consultation was 
intended  for  anyone  with  an  interest  in  or  experience  of  judicial  training,  the  targeted 
consultation was particularly directed at European judicial training stakeholders (training 
providers  at  national  and  EU  level,  associations  for  justice  professionals,  government 
ministries  etc.)  The  stakeholder  conference  was  organised  subsequently  to  discuss  the 
consultations’ findings70. 

To  complement  its  work,  the  European  Commission  commissioned  a  study  to  help 
evaluate the European judicial training strategy (conducted by Deloitte). The intervention 
logic  was  refined  and  the  evaluation  matrix  was  agreed,  thereby  operationalising  the 
evaluation questions to be answered. Data collection comprised the following tools: desk 
research  and literature review, fieldwork or phone interviews in  all Member States and 

65  https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_training_material-252-en.do 
66  More details can be found in Section 5.1.1(c), page 26, and in Annex 5, page 95. 
67  EJTN, ERA, EIPA-Luxembourg, CCBE, CNUE. 
68  http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2241. 
69  European  Commission 

(2018),  Open 

and  Targeted 

consultation 

public 

consultation: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/training-justice-professionals-eu-law-evaluation_en. 

70  See Annex 2 Stakeholder consultation, page 80. 

19 

 
 
                                                 
three candidate countries, meetings and a validation workshop. The data  were  analysed 
and triangulated to address the evaluation criteria71. The study’s conclusions are set out 
in a final report72. 

Limitations and robustness of findings 

The first limitation is that while some data are fully available, for others the information 
has  been  difficult  to  gather.  Some  accuracy  issues  affect  the  annual  judicial  training 
reports  from  the  Commission,  as  the  main  source  of  data  for  these  is  a  data  collection 
exercise  based  on  questionnaires  to  which  the  stakeholders  (EU  level  and  national 
training providers for legal practitioners) respond themselves. This explains the different 
levels of response rate, depending on the professions, and the lack of or incomplete data 
for  some  profession  in  some  participating  countries73.  To  overcome  this  limitation,  in-
depth  interviews  were  conducted.  Data  were  triangulated  and  its  robustness  was 
discussed in a validation workshop. 

Regarding the specific objective of training half of legal practitioners by 2020, a critical 
assessment of this target should be made for the accuracy of the figures. In fact, the size 
of  the  group  of  “EU  legal  practitioners”  of  2011  is  not  the  same  as  that  of  2020,  as  a 
period  of  10  years  could  equal  a  fluctuation  of  between  one  third  and  one  fifth  of  the 
components74. Moreover, the number of legal practitioners grew since 201175. Statistics 
provided  include  recurrent  participants  in  the  trainings.  This  could  influence  the 
proportion  of  individual  legal  practitioners  effectively  targeted  by  the  strategy,  but  the 
annual reports considered that this mitigation is not a really significant one, since  “it is 
reasonable  to  assume  that  few  practitioners  are  likely  to  take  part  in  more  than  one 
training  activity  on  EU  law  or  the  national  law  of  another  Member  State  in  any  one 
year”76. 

The  evaluation  relied  on  a  number  of  different  data  sources,  including  a  public 
consultation and a targeted consultation. These were analysed using descriptive statistics, 
while recognising the limitations of the evidence collected. The statistical significance is 
arguable, since the online open public consultation respondents are self-selected among 
those  who  visit  related  European  Commission  internet  pages,  receive  relevant  email 
notifications after expressing interest with European Commission services (e.g. through 
its Europa web site), or are provided with the information through some third party. 

The  number  of  respondents  to  the  targeted  consultation  was  even  more  limited.  They 
were initially selected to ensure at least minimal coverage among the main categories of 

71  See Annex 4 Methods, page 91. 
72  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/cross-border-cases/training-legal-practitioners-and-training-practices_en 
73  See Annex 4 Methods for further details, page 91. 
74   i.e. of 1,400,000 practitioners in 2011, about 300,000 will have been replaced by new members of the 

professions in that period even if the group does not grow. 

75   In 2011, half of the practitioners in the EU would have equalled 700,000, whereas in 2018, half of legal 
practitioners  was  approximately  800,000.These  calculations  are  based  on  the  data  of  the  CEPEJ 
Reports regarding the number of legal practitioners in the EU Member States. 

76   2018 Annual Report on European Judicial Training 2018, p.5. 

20 

 
                                                 
stakeholders  affected,  rather  than  through  a  statistical  sampling  strategy,  and  are  also 
self-selected, by accepting or declining invitations to participate. 

A geographical imbalance was found among the respondents to the public consultation: 
30%  were  from  Germany,  20%  from  Italy  and  9%  from  Spain77.  In  the  targeted 
consultation,  respondents  were  more  evenly  distributed  among  Member  States  (19% 
from Spain, but 7-9% from Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland and Italy). 

The data collection exercise did not allow the evaluators to obtain all the data that they 
were seeking. Regarding the direct costs incurred at Member State level, the stakeholders 
consulted by the external  contractor were unable to  estimate the real  specific costs  that 
related  to  the  strategy,  though  they  indicated  that  these  were  not  significant.  The  data 
collection  did  not  enable  the  evaluators  to  get  an  overview  of  the  judicial  training 
activities organised at national level. 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The analysis was conducted against the following evaluation criteria: 

  Effectiveness: the extent to which the objectives of the European judicial training 

strategy have been successfully reached (or even exceeded); 

  Efficiency: whether the costs and benefits associated with the implementation of 
the  European  judicial  training  strategy  are  proportionate,  and  how  is  the 
distribution of these costs and benefits across stakeholders affected; 

  Relevance:  the  extent  to  which  the  European  judicial  training  strategy  still 
addresses  current  training  needs  and  the  problems  faced  by  the  justice 
professions; 

  Coherence:  the  extent  to  which  the  elements  of  the  European  judicial  training 
strategy  have  worked  well  together  between  themselves  and  with  other  EU 
policies and interventions; 

  EU  added  value:  the  added  value  delivered  by  the  European  judicial  training 
strategy and its implementation over and above what could reasonably have been 
expected  from  national  interventions  in  the  Member  States;  what  would  be  the 
most likely consequence of discontinuing the European judicial training strategy; 
  Sustainability:  the  extent  to  which  implementation  of  the  strategy  has  a  lasting 

effect on the direct beneficiaries and other main stakeholders. 

The evaluation questions are described in full detail in Annex 3. 

77  German  legal  practitioners  accounted  for  16%  of  all  EU  legal  practitioners  and  German  judges 
accounted  for  23%  of  all  EU  judges  in  2016.  Italian  legal  practitioners  accounted  for  17%  of  all  EU 
legal  practitioners  and  Italian  judges  accounted  for  8%  of  all  EU  judges  in  2016.  Spanish  legal 
practitioners accounted for 12% of all EU legal practitioners and Spanish judges  accounted for 6% of 
all EU judges in 2016. 

21 

 
 
                                                 
5.1.Effectiveness 

The assessment of effectiveness examines how far the strategy has succeeded in meeting 
its general and specific objectives, in particular as these were made operational through 
operational indicators and quantified targets. The durability of the impacts, in particular 
how  they  meet  the  policy  objectives,  is  addressed  separately  under  the  sustainability 
criterion. 

5.1.1 Achieving the operational objectives 

The  strategy’s  operational  objectives,  as  described  in  the  intervention  logic,  were 
achieved  to a  good extent. Nevertheless,  some  were met  more  effectively  than others. 
Figure 3 below presents how far each operational objective was achieved. 

Figure 3 — assessment of operational objectives against baseline 

=

OO1: Increase the number of judicial training activities,
including judicial exchanges

OO2: Increase the number of overall / co-funded

beneficiaries of training sessions and exchanges, incl.…

OO3: Channel more financial support to judicial
training

OO4: Improve the reach of training activities by
targeting all groups of legal practitioners and…

OO5: Improve national training programmes and
regulations, e.g. by integrating EU law into national…

OO6: Improve the capacity of training providers, e.g. by

strengthening the EJTN as well as encouraging…

OO7: Improve the quality of training on EU law, e.g. by
developing the European e-Justice Portal as support,…

OO8: Support training on legal terminology of foreign
languages

Not at all

Achieved to a limited extent

To some extent

To a good extent

To a great extent

This figure summarises the findings of Section 5.1 on the strategy’s effectiveness. 

The  quantified  target  of  training  half  of  all  EU  legal  practitioners  on  EU  law 
between 2011 and 2020 was in itself a political vector of change and was achieved 2 
years  ahead  of  time.  Between  2011  and  2017,  the  annual  target  of  5%  of  trained 
practitioners  per  profession  was  met  for  almost  all  targeted  categories  of  justice 
practitioners.  The  quantified  objective  of  1,200  judicial  exchanges  per  year  was 
surpassed  and the number of training activities constantly increased.  The strategy 
led  to the near doubling  of  the EU funds available to train legal practitioners  and 
greatly improved the capacity of networks such as the European Judicial Training 
Network (EJTN) and of training providers such as the Academy of European Law 
(ERA) and the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA-Luxembourg). 

22 

 
 
Other  operational  objectives  were  achieved  to  a  certain  extent.  These  were:  (i) 
improving  the  national  regulatory  frameworks;  (ii)  improving  the  training  section 
of the European e-Justice  Portal; and  (iii)  increasing support  for training on legal 
terminology in foreign languages. However, the training of lawyers and court staff 
on EU law will need to be improved. 

The  strategy’s  effectiveness  could  be  improved  by:  (i)  enhancing  the  potential  of 
e-learning;  (ii)  increasing  awareness  of  the  European  e-Justice  Portal;  and  (iii) 
making it easier to access EU funding opportunities through further simplification 
of procedures. 

Overall, the strategy helped increase knowledge of EU law while reinforcing mutual 
trust between legal practitioners. 

a)  The strategy’s contribution to having more judicial training activities on EU 

law, including judicial exchanges 

Within 5 years of the strategy’s adoption, the number of judicial training activities more 
than doubled. 

As shown in the Commission’s annual monitoring reports (2011-201778), the number of 
continuous training activities has grown steadily since 2011. 

Figure 4: Number of continuous training activities (2011-2017) 

Source: Deloitte, based on European Commission data79 

The  Expert  Group  on  European  judicial  training80  considered  that  the  incentive  created 
by the 2011 Communication on ‘Building trust in EU-wide justice’ was in itself one of 
the keys to this success. The Communication sent a political message of commitment to 
European  judicial  training,  set  specific  and  measurable  objectives  on  the  training  of 

78  The 

annual 

monitoring 

reports 

are 

available 

at: 

https://e-

justice.europa.eu/content_the_european_judicial_training_policy-121-en.do. 

79  Annual monitoring data used in the drafting of reports. 
80  Minutes 

held 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupMeetingDoc&docid=10448. 

of  Expert  Group  meeting 

18  December 

available 

2019 

on 

here 

23 

 
 
                                                 
justice  professionals  to  be  reached  by  2020  and  launched  a  system  for  reporting  and 
measuring results. 

Progress  towards  the  strategy’s  objectives  also  stemmed  from  the  gradual  increase  in 
funding for EU judicial training activities and the greater awareness of the need for and 
importance  of  training  on  EU  law.  This  finding  was  confirmed  by  the  public 
consultation.  The  Commission’s  improved  data  collection  method  played  a  role  in 
tracking this success. 

On  cross-border  exchanges,  91%  of  respondents  to  the  targeted  consultation  regarded 
the strategy as successful in increasing the number of participants in exchanges for new 
judges  and  prosecutors.  The  2011  European  judicial  training  strategy’s  objective  of 
reaching  1,200  yearly  exchanges  in  courts  was  already  achieved  a  year  after  the 
strategy’s adoption, and has more than doubled since then, as shown in the picture below. 
Since the target of 1,200 was already reached in 2012, this objective seems to have been 
set  too  low  in  2011,  even  when  looking  only  at  exchanges  for  experienced  judges  and 
prosecutors  (i.e.  not  including  the  Aïakos  programme).  Since  the  EJTN  organised  only 
2,175 exchanges for judges and prosecutors between 2005 and 2010, the 2011 objective 
seemed  ambitious  at  the  time.  However,  additional  funding  enabled  the  numbers  of 
exchanges to grow very rapidly. 

Figure 5: Number and types of exchanges organised by the EJTN (2011-2017) 

Source: Deloitte based on EJTN data 

As shown in the graph above, the total number of exchanges for judges and prosecutors 
has increased tremendously since 2011. 

24 

 
 
The  EJTN  organises  exchanges  in  the  form  of  short-term  exchanges,  long-term 
exchanges and study visits for experienced judges and prosecutors, and exchanges under 
the AÏAKOS programme for future or newly appointed European judiciary. 

The  success  of  the  AÏAKOS  programme  shows  the  relevance  of  such  a  programme.  It 
contributes  to  the  participants  sharing  the  same  values  and  sense  of  belonging  to  the 
European  area  of  justice  right  at  the  beginning  of  their  careers.  The  figures  show 
substantial  progress  towards  the  objective  that  all  newly  appointed  judges  and 
prosecutors (about 2,500 per year) should take part in an exchange organised in national 
judicial  training  institutions.  However,  this  goal  has  been  recognised  as  not  entirely 
achievable  due  to  different  factors,  stakeholders  agreeing  that  it  should  remain  the 
ultimate goal. 

This  positive  development  can  be  attributed  particularly  to  the  strategy,  since  the 
exchange programmes were funded under the Justice Programme, notably the operating 
grant allocated to the EJTN, which had the  exchange programme as a flagship activity. 
The  important  EU  financial  support  in  combination  with  the  increased  commitment  of 
EJTN  Members  and  EJTN’s  improved  efficiency  made  this  programme  a  remarkable 
success. 

b)  Contribution  of  the  strategy  to  increasing  the  overall/co-funded  number  of 
beneficiaries of training sessions and exchanges, including via e-learning 

The strategy’s objective to increase the number of beneficiaries of training activities on 
EU law in general, and more specifically to train up to half of all legal practitioners in the 
EU  by  2020,  was  already  reached  2  years  ahead  of  schedule  in  201781,  as  shown  in 
Table 1.  ‘Number  of  justice  professionals  per  professions  who  participated  in  training 
activities on EU law between 2011 and 2017’ above. This goal, considered too ambitious 
at the time, acted as a trigger and, together with the involvement of the stakeholders, led 
to this result. 

The  other  result  targeted  under  this  specific  objective,  to  have  by  2020  more 
than 20,000 legal  practitioners  per  year  trained  using  EU  financial  support,  was  also 
achieved. 

Overall, between 2011 and 2017, the yearly number of beneficiaries of training activities 
increased  by  137%.  In  2017,  over  180,00082  legal  practitioners  (judges,  prosecutors, 
court staff, lawyers, bailiffs and notaries) and their trainees took part in training activities 
on EU law or on the national law of another Member State. 

Increased use of e-learning played a role in this progress: over 67% of respondents to 
the  targeted  consultation  indicated  that  the  strategy  succeeded  to  some  extent  in 
promoting the development of e-learning. 

81  As mentioned in footnote 75, in 2018, half of legal practitioners is approximately 800,000. 
82  This figure is a lower estimate due to some gaps in the data as explained in Section 4. Method, p. 20. 

25 

 
                                                 
The EJTN developed an e-learning platform and offers regular webinars and podcasts on 
a range of topics83. 

In 2011, by renovating its e-learning platform, ERA provided seven introductory courses 
in a blended learning package and started developing an online course for the European 
Union  Intellectual  Property  Office.  ERA  e-learning  efforts  also  included  a  course  on 
competition law and one on the preliminary reference procedure, as well as a number of 
streamed presentations on various EU law topics. In 2017, ERA increased its provision 
of  e-learning  tools:  11  e-modules  were  offered  in  total,  covering  civil  and  commercial 
law, fundamental and human rights, as well as modern criminal law issues with a cross-
border perspective (i.e. trafficking in human beings). 

A good model of extensive use of e-learning is the e-learning platform developed by the 
Council of Europe (CoE) through the HELP Programme84. Distance-learning courses on 
the  different  articles  and  themes  of  the  EU  /  CoE  fundamental  rights  standards  are 
available  for  selected  groups  of  legal  professionals  participating  in  pilot  courses 
moderated  by  certified  national  tutors.  Self-learning  resources are  available  to  any  user 
who has an account on the platform85. 

c)  Channel more EU financial support to judicial training 

More  than  83%  of  respondents  to  the  targeted  consultation  regarded  the  strategy  as 
successful  in  achieving  the  objective  that  the  European  Commission  increases  its 
financial support to European judicial training. The Expert Group praised the role played 
by  increased  EU  financing  in  achieving  the  strategy’s  objectives,  which  enabled  the 
organisation of transnational training activities that would not have taken place otherwise 
for  lack  of  national  budget  for  such  activities.  EU  co-funded  projects  also  triggered  in 
some instances the organisation of additional national seminars on similar topics86. The 
success was even more tangible where stakeholders were directly involved, for example 
by receiving operating grants (such as the EJTN) or by responding to calls for proposals 
(such as the Council of the Notaries of the European  Union – CNUE or the Council of 
Europe). 

In the strategy, the European Commission aimed to make the best possible use of the EU 
funding  programmes  already  existing  in  2011  and  highlighted  judicial  training  as  a 
priority under the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework. The table below shows 

83   https://learning.ejtn.eu/login/index.php 
84   The Council of Europe acts in the field of European judicial training through its programme on Human 

rights Education for Legal Professionals (HELP). 

85   http://help.elearning.ext.coe.int/ 
86  Minutes 
of 

Expert 

Group 

held 

on 

18 December 

2019, 

page 

3: 

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupMeetingDoc&docid=10448. 

26 

 
                                                 
Rights, 
Equality 
and 
Citizenship 
programme 
1.9 
1.8 
8.1 
4.0 
4.5 
3.5 
2.1 
25.9 

the  evolution  of  EU  funding  for  judicial  training  activities,  by  financial  programmes, 
from 2011 to 201787. 

Table 2. Share of the different EU funding programmes 
dedicated to European judicial training (2011-2017, in million euro) 

Funding  per 
year, 
in 
million euro 

and 

(Civil 
criminal) 
Justice 
programme 

Hercule  III 
programme 

LIFE 
programme 

Total 

Erasmus  +  / 
Jean 
Monnet 
programme 

2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
Total 

9.9 
10.3 
11.1 
15.3 
17.9 
21.6 
22.1 
108.2 

0.2 
0.2 
0.2 
0.3 
0.3 
0.3 
0.3 
1.7 
Source: Commission data and annual reports of the financial programmes. 

1.8 
2.6 
2.6 
2.7 
2.7 
2.7 
2.7 
17.8 

0.7 
0.3 
1.7 
0.6 
0.3 
0.8 
0.1 
4.5 

14.5 
15.2 
23.7 
22.8 
25.7 
28.9 
27.3 
158.1 

The strategy has led to the near doubling of total funds available annually to train legal 
practitioners  through  EU  programmes:  from  €14.5  million  in  2011  to  €27.3 million 
in 2017.  The  strategy  also  led  to  some  increased  visibility  of  these  training  needs.  The 
percentage increases of the share of these individual programmes dedicated to European 
judicial  training  between  2011  and  2017  are  as  follows:  Justice  programme:  +123%; 
REC:  +11%;  Erasmus+  (Jean  Monnet88):  +52%;  Hercule  III:  -78%;  LIFE  Programme: 
+19%. 

Similar increases are visible in the funding received by EU-level training providers. The 
highest increase in the contribution was provided to the EJTN as a direct consequence of 
its  increasing  responsibilities  under  the  strategy.  As  noted  in  the  previous  sections,  the 
EJTN  plays  a  central  role  in  implementing  the  strategy,  including  by  coordinating  the 
activities  of  its  judicial  training  school  members,  facilitating  the  sharing  of  good 
practices,  and  organising  seminars  and  exchanges  for  judges  and  prosecutors.  In  2011, 
the  Commission  contributed  around  €5.5  million  to  the  EJTN.  The  contribution  nearly 
doubled  over  this  period,  with  the  contribution  reaching  €9.5  million  in  201789.  The 
EJTN received the most significant contributions through EU operating grants, and some 
small financial support from Member States. 

87  The  European  Social  Fund  (ESF)  is  not  included  in  the  overview  table.  This  is  because  the  exact 
amounts dedicated only to training of justice professionals on EU law under the ESF are not reported to 
the Directorate-General for Employment in the national reports. 

88   The share of the Jean Monnet programme’s contribution to judicial training activities is essentially the 

operating grant to the Academy of European Law (ERA). 

89   Refer to  
Table 7. EJTN funding and activities (2011-2017), Annex 5, p. 96. 

27 

 
                                                 
The strategy’s contribution to increased funding is also visible for EIPA and ERA, both 
mentioned in  the strategy.  The EU funding received by  EIPA increased by almost 85% 
from  2011  to  2017  (from  €320,000  to  €590,000)90,  while  Member  State  funding 
increased  by  around  35%  (from  €365,000  to  €500,000).  For  ERA,  the  EU  contribution 
increased from ca €4.5 million in 2011 to just over €5 million in 2017, a rise of 10%91. 

d)  Reach of training activities 

Targeting all groups of legal practitioners 

The strategy reached overall its annual objective to train 5% of judges and prosecutors. 
60%  of  respondents  to  the  targeted  consultation  agreed  that  the  strategy  succeeded  to 
some extent in reaching all target groups, while 25% found that it succeeded in this to a 
large extent and 20% to a very large extent. 

The situation certainly improved with the introduction of the strategy. However, the data 
and  interviews  with  stakeholders  in  the  participating  countries  indicated  that  legal 
practitioners were not all to the same extent targeted or benefiting from training on EU 
law. In particular, judges and prosecutors have benefited the most from judicial training 
activities on EU law (with an average of 40% of judges and 25% of prosecutors trained 
each year). 

Other  professions  did  not  benefit  from  EU  training  activities  as  much  as  judges  and 
prosecutors. Court staff were the least reached by EU training activities. Since 2011, the 
proportion of court staff taking part in training activities on EU law has varied between 
0.9%  and  2.4%.  In  contrast,  judges’  participation  ranges  from  25%  to  42%  (see  the 
following chart). However, as explained under the relevance criterion, this must be seen 
in the context of differences in terms of relevance of EU law for these other professions. 

An example of progress on reaching as many justice professionals as possible is provided 
by  the  efforts  to  make  training  accessible  to  people  with  disabilities.  ERA  training 
courses and some online training provided via the European e-Justice Portal were made 
accessible  to  people  with  disabilities.  ERA  also  provides  special  accommodation  to 
participants with disabilities92. 

90   This figure includes different types of EU funding, i.e. project grants and commissioned projects. 
91   This figure includes different types of EU funding, i.e. the operating grant under Jean Monnet (2011: 
€2,488,811;  2017:  €2,722,776),  project  grants  (for  co-funded  activities)  amounting  to  €816,409  in 
2017, and commissioned projects in the value of €1,577,386 in 2017. 

92  International  human  rights  instruments  like  the  UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with 

Disabilities are also included as topics of human rights seminars. 

28 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 6: Proportion and evolution of legal practitioners trained (2011-2017) 

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

5% 

J 

P 

N 

B 
T 
L 
C
M 

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Judges (J)
Court staff (CS)
Bailiffs, judicial officers (B)
Mediators (M)

Prosecutors (P)
Private practice lawyers, solicitors, barristers (L)
Notaries (N)
Total (T)

Red line: 5 % = minimum needed per year to reach the 2020 target of training half of the legal practitioners on EU law. 
Source: Deloitte aggregation based on European Commission’s data 

Geographical coverage of the strategy 

While  the  EU  funds  supporting  the  implementation  of  the  strategy  were  equally 
accessible to all EU Member States93, there are still substantial differences between them 
in  terms  of  the  number  and  percentage  of  legal  practitioners  trained,  as  shown  in 
Section 3. 

When looking at how the strategy was implemented in the Member States, three clusters 
of countries can be identified94. 

The first cluster comprises Member States where concrete action was taken to ensure that 
the national strategy was aligned with the strategy (either top-down as an initiative from 
the  government  or  as  a  bottom-up  initiative  by  stakeholders  active  in  the  field). 
According to the stakeholder interviews, concrete actions were taken in Belgium, France 
and Germany, as set out below. 

  Belgium:  Mandatory  participation  in  the  Aiakos95  exchange  programme  by  the 

EJTN for newly appointed magistrates; 

93  Exception: Denmark and the United Kingdom were not eligible under the Justice programme. 
94  Information  is  not  available  on  the  situation  in  all  Member  States.  The  information  that  has  been 

received for specific Member States is quoted. 

95  The AIAKOS Programme is an exchange programme which aims at bringing together future or newly 
appointed  judges  from  different  EU  Member  States,  fostering  mutual  understanding  of  different 
European  judicial  cultures  and  systems  and  raising  their  awareness  about  the  European  dimension  of 

29 

 
 
                                                 
 
  France:  Since  2014,  the  French  National  School  for  the  Judiciary  includes 

EU-related content in all the training it offers to French legal practitioners; 

  Germany: German stakeholders reported that two dedicated full-time equivalents 
were  put  in  charge  of  implementing  the  strategy  at  federal  level.  Their  tasks 
include overall coordination of how to implement the strategy in the Ministry of 
Justice, and the administration of EJTN courses, e.g. participant registration.  

A second cluster of Member States are those which have carried out activities that have 
benefited the strategy’s implementation, but where it is not clear to what extent they were 
taken  for  that  specific  purpose.  This  group  of  countries  includes  the  Netherlands  and 
Sweden.  Examples  of  activities  include:  (i)  annual  training  events;  (ii)  conferences  to 
exchange  information  on  EU  law  or  provide  training  on  it;  and  (iii)  making  EU  law  a 
mandatory  part  of  training  for  legal  practitioners.  In  the  Netherlands,  the  Royal  Dutch 
Association  of  Civil  law  Notaries  organises  cross-border  seminars  on  EU  law  every  2 
years. Moreover, notaries have to attend 20 hours of permanent education each year. In 
Sweden, an annual day of EU law was introduced in 2014, including training on various 
topics targeted at judges. Although this activity certainly supports the strategy objectives, 
the specific reasons for introducing this format in 2014 were not clear to the stakeholders 
consulted. 

The  third  cluster  consists  of  Member  States  where  no  specific  action  was  taken. 
Examples of reasons include a low level of awareness of the strategy, or the perception 
that  EU  law  was  already  sufficiently  covered  by  national  training  activities,  as  in 
countries such as the UK and Ireland96. 

The strategy also succeeded in reaching out beyond the EU, to Western Balkan countries 
and also to a certain extent to neighbourhood countries. 

For  many  years  the  EJTN  has  granted  observer  status  to  judicial  academies  from  the 
Western Balkans97.  The participation of judges  and prosecutors from these countries  in 
EJTN activities is open, but generally not funded from the EJTN operating grant98. The 
Commission has constantly encouraged participation by these countries in EJTN training 
activities, especially on fundamental rights and the rule of law, and the implementation of 
EJTN best practice, methodologies and guidelines99. 

their (future) work. Depending on the host country, the AIAKOS Programme takes place in a judicial 
training institution or in courts/prosecution offices. 

96  Deloitte, final report, page 74. 
97   Except for Kosovo, which application for observership was rejected. 
98  With the exception of countries which have signed a memorandum of understanding for participating in 

the Justice programme, i.e. Albania and recently Montenegro. 

99   Beyond the temporal scope of this evaluation, one can note that, since 2018, the EJTN has cooperated 
more  closely  with  the  Western  Balkans  by  opening  up  its  programmes  to  magistrates  from  Albania, 
Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  North  Macedonia,  Montenegro,  Serbia  and  Kosovo  (this  designation  is 
without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on 
the Kosovo declaration of independence) under the EU multi-country programme (IPA 2017/039-402). 
The  2018-2019  rule  of  law  training  project  for  judges  and  prosecutors,  funded  by  the  EU  and 
implemented by the EJTN, was also opened up to judges and prosecutors from the Western Balkans. 

30 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
Neighbourhood  countries  also  received  EU  assistance  for  training  under  specific 
programmes, including TAIEX or EU/Council of Europe partnership projects. This was 
the  case  for  Algeria,  Armenia,  Azerbaijan,  Belarus,  Egypt,  Georgia,  Israel,  Jordan, 
Lebanon,  Libya,  Moldova,  Morocco,  Palestine100,  Tunisia  and  Ukraine.  For  example, a 
twinning  project  with  Georgia’s  ‘High  School  of  Justice’  specifically  focused  on 
improving the training of judges, court staff and candidates. A twinning project with the 
Supreme Court of Ukraine implemented with  the support of  Ukraine’s National  School 
of Judges provided significant training and mentoring for new Supreme Court judges in a 
variety of areas. The training was tailored to the needs of the new Supreme Court judges, 
some of which had never worked as judges before.  

Judicial  training  has  also  been  provided  as  part  of  regional  projects  such  as  EuroMed 
Police  and  EuroMed  Justice.  The  overall  objective  of  the  EuroMed  Justice  IV  project 
funded  by  the  European  Union  is  to  contribute  to  the  development  of  a  Euro-
Mediterranean  area  of  effective,  efficient  and  democratic  justice  system  respectful  and 
protective  of  human  rights  by  the  strengthening  of  the  rule  of  law  and  continuously 
progressing  towards  the  alignment  to  international  legal  frameworks,  principles  and 
standards.  This  project  of  regional  scope  is  addressed  to  the  European  Neighbourhood 
South Partner Countries101. 

According to the recent European Commission report on EU support for the rule of law 
in  neighbourhood  countries102,  candidate  countries  and  potential  candidate  countries 
covering  the  period  2010-2017,  EU  support  for  capacity  building  in  those  countries’ 
institutions has included all justice sector professions. The support chiefly took the form 
of  training,  study  visits,  workshops  and  networking,  and  included  national  training 
schools for justice professionals,  prison  staff, court  administrators and bar associations. 
The  most  successful  capacity  building  action  resulted  from  the  regional  ‘Horizontal 
Facility’ and  ‘EuroMed projects. However, the training of judges and prosecutors often 
remains weak in institutions that, despite generous donor support, do not apply up-to-date 
pedagogic  approaches  and  judicial  training  institutions  sometimes  receive  support  from 
multiple donors as a result of poor coordination and complementarity. 

Improve national training programmes and regulations 

At  least  two  aspects  were  considered  under  this  objective:  integrating  EU  law  into 
national  initial  training  schemes  and  ensuring  mutual  recognition  of  training  attended 
abroad. 

The  objective  of  integrating  EU  law  into  national  initial  training  schemes  was 
considered achieved by 70% of the respondents to the targeted consultation. 

100  This designation shall not be construed as recognition of a State of Palestine and is without prejudice to 

the individual positions of the Member States on this issue. 

101  Under the European Neighbourhood Instrument South Partner Countries (ENI SPCs). 
102  Thematic Evaluation of EU Support for Rule of Law in Neighbourhood Countries and Candidates and 
Potential Candidates of Enlargement (2010-2017) — Final Report — April 2019 — Particip GmbH. 

31 

 
                                                 
The interviews conducted during the external study also confirmed that EU law is part of 
the  initial  training  for  judges  and  prosecutors,  either  taught  as  a  separate  subject  or 
included in others, with a few exceptions (e.g. Denmark). 

Results from the survey conducted in 2010  as part of the European Parliament Study103 
indicate  that  this  was  not  the  case  before  the  strategy’s  inception:  64%  of  judges  and 
prosecutors responding to the 2010 survey had not received training on EU law in their 
initial training. 

The  objective  of  ensuring  that  training  activities  are  recognised  in  other  Member 
States has also been to a large extent achieved, with some caveats. Approximately 69% 
of  respondents  to  the  targeted  consultation  found  that  the  strategy  had  succeeded  in 
creating  a  context  in  which  training  activities  attended  abroad  are  recognised  under  a 
person’s national training obligations. 

Firstly,  on  training  for  judges  and  prosecutors,  there  are  no  significant  difficulties  with 
the  recognition  of  training  activities  attended  in  another  Member  State.  This  was 
underlined by the EJTN’s Secretary General during the Expert Group meetings. 

For lawyers, the situation has certainly improved since the strategy’s launch, but there is 
still room for progress. While mutual recognition of training activities in another Member 
State is possible in all Member States, automatic recognition is not104. In some Member 
States  (e.g.  in  Belgium,  Estonia,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Sweden,  and  in  England  and 
Wales105), the bar association or equivalent of the practitioner who attended the training 
activity  abroad  would  have  to  assess  whether  the  training  satisfies  their  own  national 
criteria as an appropriate activity106. 

In  this  respect,  the  Council  of  Bars  and  Law  Societies  of  Europe  (CCBE)  has  been 
working with its members on the automatic mutual recognition of lawyers’ cross-border 
continuing  professional  development.  As  a  result,  a  memorandum  of  understanding107 
was published in 2016 as a commitment to allow greater flexibility to lawyers as far as 
continuous training is concerned.  

103  European Parliament (2011), Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Judicial training in the European 

Union Member States, available at: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/453198/IPOL-
JURI_ET(2011)453198_EN.pdf. 

104  See country factsheets of pilot project on: Training lawyers in EU law (2013-2014), available: https://e-

justice.europa.eu/fileDownload.do?id=de3f4ead-4ac8-4a43-bafe-ddfd141a49f7. 

105  Ibid. 
106  For  example,  some  Member  States  have  points  systems  whereby  practitioners  have  to  earn  a  certain 

number of points through training activities each year to retain their licence to practise. 

107  CCBE, Memorandum on Mutual Recognition of Lawyers’ Cross-Border Continuing Professional 

Development, 16/09/2016, available: 
https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/TRAINING/TR_Position_pap
ers/EN_TR_20170224__Memorandum_on_Mutual_Recognition_of_Lawyers_Cross_Border_Continui
ng_Professional_Development.pdf. 

32 

 
                                                 
In addition, under the 2017 call for proposals for European judicial training action grants, 
the  European  Commission awarded  the  REFOTRA  project  to  the  European  Lawyers 
Foundation  (ELF)  and  the  Council  of  Bars  and  Law  Societies  of  Europe  (CCBE).  In 
accordance with the principle of mutual trust, the project proposed concrete steps to put 
in  place  a  system  to  enable  a  Member  State’s  Bar  (or  other  appropriate  regulatory 
authority) to automatically recognise training under its own  mandatory continuing legal 
education scheme when one of its lawyers would undertake a course of continuing legal 
education  in  another  EU  Member  State.  The  project  also  proposed  to  test  a  concrete 
system, based on the issue of a certificate template by the training provider, to facilitate 
the recognition of the training undertaken. The certificate would contain  comprehensive 
information  for  the  bars,  in  accordance  with  their  own  needs  for  the  recognition  of  the 
training. 

e)  Contribution of the strategy to improved capacity among training providers 

Overall,  the  strategy  has  improved  the  capacity  of  judicial  training  providers.  This 
objective  was  mainly  achieved  through  EU  financial  support.  Respondents  to  the  2018 
targeted consultation  largely  confirmed that the Commission  had  increased its financial 
contribution  to  judicial  training:  47%  considered  that  it  had  done  so  to  a  very  large 
extent, 27% to a large extent and 13% to some extent. 

Strengthening the EJTN 

The replies108 to the targeted consultation indicate as factors of success in achieving the 
strategy’s  objectives:  increased  EU  financial  support  to  the  EJTN  and  reinforced 
financial contribution from the Member States to their national judicial training set-ups. 

Between  2011  and  2017,  the  EJTN  received  up  to  96%  of  its  budget  from  the  Justice 
programme.  According  to  the  respondents  to  the  targeted  consultation  and  to  the 
interviews with EJTN representatives, the financing conditions for the EJTN (e.g. early 
pre-payment and continually rising rate of co-funding) were also a factor in its success. 

Data  from  the  European  Commission  annual  work  programmes  for  the  Justice 
programme  and  its  predecessors  show  that  the  financial  contribution  to  the  EJTN  has 
been  increasing  over  the  years,  from  €5.5  million  in  2011  to  €9.5  million  in  the  2016 
annual  work  programme  (2017  operating  grant).  This  corresponds  to  a  9.6%  yearly 
increase  on  average  between  2011  and  2017.  The  rate  of  activity  increased  even  more, 
with  an  average  yearly  increase  of  15.5 %  in  the  number  of  participants  (catalogue 
included), from 2,671 to 6,317, and an average yearly increase of 19.85% in the number 
of training days offered, from 10,686 to 30,612109. 

108  More than 85% of respondents, with which the EJTN agreed to a large extent. 
109  Refer to  
Table 7. EJTN funding and activities (2011-2017), Annex 5, p. 96. 

33 

 
 
 
                                                 
Improved capacity of ERA 

The Academy of European  Law (ERA), the main EU-level  training provider,  increased 
its  capacity  to  deliver  high-quality  training.  ERA  acknowledged  the  strategy’s 
contribution to this success during the Expert Group meetings. In 2011, ERA organised 
137 training events of various kinds for 2,469 justice professionals110. In 2017, the total 
number  of 
to  158  (+15.3%) 
for 2,894 justice professionals (+17.2%)111. 

training  activities  organised  by  ERA 

increased 

Encouraging consortia and public private partnerships (PPPs) 

When asked whether the strategy succeeded in encouraging consortia or regional groups 
of national judicial schools to develop common training courses, the result of the targeted 
consultation was less positive, but positive nonetheless (37% of respondents agreed to a 
very  large  extent,  18%  to  a  large  extent  and  22%  to  some  extent).  In  addition,  some 
interviewees from judicial and bar associations mentioned that they sometimes found it 
difficult to find relevant partners or would have liked to have been involved in a project 
after seeing its results.  Overall,  however, it  appears that  the  strategy  has  contributed to 
increasing  the  number  of  consortia,  thanks  to  the  increase  in  the  number  of  funded 
projects involving partners from several Member States. 

The strategy did not succeed in developing PPPs, which were assessed as not relevant for 
judicial training by the Expert Group on European judicial training. 

f)  Contribution of the strategy to an improved quality of training on EU law 

Since the quality of the training delivered is important both to attract participants and to 
ensure the impact of the training, several aspects of quality are addressed in the strategy:  

funding high-quality European judicial training projects;  

 
  development  of  the  European  e-Justice  Portal’s  training  section  to  ensure 

availability of high-quality training material;  

  drafting practical guidelines on the best adapted judicial training methodologies, 
including evaluation of quality and impact and the use of common quality criteria 
and indicators. 

A general question on quality was asked in the 2018 targeted survey: ‘Has the European 
judicial training strategy been successful in improving the quality of training activities on 
EU law?’ The overall response was positive, with about 80% of respondents responding 
positively, i.e. 32% agreed to some extent, 27% to a large extent and 27% to a very large 
extent. 

110  ERA’s 2011 Annual Report, p. 9. 
111  ERA’s 2017 Annual Report, p. 23. 

34 

 
 
 
                                                 
Funding high-quality projects 

The most important award criteria under the Justice and Rights and Equality programmes 
for  evaluating  applications  for  action  grants  is  the  quality  of  the  proposed  action, 
accounting for 30 points out of 100. 

To  foster  high-quality  projects,  the  Commission  also  publishes  its  calls  for  proposals 
with advice to potential beneficiaries of these funds. Examples of such guidance include: 
Advice for training providers (issued by the Commission112), the Handbook on Judicial 
Training  Methodology  in  Europe  (by  the  EJTN113),  the  Guidebook  on  human  rights 
training  methodology  for  legal  professionals  (by  the  Council  of  Europe  through  the 
HELP programme114) and the ‘good practice’ factsheets115 on the training section of the 
European  e-Justice  Portal.  The  Commission  also  provides  more  specific  guidance  to 
grant beneficiaries during information sessions, after agreements have been signed. This 
includes  tips  on  the  planning  of  training  activities,  method  and  content,  and  follow-up 
(i.e. evaluation, dissemination of training material). 

The European e-Justice Portal materials 

The  Commission’s  European  e-Justice  Portal  contains  materials  on  judicial  training 
produced by the Commission and documents produced by  training providers at EU and 
international  level  such  as  ERA,  the  EJTN  and  the  UN.  Nevertheless,  according  to  the 
external  evaluation  study,  the  information  in  the  Portal  is  perceived  as  useful  only  to 
some extent, as discussed below. 

While  nearly  half  of  the  targeted  consultation  respondents  (47%)  found  the  European 
e-Justice Portal useful or very useful in supporting the strategy (against only 17% finding 
it useless or not very useful for this), about a third ‘did not know’. This indicates a lack 
of  awareness  of  the  Portal  or  its  contents,  or  an  inability  to  judge  whether  it  provided 
useful  information  to  the  main  stakeholders  targeted  and/or  towards  the  strategy 
objectives.  In  response  to  a  separate  question  in  the  targeted  survey,  more  than  half  of 
respondents  (54%)  answered  that  the  training  section  of  the  European  e-Justice  Portal 
should be further developed (against only some 1% indicating the opposite), while 45% 
stated  that  they  ‘did  not  know’.  This  majority  view  shows,  however,  that  the  training 
section  of  the  Portal  is  seen  as  an  appropriate  tool  to  disseminate  training  content 
contributing to the strategy’s objectives, and that it should be developed further. 

112  https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_training_%20material-252-en.do 
113  http://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/EJTN_JTM_Handbook_2016.pdf 
114  https://rm.coe.int/help-guidebook-on-human-rights-taining-methodology-for-legal-

professio/1680734cac 

115  https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_good_training_practices-311-en.do 

35 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 7: Usefulness of the European e-Justice Portal in supporting the strategy 
(according to respondents to the targeted consultation) 

Source: 2018 Targeted consultation of the European Commission 

Drafting practical guidelines on training methodologies 

Between  2013  and  2014,  the  Commission  ran  a  pilot  project  on  the  sharing  of  best 
practice in training judges and prosecutors. The pilot, which was developed by the EJTN, 
compiled  relevant  and  useful  material  on  best  practices  in  a  wide  range  of  topics 
including  training  needs  assessment,  innovative  training  methodology,  innovative 
curricula or training plans, training tools to foster the correct application of EU law and 
international  judicial  cooperation,  assessment  of  participants’  performance  in  training 
and of the effect of training activities116. 

The  external  study  supporting  this  evaluation117  shows  that  the  material  appears  up  to 
date  and  is  of  high  quality  in  terms  of  the  different  practices  that  are  encouraged.  A 
workshop  was  held  in  June  2014  to  discuss  the  good  practices  under  the  pilot  project, 
which was welcomed by the judicial training community. This indicates that the project 
itself was a positive initiative and had a positive impact. 

In 2015, the Commission worked with the Expert Group on European judicial training to 
compile the recommendations stemming from the latest reports and studies on the topic 
and  published  the  ‘Advice  for  training  providers’118.  This  document  is  a  reference  in 
terms  of  recommended  training  methodologies  for  judicial  training  activities  and  was 
translated in the languages of all EU Member States and candidate countries. 

In  2016,  the  EJTN  adopted  "Nine  principles  of  judicial  training"119.  The  principles 
establish  key  statements  relating  to  the  nature  of  judicial  training,  the  importance  of 

116  https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_good_training_practices-311-en.do 
117  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/cross-border-cases/training-legal-practitioners-and-training-practices_en 
118  https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_training_material-252-en.do 
119  http://www.ejtn.eu/News/Principles/ 

36 

 
 
                                                 
initial training, the right to regular continuous training and the integral nature of training 
in daily work. The principles also address the dominion of national training institutions 
regarding  the  content  and  delivery  of  training,  clarify  who  should  deliver  training  and 
stress the need for modern training techniques as well as express the need for funding and 
support commitments from authorities. 

g)  The strategy’s support to training on legal terminology in foreign languages 

The targeted consultation indicates that a large majority of stakeholders (85%) agree that 
the  strategy  has  succeeded  in  supporting  training  on  legal  terminology  in  foreign 
languages.  Despite  this  positive  result,  76%  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation 
considered  that  a  lack  of  language  skills  was  still  a  barrier  to  working  with  peers  of 
another Member State. 20% agreed to some extent, 23% to a large extent and 33% to a 
great extent. 

To  cater  for  the  need  to  tackle  legal  practitioners’  legal  language  training  needs,  the 
Commission  adapted  its  financial  support  via  action  grants  under  the  Civil  Justice  and 
Criminal  Justice  programmes  by  inserting  a  priority  on  legal  linguistic  training.  In 
addition, the calls for proposals under the current Justice programme require projects to 
‘also aim at encouraging practitioners to follow training in a foreign language, either by 
providing simultaneous high-quality interpretation into their native language or by easing 
the  participation  with  foreign  language  training’120.  The  legal  language  priority  was 
further  boosted  from  2017  by  adding  a  priority  on  ‘seminars  with  easy  linguistic 
access’121. 

Training providers built on this opportunity. For example, the EJTN created a linguistic 
sub-group  offering  seminars  with  a  strong  legal  terminology  component  and  provided 
courses  on  legal  terminology  in  different  legal  areas,  such  as  human  rights122  and 
competition  law123.  The  EJTN  also  produced  linguistic  handbooks  on  several  topics: 
human  rights124,  cybercrime125,  competition  law126,  judicial  cooperation  in  civil 
matters127  and  criminal  matters128.  ERA  offered  similar  types  of  seminars,  developed 

120  Justice  programme,  Call  for  proposals,  2015  and  2016.  The  following  examples  are  given:  ‘an 
introduction to the relevant legal terminology of the topics covered prior to or at the beginning of the 
training  activity,  or  a  linguistic  warm-up  by  actively  involving  participants  at  the  beginning  of  the 
training activity, etc.’ 

121  European Commission, Justice programme, Call for proposals for action grants in the field of European 

judicial training, 2017. 

122  EJTN  Linguistic  Seminar:  Language  training  on  the  vocabulary  of  Human  Rights’  EU  law,  2-6 July 

2018, 
http://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/Linguistics/2018 %20AGENDAS/Agenda%20EN%20LI%202018 %20
06.pdf. 

123  EJTN  Linguistic  Seminar:  Language  training  on  the  vocabulary  of  Competition  Law,  6-9 July  2016, 
http://www.ja-sr.sk/files/Agenda%20English%20Groups%20LI%202016 %2005 %20Omsenie.pdf. 

124  EJTN Handbook on English for Human Rights EU Law: 

http://www.ejtn.eu/PageFiles/17310/HANDBOOK%20English%20for%20Human%20Rights%20EU%
20Law%20-%20EJTN.pdf 

125  http://www.ejtn.eu/PageFiles/17406/Handbook%20Linguistics%20Cybercrime.pdf 
126  http://www.ejtn.eu/PageFiles/17406/Handbook%20Linguistics%20Competition%20Law.pdf 
127  http://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/Resources/Handbook_Manuel_Linguistics_Civil.pdf 

37 

 
                                                 
handbooks  on  legal  terminology  for  civil  law  and  mediation129,  and  organised  regular 
regional  seminars  with  language  facilitation  through  interpretation  or  translation  of 
materials or the grouping of countries in a specific language group. 

Another  initiative  was  partly  funded  by  these  action  grants:  the  Council  of  Europe 
through the HELP Programme developed a wide range of training resources on the CoE / 
EU fundamental rights standards, available on-line, translated into the national languages 
of the beneficiary countries. 

5.1.2 Achievement of the specific objectives 

a)  Legal  practitioners’  knowledge  of  EU 

law,  EU  judicial  cooperation 

instruments and the laws of other Member States 

As  mentioned  in  section  3  ‘Implementation  /  state  of  play’,  stakeholders  believe  that 
legal  professionals’  knowledge  of  EU  law  has  increased  to  some  extent  in  all  Member 
States since the strategy’s inception; in some cases this increase is deemed substantial. In 
most  cases,  relevant  stakeholders  (i.e.  national  training  providers  and  the  legal 
practitioners themselves) saw an improvement in practitioners’ interest in and ability to 
master  EU  legislation  and  case-law,  although  in  some  Member  States  (e.g.  Germany, 
Spain, Slovenia) doubts were expressed as to how far this was due to activities promoted 
under  the  strategy.  Around  61%  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  replied  that 
they have knowledge of EU law to some extent (32.7%), to a large extent (20.3%) or to a 
very large extent (8%). 

b)  Legal practitioners’ mutual trust in cross-border judicial proceedings 

Overall, the level of mutual trust in the EU has increased since 2011, due in part to the 
increase in knowledge facilitated by the strategy. Legal practitioners tend to understand 
and have more trust in the decisions made by the authorities of other Member States once 
they  have  increased  their  knowledge  of  legal  practices  in  other  Member  States  and 
become better at applying EU law consistently. In addition, a better understanding of the 
forms  of  judicial  cooperation  in  the  EU  contributes  to  increasing  practitioners’  trust  in 
foreign judicial practice and decisions. 

In the public consultation, approximately 50% of respondents declared a neutral to very 
high level  of mutual  trust  in  civil  and criminal  cross-border judicial proceedings, while 
only  15%  of  respondents  declared  having  a  low  or  very  low  level  of  trust  in  other 
Member States’ civil and criminal judicial systems. 

128  EJTN Handbook on English for Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters: 

http://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/About%20EJTN/Linguistics%20Project/Handbook_Criminal_Penal_20
15_EN_FR.pdf 

129  www.era.int/linguistic_manual_civil_commercial_matters; 

www.era.int/linguistic_manual_family_matters; www.era.int/languagetool. 

38 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
The main factor which has contributed to the increased level of mutual trust, and which 
can  be  linked  to  the  strategy,  is  the  networking  and  the  sharing  of  experience  and  best 
practice. This is directly supported by the exchanges that take place through the EJTN or 
individual  funded  programmes.  In  the  public  consultation,  74.8%  of  respondents  found 
that cross-border exchanges were useful for their profession. A further 35.4% went on to 
indicate that cross-border exchanges should be made compulsory for all new judges and 
prosecutors,  and  an  additional  27.5%  also  agreed  that  it  should  be  made compulsory  if 
some conditions were met. This gives a total of 62.9%. 

c)  Quality of cross-border proceedings for citizens and businesses 

Unfortunately, no baseline was established for the quality of cross-border proceedings in 
the  EU,  and  there  is  no  entity  or  source  monitoring  the  quality  of  cross-border 
proceedings in any of the Member States. 

In the targeted consultation, when asked what they saw as the strategy’s benefits, almost 
one  third  of  respondents  identified  improved  quality  of  legal  decisions  as  the  main 
benefit.  In  this  case,  quality  has  three  aspects:  the  degree  of  knowledge  of  legal 
practitioners,  the  efficiency  of  their  work,  and  the  sustainability  of  their  decisions. 
Furthermore,  as  shown  by  Eurobarometer  data,  EU  citizens  have  been  increasing  their 
awareness and understanding of the EU as a whole, and the percentage of those tending 
to trust the EU has also increased over the last few years130. 

5.1.3 Achievement of the general objectives 

The strategy’s general objectives have been achieved overall. 

a)  Effective  implementation  of  EU  law,  including  correct  application  and 

uniform interpretation 

The strategy has contributed to enhancing the level of knowledge of EU law and the level 
of  mutual  trust  between  legal  practitioners.  The  enhanced  knowledge  of  EU  law, 
accompanied by increased mutual trust, enable legal practitioners to better implement EU 
law. 

b)  Access to justice and legal certainty for businesses and the public 

The  strategy  has  contributed  to  the  correct  application  of  EU  law,  and  thus  to  the 
enhanced quality of judicial proceedings, making access to justice easier. 

The  strategy  has  also  strengthened  legal  certainty.  It  has  supported  a  common 
understanding  and  interpretation  of  the  EU  legal  instruments,  facilitating  uniform 
implementation  of  the  EU  acquis  across  the  Member  States.  This  generates  greater 

130  Special Eurobarometer 461, Designing Europe’s future: Trust in institutions, globalisation, support for 

the euro, opinions about free trade and solidarity, pp. 18 and following. 

39 

 
                                                 
certainty  among  businesses  and  the  public  that  EU  law  will  be  applied  consistently 
regardless of the Member State. 

5.2.Efficiency 

The  assessment  of  the  efficiency  criterion  considers  the  relationship  between  the 
resources used by an intervention and its achievements and related benefits. 

Overall, the strategy brought about clear improvements in judicial training on EU 
law, at a relatively reasonable cost. 

The costs incurred by the Commission were relatively low compared to the related 
workload and the limited resources. Room for improved governance was identified 
in reporting and monitoring. 

The  strategy  directly  contributed  to  the  increased  funding  available  to  judicial 
training. This resulted in key benefits such as the increase in the number of judicial 
training activities and participants reached at national and EU level. The costs were 
found overall proportionate and justified in view of the benefits. 

The main leveraging factor was building on the strengths of the existing networks. 

As  concerns  the  costs  of  the  strategy,  there  are  costs  that  are  a  direct  result  of  the 
strategy,  while  others  are  related  to  the  funding  programmes  that  support  it.  This  is 
explained in the following diagram: 

Figure 8: Components considered when assessing the strategy’s efficiency  

Source: Deloitte 

Analysis  of  these  two  categories  of  costs  against  their  related  benefits  shows  that  the 
strategy was efficient to a good extent. 

5.2.1 Efficiency of the strategy’s governance  

At EU level, direct costs include costs related to the strategy’s governance. These costs 
amounted to around €2 million for the Commission over the 2011-2017 period. 

40 

 
 
 
The  Commission  is  responsible  for  governance  of  the  strategy  at  EU  level.  Activities 
include organising the annual conference on judicial training, the interservice group, the 
Expert  Group  on  European  judicial  training  and  other  coordination  activities  (e.g. 
participating  in  yearly  meetings  of  the  EJTN,  relationships  with  various  stakeholders). 
The  Commission  is  also  involved  in  managing  the  allocation  of  funding  from  different 
programmes and in relevant monitoring and reporting activities, including the preparation 
of the annual report on the strategy and evaluations. 

From 2011 to 2014, the Commission devoted 2 full-time equivalents (FTEs) to managing 
the strategy’s implementation. This increased to 2.3 FTEs in 2015 and 2016, and then to 
3  FTEs  from  2017.  The  FTEs  were  also  occasionally  supplemented  by  a  trainee.  The 
staff costs are estimated at €1,498 million over 2011-2017. 

The  expenses  related  to  implementing  the  strategy  included  the  organisation  of  annual 
conferences  of  stakeholders  and  meetings  of  the  Expert  Group  on  European  judicial 
training. These expenses are estimated at €0,475 million over 2011-2017. 

In total, the costs for governance of the strategy between 2011 and 2017 are estimated at 
€1,973 million131. 

The costs incurred by the Commission were relatively low compared to the workload 
for  the  governance-related  tasks,  which  were  accomplished  efficiently  using  limited 
resources. 

Room  for  improved  governance  was  identified,  for  example,  in  reporting  and 
monitoring. Almost half of targeted consultation respondents who had an opinion stated 
that  the  strategy’s  reporting  and  monitoring  process  had  been  timely  (about  47%),  but 
several  stakeholders  pointed  to  difficulties  in  collecting  some  of  the  data.  Interviewees 
and  workshop  participants  regretted  that  only  the  quantitative  targets  are  monitored, 
while qualitative aspects such as the depth or the scope of the training are not considered. 

Some  direct  costs  were  also  incurred  at  Member  State  level.  These  include  costs  to 
develop  national  strategies  in  line  with  the  strategy  and  costs  related  to  coordination. 
These  costs  depend  on  how  far  each  country  implemented  the  strategy,  with  some 
countries (e.g. Belgium, Germany, and France) more active than others. 

5.2.2  The  efficiency  of  the  funding  programmes  supporting  the 
strategy’s implementation  

The  main  costs  supporting  the  strategy’s  implementation  were  those  incurred  in 
relation to the funding programmes. 

Clearly,  the  strategy  led  to  an  increased  visibility  for  the  training  needs  of  legal 
practitioners at EU level. This directly contributed to the increase in funding, as shown at 
the Expert Group meetings and in the public consultation. 

131  Source: Deloitte, based on information provided by the Commission. 

41 

 
                                                 
Overall, more than €150 million was allocated to the training of legal practitioners under 
the Justice, REC, Erasmus+ (a very small share of the Jean Monnet programme132), the 
LIFE  and  Hercule  III  programmes  from  2011  to  2017.  The  overall  increase  in  funding 
over this period, for the programmes for which information is available, nearly doubled 
to around €27.3 million, an 89% increase. 

However, the call of stakeholders  for increased  funding  remains  constant, as  shown by 
the  results  of  the  targeted  consultation.  Among  the  ones  who  had  an  opinion,  a  large 
majority  of  the  respondents  (72.4%)  considered  that  the  funds  associated  with  the 
implementation of European judicial training were not sufficient for the current training 
needs on EU law of the justice professions133. 

The budgetary envelope of the Justice programme for 2014-2020 was €378 million, with 
35% of the funds allocated to the objective of European judicial training. This represents 
€132 million (or €18.8 million on average per year), an increase of 80% compared with 
the  2007-2013  period.  The  budgetary  envelope  of  the  Rights  and  Equality  programme 
was €439 million for 2014-2020, with training activities one of the areas funded. 

A  similar  increase  is  reflected  in  the  funding  granted  to  some  of  the  main  training 
providers between 2011 and 2017. 

Additional funds were provided under the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance134 and 
the European Social Fund (ESF). A study commissioned by the European Commission135 
‘on the extent to which and how Member States used the ESF and ERDF136 in the 2007-
2013 and 2014-2020 programming periods to support their justice system’ found that the 
second most funded type of ESF project in the 16 studied Member States between 2007 
and 2013 in terms of budget spent was ‘Training & Raising awareness’, accounting for 
28% of the budget or €52.9 million for the whole period137. Between 2014 and 2017, the 
study  found  that  the  type  of  project  focus  activity  which  had  the  third  highest  budget 

132  The Jean Monnet programme is not a  programme  with the express objective to fund judicial training 

activities and most of its activities do not refer to judicial training. 

133  Targeted consultation, Means and actors of the European judicial training strategy, Question 42. 
134  The Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance is the instrument by which the EU provides financial and 
technical  help  to  support  reforms  in  the  enlargement  countries.  Support  is  provided  for  political  and 
economic  reforms  and  to  prepare  these  countries  for  the  rights  and  obligations  that  come  with  EU 
membership.  IPA  finances  TAIEX,  which  covers  technical  assistance  for  candidate  countries  and 
potential candidates. 

135  European  Commission,  Study  on  the  extent  to  which  and  how  Member  States  used  the  ESF  and  the 
ERDF  in  the  2007-2013  and  2014-2020  programming  periods  to  support  their  justice  system,  2018, 
p. 59, 127. 

136  European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). 
137  This  included  projects  organising  focus  groups  and  conferences,  study  visits,  preparing  training 
programmes,  training  of  judges,  magistrates,  legal  secretaries,  state  bailiffs,  court  clerks  and 
administrators, lawyers, police officers, probation and  mediation staff, as  well as prison service  staff. 
Most  of  the  budget  was  spent  in  Greece  (41%)  on  five  large  projects,  of  which  four  related  to  the 
ongoing training of judges and one project that funded internships of lawyers in Greek courts. The rest 
of  the  budget  was  spent  in  10  Member  States:  Poland  (26%  —  2  projects),  Bulgaria  (14%  —  24 
projects),  Hungary  (8%  —  4  projects),  Lithuania  (5%  —  9  projects),  Czech  Republic  (5%  —  9 
projects), as well as Estonia, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Slovakia (all 1% or less of the budget spent each). 

42 

 
                                                 
allocated  was  ‘Training  & Raising  awareness’,  accounting  for  €33.3 million  or  20% of 
the  budget  allocated  to  the  ESF  identified  justice  projects138.  One  must  note  that  the 
topics of the training activities and whether they covered EU law was not specified by the 
study. 

Key benefits were achieved in relation to the objectives of the strategy. 

The  first  was  the  increase  in  the  number  of  judicial  training  activities  and  justice 
professionals reached at national and EU level. This included several elements:  

 
 

judicial exchanges reaching 1,200 exchanges per year;  
the participation of half of all legal practitioners (800,000 in 2017) in at least one 
European judicial training activity by 2020 (including e-learning);  

  many new judges and prosecutors benefiting from an exchange programme. 

The  second  key  benefit  was  increased  outreach,  meaning  that  more  legal  practitioners’ 
professions receive training on EU law, and a wider geographical reach. 

The  third  key  benefit  was  strengthening  the  capacity  of  the  EJTN  and  other  training 
providers to train more justice professionals. 

The fourth key benefit was improving the quality of training activities (including the use 
of  innovative  methods  and  modern  technology)  and  increasing  support  for  training  on 
legal terminology in foreign languages. 

Another key benefit was the improvement of national regulatory frameworks, including 
through embedding EU law in initial training and mutual recognition of training. 

The external evaluation study found the costs associated with implementing the strategy 
were  overall  proportionate  and  justified  in  view  of  the benefits  achieved  during  the 
time  period  covered  by  the  evaluation,  notably  in  terms  of  the  number  of  legal 
practitioners trained. 

For  the  EJTN,  the  budget  increased  by  73%  from  2011  to  2017,  and  the  number  of 
participants  increased  even  more  (+137%).  This  meant  that  the  cost-to-serve  ratio 
decreased  (-28%),  clearly  pointing  to  increased  efficiency  in  training  delivery.  Equally 
important,  the  number  of  training  days  per  person  (catalogue139  excluded)  increased 
by 20% (from 4 days per person in 2011 to close to 5 days per person in 2017), while the 
number  of  people  trained  per  training  staff  (catalogue  excluded)  more  than  doubled 
the  execution  rate: 
large 
(+114%).  Also  noteworthy 
implementation increased from around 75% in 2011 to a remarkable 97% in 2017. The 
number of exchanges also increased in line with the increase in budget. 

improvement 

the 

in 

is 

138  This  included  projects  involving  training  of  judges,  prosecutors,  court  staff,  bailiffs,  public  notaries, 
insolvency  and  restructuring  administrators,  as  well  as  organising  study  trips.  Of  the  €33.3  million 
allocated  to  ‘Training  &  Raising  awareness’-type  projects,  44%  had  been  allocated  to  projects  in 
Greece and 31% had been allocated to projects in Latvia. 

139  EJTN’s  catalogue  lists  the  national  judicial  training  activities  opened  to  participation  of  foreign 

participants sent by other EJTN members. 

43 

 
                                                 
For  ERA,  the  EU  contribution  increased  from  ca  €4.5  million  in  2011  to  just  over 
€5 million in 2017, a rise of 10%. The number of justice professionals reached increased 
even more from 2,469 in 2011 to 2,894 in 2017. 

According  to  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  Justice  programme  (which  focused  on 
activities delivered since 2014140), the programme beneficiaries had positive views on its 
efficiency.  A  key  achievement  of  the  programme  was  that  the  administrative  burden 
experienced by beneficiaries was reduced in terms of both time and financial resources. 
The funding instruments (action grants, operating grants and procurement activities) were 
also considered adequate. The evaluation included a recommendation to further improve 
the efficiency of their implementation. 

The training activities were  also deemed cost-efficient in the  ex post evaluation of the 
five  preceding  programmes  implemented  under  the  2007-2013  financial  planning 
period, covering 2011-2013141. 

Training providers benefited from additional EU financial resources and their capacity 
was  improved,  thanks  to  the  momentum  created  by  the  strategy.  However,  funding 
applications  and  project  documentation  requirements  are  a  source  of  costs  for 
training  providers142.  While  only  limited  information  is  available  on  the  actual  costs 
incurred by training providers in  this context,  the opinions expressed during the  Expert 
Group meetings and during stakeholders’ interviews143 point to some room for further 
simplification/savings in this area. 

5.2.3 Factors which influenced the efficiency of the strategy 

The following main factors contributed to the strategy’s efficiency: 

The objective of building on the strengths of the existing networks was achieved. The 
capacity  of  training  providers  to  organise  qualitative  training  has  successfully  been 
enhanced.  This  in  turn  helped  achieve  the  strategy’s  main  benefits  and  helped  improve 
sharing of best practices. 

The  use  of  technology,  particularly  the  increased  availability  of  e-learning,  had  a 
positive  effect  on  the  strategy’s  efficiency.  However,  its  potential  could  be  further 
developed, as shown by  both the public consultation and the opinions expressed during 
the Expert Group meetings and the 2018 conference of stakeholders. 

140  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 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0507&from=EN. 

2014-2020,  COM/2018/507 

Justice  Programme 

final, 

141  https://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/programmes-2007-2013/index_en.htm 
142  These may comprise: gathering information on different opportunities and analysing the award criteria / 
requirements,  as  well  as  compliance  with  eligibility  criteria,  taking  the  decision  on  the  financial 
programme to use, drafting the applications and quality control and reporting on the implementation of 
projects. 

143  Source: Deloitte final report, page 106. 

44 

 
                                                 
An additional finding of the public consultation  and of the interviews  conducted in  the 
framework of the external evaluation study  was that the potential for re-using available 
material  has  not  been  fully  exploited.  The  lack  of  awareness  of  the  European  e-Justice 
Portal  was  mentioned  in  this  respect,  as  well  as  the  lack  of  solutions  for  keeping  e-
learning  tools  and  training  material  developed  up  to  date.  The  cost  of  carrying  out 
training  activities  could,  for  example,  be  reduced  if  a  framework  for  exchanging 
materials for re-use were to be put in place. 

Given the various legal bases of all the different initiatives with a training component, it 
is  not  possible  to  merge  them  all  under  the  same  programme.  Nevertheless,  ensuring 
synergies between these various programmes and projects and reducing the possibility of 
overlaps  in  training  activities  across  areas  is  essential  for  the  strategy’s  efficiency.  A 
positive development in this respect was the merger under the Justice programme of its 
predecessor programmes in the fields of civil and criminal justice144. 

5.3.Relevance 

The relevance evaluation criterion looks into the needs and problems of the target 
groups and assesses to what extent the strategy has contributed to addressing them. 

The  strategy’s  scope,  objectives  and  tools  are  considered  highly  relevant  by  the 
stakeholders. 

Overall,  the  strategy  is  viewed  as  relevant  for  addressing  legal  practitioners’ 
training needs in a flexible way and for reaching a broader and larger range of legal 
practitioners. The geographical scope of the strategy is still relevant. 

Even  though  the  strategy  was  deemed  relevant  by  most  respondents  to  the  public 
and  targeted  consultations  and  by  the  majority  of  stakeholders  interviewed,  there 
seems  to  be  some  room  to  improve  the  strategy’s  objectives  and  address  more 
effectively the current objectives with regard to some justice professionals (lawyers, 
court  staff,  etc.)  In  addition,  there  is  also  a  need  to  better  reach  prison  staff  and 
probation officers at the end of the judicial chain. 

The  evaluation  results  confirmed  the  need  to  continue  addressing  the  rule  of  law, 
fundamental  rights,  judgecraft  and  legal  terminology.  The  need  to  remain  flexible 
in order to address continuously evolving challenges was also underlined. 

5.3.1 The relevance of the strategy’s scope  

The relevance of the strategy’s substantive scope in addressing training needs 

To reach a conclusion on the strategy’s relevance for addressing real training needs, two 
aspects need to be assessed. The first is whether the needs considered as a priority in the 

144  European  Commission,  Interim  evaluation  of  the  2014-2020  Justice  programme,  Final  report,  EY  in 

association with Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini, 2018. 

45 

 
                                                 
strategy can be deemed relevant; the second is the extent to which the strategy is relevant 
to address these needs for different categories of justice professions. 

Need for training on EU law 

When  asked  whether  they  considered  that  their  profession  needed  training  on  EU  law, 
EU judicial cooperation instruments (or law of other Member States), 88.8% of the 2018 
public  consultation  respondents  confirmed  that  their  professions  needed  such  training. 
Specific training needs on EU law for legal practitioners involved in cross-border cases 
or in judicial cooperation situations were confirmed by 65% of respondents. 

There  is  consensus  on  the  need  for  training  on  EU  law  from  the  beginning  of  a 
practitioner’s  career.  In  addition,  some  46%  of  the  public  consultation  respondents 
consider  that  knowledge  of  EU  law  should  be  a  prerequisite  at  different  times  in  the 
career  of  a  justice  professional.  For  instance,  changing  speciality  or  sector  (e.g.  from 
family  law  to  criminal  law)  or  becoming  a  team  leader  (e.g.  president  of  a  chamber  or 
head of public prosecution office) were seen as potential stages at which training on EU 
law should be regarded as a prerequisite. 

The need for training on EU law was also largely recognised in the interim evaluation of 
the Justice programme, which concluded that: ‘training needs will vary constantly on the 
basis of evolutions in national legislation and EU acquis, as well as with the retirement of 
judicial  professionals  and  the  entry  in  the  profession  of  new  ones,  and  it  is  therefore 
unreasonable to expect that there will come a point in which European judicial training 
will become unnecessary’145. 

Need for training on the law of other Member States 

The  strategy  considers  training  on  the  law  of  other  Member  States  as  crucial  to  ensure 
mutual recognition of judicial decisions, smooth cooperation between judicial authorities 
and  the  execution  of  decisions.  It  also  considers  building  mutual  trust  between  the 
Member States as necessary. 

However,  based  on  the  public  consultation  results,  about  34%  of  respondents  do  not 
consider training on the  law of other Member States as  a need of their profession. The 
Expert  Group  acknowledged  that  the  2011  strategy  should  not  have  placed  training  on 
EU  law  at  the  same  level  as  training  on  the  law  of  other  Member  States,  as  the  focus 
should remain on the former146. 

This  trend  is  also  reflected  in  the  number  of  training  activities  covering  the  law  of 
another  Member  State.  As  illustrated  in  the  table  below,  the  proportion  of  this  type  of 
activities diminished significantly in 2016. 

145  European  Commission,  Interim  evaluation  of  the  2014-2020  Justice  programme,  Final  report,  EY  in 

association with Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini, 2018, p. 121. 

146  Expert Group on European judicial training, Minutes of the 18 December 2017 meeting. 

46 

 
                                                 
Table 3. Percentage of training activities on the law of other Member States 

Years 
Percentage 

2012 
4.4% 

2013 
3.6% 

2014 
4.8% 

2015 
4.7% 

2016 
3.1% 

Source: Deloitte, based on the annual monitoring reports 

Need for training on legal terminology 

Legal practitioners consider that training on legal terminology is a relevant training need. 
76% of public consultation respondents considered the lack of language skills as a barrier 
for working with peers of another Member State. Language skills are indeed an important 
tool to ensure smooth judicial cooperation. Many respondents considered that knowledge 
of  additional  languages  is  increasing  and  helps  in  the  understanding  of  cross-border 
decisions and foreign law. The vast majority of respondents indicated that the language 
of  cross-border  decisions  should  be  English;  however,  French  and  German  were  also 
mentioned  as  cross-border  working  languages  among  Member  State  legal  practitioners. 
In  addition,  about  49%  of  public  consultation  respondents  thought  that  knowledge  of  a 
foreign language should be a prerequisite for appointments in some justice professions. 

However,  general  training  on  language  skills  is  a  national  competence,  and  is  thus 
outside the scope of the strategy (which currently focuses on training in foreign language 
legal terminology). As pointed out by the Expert Group, training on language skills could 
be  provided  for,  but  ‘it  is  really  a  national  responsibility  to  ensure  that  justice 
professionals  have  a  sufficient  proficiency  in  English147’  (or  in  any  other  language 
facilitating cross-border communication). 

The relevance of the EU-level action in judicial training 

The majority of stakeholders see the EU as a crucial driver of support to training on EU 
law for a wide range of legal practitioners. The political incentive created by the strategy 
was praised as one of its main benefits, hence the creation and implementation of an EU 
strategy for European judicial training was considered highly relevant. 

Targeted consultation respondents perceive the EU as a key player148. Almost 94% of the 
81  respondents  indicated  that  the  EU  should  provide  support  to  training  activities  for 
justice professionals  (against  only 2.5%  responding  negatively). This  data suggests that 
at least some EU involvement is perceived as necessary in the first place, leading to the 
conclusion  that  introducing  an  EU  strategy  on  judicial  training  was  a  relevant  policy 
choice which considered the stakeholders’ needs. 

147  Expert Group on European judicial training, Minutes of the 18 December 2017 meeting. 
148  Targeted consultation, Means and actors of the European judicial training strategy, Question 30. 

47 

 
                                                 
Whereas almost all respondents  to the targeted consultation thought that the EU should 
be  involved  in  fostering  judicial  training  on  EU  law,  results  are  less  clear-cut  on  the 
means to be used by the EU for this supporting role149. 

Most  respondents  to  the  targeted  consultation  (95%)  agreed  on  the  need  for  the  EU  to 
provide financial contributions in the area of judicial training.  Over half of respondents 
also  deemed  necessary  the  following:  promoting  training  methodologies,  encouraging 
cooperation between training providers at EU level, providing guidelines and handbooks 
covering  specific  areas  of  EU  law,  improving  the  training  section  of  the  European 
e-Justice  Portal  and  promoting  awareness  about  EU  judicial  training  among  relevant 
stakeholders. A significant minority of stakeholders (38%) indicated that the EU should 
foster judicial training through political support. Only 28% of respondents referred to the 
year-by-year monitoring activities in this context, although the majority agreed that there 
should  be  a  yearly  monitoring  system  to  follow  up  on  the  implementation  of  the 
European judicial training strategy. 

The role of the EU in coordinating training providers was also recognised as vital for two 
reasons. Firstly, EU-led cooperation streamlines and improves the quality of the training 
offered  by  ensuring  that  relevant  training  providers  for  each  target  group  share  best 
practices among themselves and by making sure that their training offers do not overlap. 
Secondly,  cooperation  helps  practitioners  improve  their  understanding  of  the  judicial 
systems of other Member States, which in turn increases mutual trust among practitioners 
across the EU150. The role of the EU was thus essential in promoting further cooperation 
at  EU-level  between  training  providers  of  justice  professions  without  an  EU-level 
network,  whether  through  the  annual  conferences  of  stakeholders  or  through  financial 
support  under  the  Justice  programme.  Further  EU-level  cooperation  between  training 
providers  of  court  staff,  bailiffs  and  prison  and  probation  officers  was  deemed  still 
necessary151. 

Extent to which the strategy is still in line with the needs 

The  strategy  addresses  the  needs  for  training  on  EU  law.  Knowledge  of  EU  law  is 
perceived as a key aspect of the career of legal practitioners. 

The strategy is thought to address to a good extent the training needs in EU law of legal 
practitioners. 56% of respondents to the targeted consultation had a positive view of the 
strategy’s ability to cover the main gaps in practitioners’ training needs152. 

Replies to the question of whether the strategy was properly planned and implemented to 
address specific training needs in relation to EU law153 were even more positive: 68% of 

149  Targeted consultation, Means and actors of the European judicial training strategy, Question 31. 
150  Targeted consultation, Analysis of the replies, p. 20. 
151  This need is  notably being addressed for prison staff under an ongoing project to further develop the 
European  network  of  Penitentiary  Training  Academies  (EPTA),  awarded  under  the  2017  Justice 
programme call for proposals for action grants in the field of European judicial training. 

152  Targeted consultation, Scope of the European judicial training strategy, Question 1. 

48 

 
                                                 
targeted  consultation  respondents  found  the  strategy  to  be  at  least  relevant  to  their  EU 
law-related  training  demand,  and  as  many  as  46%  found  it  to  be  very  and  extremely 
relevant. Only 16% had a negative view of the strategy’s relevance. 

Figure 9: Relevance of the strategy in relation to EU law training needs 

Source: 2018 Targeted consultation of the European Commission, visualisation: Deloitte 

Respondents were also of the opinion that the strategy took into account changes in their 
training  needs  (allowing,  for  example,  targeted  training  in  data  protection  law,  asylum 
law and labour rights154). 

Two  thirds  of  respondents  to  the  targeted  consultation  have  a  positive  view  of  the 
usefulness of cross-border activities in meeting their training needs, while less than 14% 
of  respondents  would  not  agree.  On  cross-border  exchanges,  two  thirds  of  respondents 
found value in such training, at least to a certain extent. 

Overall, the strategy succeeded in  addressing new topics and needs mainly through the 
Justice  programme.  As  stated  in  the  evaluation  of  that  programme,  its  operational 
flexibility  enables  it  to  adapt  easily  its  annual  work  programme  to  cater  for  emerging 
needs in the area of justice155. The Expert Group underlined the need to keep this flexible 
approach in the future. 

Even though the strategy addresses many areas of law, stakeholders supported the view 
that  it  should  encompass  more  topics.  In  particular,  67%  of  public  consultation 
respondents  supported  the  idea  of  increased  training  on  fundamental  rights  and  the 
rule of law. According to the responses, the legal professions most in need of training on 
fundamental  rights  and  the  rule  of  law  are  judges  (87%  of  the  public  consultation’s 
responses), prosecutors (69% of responses) and lawyers (62% of responses). 

153  Targeted consultation, Results of the European judicial training strategy, Question 5. 
154 Targeted consultation, Analysis of the replies, p. 9. 
155  Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the document Report on the interim evaluation of 

the implementation of the Justice programme 2014-2020, SWD(2018) 356 final, p. 20. 

49 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
The relevance of the target groups covered 

The  target  group  of  the  strategy  is  the  judiciary  at  large.  As  the  training  of  judges  and 
prosecutors  in  all  EU  aspects  is  essential  to  ensure  the  correct  application  of  EU  law 
throughout judicial proceedings, it is natural that these professions were the main target 
group  of  the  strategy.  The  main  financial  support  is  allocated  to  the  EJTN’s  operating 
grant.  Two  pilot  projects  were  organised  targeting  these  two  legal  professions:  one  on 
best training methodologies, the other on cooperation with EU-level associations. 

The  annual  reports  on  European  judicial  training  show  that  there  are  still  gaps  in  the 
training of lawyers on EU law. Lawyers’ training needs were assessed in a pilot project 
that  the  Commission  commissioned  from  the  Council  of  Bars  and  Law  Societies  of 
Europe (CCBE) and EIPA-Luxembourg on the state of play of lawyers’ training on EU 
law. The project focused on the general organisation of lawyers’ training, collecting and 
analysing  data  on  existing  training  activities  and  developing  good  practice.  Based  on 
these  results,  CCBE  and  EIPA-Luxembourg  drafted  recommendations  to  improve 
training activities and develop lawyers’ participation in them. In addition, several action 
grants  were  provided  to  cover  lawyers’  training  needs.  For  example,  grants  were 
provided to develop a European Training Platform156, to run a pilot exchange programme 
for  lawyers,  and  for  a  project  to  improve  mutual  recognition  of  training.  However,  as 
mentioned by CCBE and different national bar associations, the training offer for lawyers 
is  still  insufficiently  developed.  The  Expert  Group  also  indicated  that  lawyers’ 
training on EU law could be further improved157. 

As  for  notaries,  although  they  are  less  involved  in  judicial  activities  than  the  other 
stakeholders  mentioned  above,  they  have  some  powers  in  the  judicial  field  (including 
both civil and criminal law), which also contributes to the implementation of EU law. It 
was  therefore  also  appropriate  that  the  strategy  covered  this  category  of  legal 
practitioners.  

Court staff needs were mentioned several times as being insufficiently addressed by the 
strategy. The Commission organised several activities targeting exclusively this category 
of  legal  professionals.  A  pilot  project  was  conducted  on  the  state  of  play  of  court  staff 
training  on  EU  law158.  A  first  conference  dedicated  exclusively  to  the  training  of  court 
staff  and  bailiffs  was  organised  in  2015159;  its  conclusions  resulted  in  the  specific 
inclusion  of  training  for  court  staff  among  the  Justice  programme  priorities  from  2016 
onwards160. Under the 2014 and 2016 Justice programme calls, first concrete steps were 

156  The European Training Platform (ETP) project was developed by the CCBE with the financial support 
of a Justice programme action grant. It is a search tool intended for justice professionals to find training 
activities across the EU. Beyond the temporal scope of this evaluation, its integration in the European e-
Justice Portal is being prepared. 

157  Expert Group on European judicial training, Minutes of the meeting of Monday 18 December 2017. 
158  https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_the_european_judicial_training_policy-121-en.do 
159  https://europa.eu/newsroom/events/conference-european-cooperation-judicial-training-court-staff-and-

bailiffs_en 

160  See annex to the 2016 Justice programme annual work programme, p. 17. 

50 

 
                                                 
initiated regarding the analysis of court staff’s training needs, the organisation of targeted 
training  activities  and  the  reflection  on  the  cooperation  between  court  staff’s  training 
providers  in  the  framework  of  two  projects  run  by  a  consortium  led  by  Justice 
Coopération  Internationale  (JCI).  In  addition  to  quantitative  issues,  stakeholders  also 
term  ‘court  staff’161  encompasses  many 
highlighted  qualitative  concerns: 
subcategories of personnel responsible for different tasks who, as a result, have diverse 
training needs on EU law and on the law of other Member States162.  

the 

Further progress is expected, since under the 2017 call for proposals for action grants in 
the  field  of  European  judicial  training,  the  European  Commission  awarded  to  ERA  a 
grant to train court staff on civil justice cooperation and language163, which involves 22 
partner institutions from 18 Member States. 

Bailiffs are covered by the strategy, as is appropriate. Bailiffs do not need to be trained to 
the  same  extent  as  judges,  prosecutors  or  lawyers,  as  their  training  needs  are  more 
specific  and  narrower,  mainly  regarding  the  enforcement  of  judicial  decisions. 
Nevertheless,  the  strategy  targeted  them  to  ensure  they  apply  EU  law  correctly  in  their 
daily tasks. However, their training needs are not yet completely mapped and addressed. 
As the 2014 ‘Study on the state of play of court staff training in EU law and promotion of 
cooperation  between  court  staff  training  providers  at  EU  level’164  showed,  bailiffs  are 
actually court staff in roughly a third of the Member States. It also underlined that bailiffs 
needed  more  targeted  training.  Several  projects  financially  supported  by  Justice 
programme  action  grants,  including  the  2014  and  2016  JCI  projects  mentioned  above, 
targeted bailiffs and notably created some first dedicated e-learning165. Further efforts are 
still needed. 

Prison  and  probation  officers  were  included  in  the  scope  of  the  strategy  as  of  2015, 
after  terrorist  attacks  struck  Europe.  Many  stakeholders  stressed  the  importance  of 
involving prison  and probation staff  within the scope of the  strategy,  as  they  also  have 
EU  related  training  needs,  for  example  relating  to  the  prevention  of  radicalisation  and 

161  Targeted consultation, Analysis of the replies, p. 10. The most frequently mentioned types of court staff 
are  the  following:  court  wardens  and  technical  staff,  assistants  for  judges  and  partially  independent 
clerks  taking  judicial  decisions,  in  particular  in  connection  with  registers  and  the  execution  of 
judgments. 

162  Beyond  the  temporal  scope  of  the  evaluation,  their  specific  needs  will  be  assessed  in  a  study 

commissioned by the Commission in 2019. 

163  Moreover, last developments in further reaching this target group include  one more grant awarded by 
the European Commission under the 2018 Call for proposals to ERA to train court staff on cooperation 
in  criminal  matters.  It  is  worth  mentioning  also  the  recent  decision  of  the  EJTN  General  Assembly 
regarding the expansion of the Network to address court staff training and the welcoming of court staff 
training  institutions  into  the  EJTN  fold.  Changes  to  EJTN’s  Articles  of  Association  to  accommodate 
this were subsequently approved at the General Assembly (See: http://www.ejtn.eu/News/EJTNs-2019-
General-Assembly-to-be-held-June-27-28/). 

164   European Commission Study on the state of play of court staff training in EU law and promotion of 
cooperation  between  court  staff  training  providers  at  EU  level,  EIPA-Luxembourg  and  co,  2014, 
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_the_european_judicial_training_policy-121-en.do. 

165   http://www.europe-ejl.eu/. Request of a login is required. 

51 

 
                                                 
detention conditions. Two calls for proposals for action grants to prevent radicalisation to 
violent extremism were issued under the Justice programme. 

Although mediators are not specifically mentioned in the strategy, they are considered as 
part of its scope. Court interpreters and translators are also not specifically included, but 
as they contribute to the implementation of EU law, they also need to be trained on EU 
law  (in  particular  on  legal  terminology).  The  training  needs  of  these  professions  were 
covered to some extent by action grants received under scope of the Justice programme. 

Geographical scope 

The  strategy  focused  on  EU  Member  States  and  indicated  that  the  Commission  would 
assess how to promote the participation of candidate countries, potential candidates and 
neighbourhood countries in European judicial training projects. 

Stakeholders confirmed the need to extend the strategy’s outreach to these countries. The 
majority  of  targeted  consultation  respondents  (71%)  clearly  stated  that  the  strategy 
should support candidate countries, potential candidates and neighbourhood countries166. 
The  Expert  Group  also  concluded  that  the  strategy  should  further  extend  European 
judicial  training  to  justice  professionals  from  third  countries,  especially  candidate 
countries and neighbourhood countries. 

The strategy in fact already partially covered Western Balkans countries and, to a certain 
extent,  neighbourhood  countries.  As  mentioned  under  section  5.1.1  'Achieving  the 
operational  objectives',  most  judicial  academies  from  the  Western  Balkans  are  EJTN 
observers. Participation in EJTN activities is open to judges and prosecutors from these 
countries, but not funded from an EJTN operating grant, with the exception of countries 
which signed a memorandum of understanding for participating in the Justice programme 
(Albania  and  recently  Montenegro).  Since  2018,  the  EJTN  has  engaged  in  closer 
cooperation  with  the  Western  Balkans  by  opening  participation  in  its  programmes  to 
magistrates  from  this  region  under  the  EU  Multi-Country  Programme,  IPA 2017/039-
402.  Neighbourhood  countries  also  received  EU  assistance  for  training  under  specific 
programmes such as TAIEX or EU/Council of Europe partnership projects. 

However, the relevance of the strategy for neighbourhood countries, candidate countries 
and potential candidates is not easy to be measured as the annual reporting does not cover 
them. As a result, the only measurable results are those of individual training initiatives 
such as the EJTN seminars. 

A  recent  Commission  report167  on  EU  support  for  the  rule  of  law  in  neighbourhood 
countries  and  candidate  countries  and  potential  candidates  of  enlargement  provided 

166  Targeted consultation, Analysis of the replies, p. 11. 
167  European  Commission,  Thematic  Evaluation  of  EU  Support  for  Rule  of  Law  in  Neighbourhood 
Countries  and  Candidate  countries  and  Potential  Candidates  of  Enlargement  (2010-2017),  Particip 
GmbH  and  co,  Final  Report,  April  2019,  pp.  46-47,  https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-
enlargement/sites/near/files/rol_final_evaluation_report.zip 

52 

 
                                                 
judicial 

training  of  judges,  prosecutors,  and  other 

valuable  feedback  in  this  respect:  ‘EU  support  contributed  to  capacity  building  by 
justice  sector 
strengthening 
professionals.  A  large  number  of  judges,  prosecutors,  lawyers,  court  administrators, 
penitentiary  staff,  and  others  involved  in  rule  of  law  have  benefited  from  EU-financed 
study  visits  and  training  workshops  financed  under  bilateral  programmes.  In  Turkey,  a 
distance education programme was developed to ensure that penitentiary staff throughout 
the country had access to training. Support to judicial training academies in Albania and 
Georgia  aimed  to  develop  and  improve  curricula  in  line  with  European  practice.  (…) 
There  was  EU-financed  training  on  human  rights  in  all  case  study  countries  and 
beneficiaries  and,  in  [Council  of  Europe]  members,  training  on  jurisprudence  [of  the 
European Court of Human Rights]. However, it is challenging to measure the effects of 
EU support to capacity building since many other donors were present and, indeed, some 
institutions (such as High Schools of Justice in Albania, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey, and 
Georgia) were over-endowed with donor support. Overall, the impression left (…) is that 
there is a lack of coordination and complementarity between donors in capacity building, 
a problem especially pronounced in support to judicial training institutions (as opposed to 
training provided to persons already in justice-related professions such as sitting judges 
and prosecutors).’ 

5.3.2 Relevance of the strategy’s objectives 

The  objectives  of  the  strategy  were  deemed  relevant  by  the  majority  of  public  and 
targeted consultations’ respondents and by the majority of stakeholders interviewed. 

As for the future, a clear majority (71%) of respondents to the 2018 targeted consultation 
thought that new objectives should be formulated in the future European judicial training 
strategy, while only less than 4% of them thought that the current objectives should not 
be updated in any way. 

Concerning  the  type  of  objectives  that  the  next  strategy  should  focus  on  (i.e.  whether 
only  quantitative168,  only  qualitative169,  or  both),  a  striking  majority  thought  that  both 
types of objectives should be updated under the next strategy170. 

Two thirds of  the targeted consultation respondents  stated  that the next  strategy should 
formulate objectives specific to each target group (only 15% of respondents approved a 
one-size-fits-all approach to the next strategy). The reasons for differentiated objectives 
lie in the non-homogeneous training needs and approaches of each target group in their 
daily practice. 

168  Quantitative objectives refer to quantified targets in terms of trained practitioners, training activities, or 

legal areas within the strategy’s scope. 

169  Qualitative  objectives  refer  to  the  level  of  the  strategy’s  impacts  on  the  daily  work  of  legal 

practitioners, and the satisfaction of those taking part in training activities. 

170  One  respondent  stated  that  the  new  quantitative  objective  should  be  to  train  all  legal  practitioners 

dealing with EU law on a daily basis by 2025. 

53 

 
                                                 
5.4.Coherence 

The  overall  coherence  of  the  strategy  was  assessed  both  internally,  in  terms  of 
consistency  between  different  provisions  and  conducted  activities,  and  externally 
with  other  legal  instruments  and  with  national  judicial  training  policies.  The 
strategy is deemed coherent to a great extent, both internally and externally. 

5.4.1 Internal coherence 

The  strategy  is  internally  coherent  to  a  great  extent.  The  internal  coherence  was 
analysed  considering  the  consistency  of  its  different  provisions  as  well  as  how  the 
various components of the strategy operate together to achieve its objectives. Except for 
a  minor  terminological  imprecision,  no  inconsistencies  were  spotted  by  the  external 
study171. 

The strategy is also coherent with the activities conducted to implement it. To ensure 
this consistency, a pilot project initiated by the European Parliament was implemented by 
the European Commission through four projects, launched in 2013-14 to identify the best 
training practices for judges and prosecutors, the training needs of lawyers, and of court 
staff,  and  how  to  promote  cooperation  between  judicial  stakeholders  concerned  by 
European judicial training.  

Subsequently, several training activities were put in place to address the different training 
needs of the target groups172. 

The first need identified in the intervention logic (‘A functioning European judicial area, 
where EU law is applied correctly and coherently across the EU and judicial cross-border 
proceedings run smoothly’) was addressed mainly by the Justice programme. The second 
need identified – ‘A functioning European internal market in which citizens and business 
can  conduct  cross-border  activities  without  barriers’  –  was  addressed  by  the  Rights, 
Equality  and  Citizenship  programme173,  in  accordance  with  the  specific  objectives  of 
both programmes. 

The  specific  objectives  of  the  two  programmes  can  be  considered  coherent  with  the 
training  component,  since  the  Justice  programme  accommodates  mainly  training  of 
justice professionals, while Rights, Equality and Citizenship is focusing on the following: 

‘promoting and enhancing the exercise of rights deriving from citizenship of the Union; 
enabling  individuals  in  their  capacity  as  consumers  or  entrepreneurs  in  the  internal 

171  The  strategy  targets  all  legal  practitioners,  ‘whether  judges,  prosecutors,  court  staff,  lawyers  or  other 
legal professionals’. However, on one particular occasion, the  European judicial training strategy only 
refers to lawyers: ‘every new lawyer should be aware of Union law from the outset’ without mentioning 
other  practitioners  (or  justifying  such  focus  on  lawyers).  Nevertheless,  the  term  ‘lawyer’  should  be 
interpreted here in the broad sense, i.e. any person who graduated in law. 

172  For more details see ‘section 5.5.1 Benefits from EU-level action’. 
173  Regulation (EU) No 1381/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 

establishing a Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme for the period 2014 to 2020. 

54 

 
                                                 
market  to  enforce  their  rights  deriving  from  Union  law,  having  regard  to  the  projects 
funded  under  the  Consumer  programme  […];  enhancing  awareness  and  knowledge  of 
Union law and policies  as well  as of the rights,  values and principles underpinning the 
Union  […];  improving  knowledge  and  understanding  of  potential  obstacles  to  the 
exercise  of  rights  and  principles  guaranteed  by  the  TEU,  the  TFEU,  the  Charter, 
international  conventions  to  which  the  Union  has  acceded,  and  secondary  Union 
legislation’174. 

5.4.2 External coherence 

External coherence was assessed by analysing how coherent the strategy is with (1) other 
EU legal instruments and (2) national judicial training policies. 

a)  With other EU legal instruments 

The  strategy  is  coherent  with  other  EU  instruments  in  the  area  of  freedom,  security 
and justice, which call for increased training on EU law-related activities. 

The  2009  Stockholm  programme175  identifies  training  of  and  cooperation  between  the 
professions involved in the implementation of the area of freedom, security and justice as 
part of the political priority ‘A Europe of law and justice’. Training is seen as a tool for 
successfully implementing the Stockholm programme. In particular, training on EU law 
would foster a genuine European judicial and law enforcement culture176. 

The Commission followed up on the Stockholm programme with its 2010 action plan177, 
in  which  it  highlights  that  mutual  trust  is  essential  to  making  real  progress  in 
implementing  the  programme.  In  its  annex,  a  Communication  on  an  action  plan  on 
European training for all legal professions is mentioned as a concrete Commission action 
in 2011. 

The  strategy  is  directly  based  on  these  documents  and  refers  to  them.  In  particular,  it 
aligns its priorities and contents with them: ‘The objective of the European Commission 
is  to  enable  half  of  the  legal  practitioners  to  participate  in  European  judicial  training 
activities by 2020 […] in line with the objectives of the Stockholm programme’178. 

It is in line with the 2010 Monti report ‘A new strategy for the Single Market’179, which 
invited the Commission and Member States to further support training programmes and 
structures, to enable judges and other legal practitioners to have a solid knowledge of the 
single market, ensuring correct application of EU law, and thus the effectiveness of the 
single market. 

174  Article 4, Regulation (EU) No 1381/2013. 
175  European  Council,  The  Stockholm  Programme  –  an  open  and  secure  Europe  serving  and  protecting 

citizens (2010/C 115/01). 

176  Ibid, p. 6. 
177  COM(2010) 171 final. 
178  COM(2011) 551 final, p. 2. 
179  M. Monti, A new strategy for the Single Market, 9 May 2010. 

55 

 
                                                 
The Europe 2020 strategy includes a general focus on the ‘overall quality of all levels of 
education and training in the EU’ under the flagship initiative: ‘Youth on the move’180. It 
calls in particular for efficient investment in training and for a consistent legal context at 
European level. The strategy is thus the Commission’s reply to this call for a step change 
in the way European judicial training is organised in the EU. 

The Commission also links the strategy to the 2010 EU citizenship report181. The report 
mentions  judges  and  legal  professionals  in  its  conclusions,  stating  that  they  should  be 
aware of citizens’ rights so they can help citizens exercise and enforce them. The strategy 
aims  to  provide  judges  and  legal  professionals  in  general  with  solid  knowledge  of  EU 
law, so they implement it correctly and protect EU citizens’ rights. 

Moreover,  the  objectives  of  the  strategy  and  its  implementation  are  consistent  with  the 
specific role attributed to different agencies in specific areas. 

For  example,  the  strategy  was  coherent  with  the  work  of  European  Asylum  Support 
Office  (EASO).  This  is  an  EU  agency  established  to  help  implement  the  Common 
European  Asylum  System.  It  helps  Member  States  strengthen  practical  cooperation 
among  themselves  on  asylum  matters  and  provides/coordinates  operational  support  for 
those  of  them  that  are  experiencing  particular  pressure  on  their  asylum  and  reception 
systems.  

Article 6 of the EASO founding regulation182 specifies that the agency must establish and 
develop training for members of courts and tribunals in the Member States. This should 
be done in close cooperation with national asylum authorities and, where relevant, take 
advantage  of  the  expertise  of  academic  institutions  and  other  relevant  organisations. 
EASO is also required to manage and develop a European asylum curriculum that takes 
into account the EU’s existing cooperation in that field. The training must be high quality 
and  respect  the  independence  of  national  courts  and  tribunals.  In  this  respect,  a 
memorandum of understanding was concluded between the EJTN and EASO, to ensure 
close  cooperation  and  coordination  between  the  two  organisations  on  judicial  training 
with  regard  to  the  areas  that  are  included  in  the EASO  mandate.  These  are  covered  by 
Article 6(2) of the EASO Regulation, for example international and human rights and the 
EU asylum legislation and case-law. 

Coherence  with  other  strategies  that  include  learning  objectives  was  also  assessed, 
taking  into  account  time  periods,  implementation  mode  and  delivery  plan,  governance, 
target groups, types of training activity and monitoring and evaluation arrangements.  

180  Communication  from  the  Commission,  Europe  2020  A  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive 

growth, COM(2010) 2020 final, p. 13. 

181  Dismantling the obstacles to EU citizens’ rights, COM(2010) 603 final. 
182  Regulation  (EU)  No 439/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  19 May  2010 

establishing a European Asylum Support Office, OJ L 132/11, 29.5.2010, pp. 11-28. 

56 

 
                                                 
The following strategies183 were used as reference point: 

  The  2012-16  EU  strategy  towards  the  eradication  of  trafficking  in  human 
beings  (the  EU  anti-trafficking  strategy)184  complementing  the  requirements  of 
Directive  2011/36/EU,  which  includes  in  Article 18  specific  requirements  for 
training;  This  strategy  was  used  as  a  reference  because  some  of  its  priorities 
(Priority  D  Action  6,  Priority  E  Action  4)  focus  on  training.  This  is  despite  the 
fact  that  it  is  a  comprehensive  instrument,  complementing  the  EU  legal 
framework,  which  covers  a  comprehensive  approach  to  crime  (prevention, 
protection,  prosecution  and  partnership).  The  complex  nature  of  this  instrument 
(not  in  itself  a  learning  strategy,  but  a  comprehensive  strategy  that  happens  to 
include some specific learning objectives) made it difficult sometimes to use the 
same terminology or to assess it against the same criteria; 

  The  2012  Dublin  strategy,  which  provides  a  common  training  and  education 
framework to help Member States develop skills and knowledge among customs 
professionals185;  

  The 2013 Law Enforcement Training Scheme (LETS)186, which was set up to 
equip  law  enforcement  officers  with  the  knowledge  and  skills  they  need  to 
prevent and combat cross-border crime effectively, through efficient cooperation 
with their EU colleagues. 

The  training-related  objectives  in  these  three  strategies  generally  look  coherent 
with/complementary  to  those  of  the  European  judicial  training  strategy.  That  does  not 
imply  they  are  always  the  same  or  set  in  the  same  way  as  in  the  European  judicial 
training strategy. 

The  objectives  of  the  Dublin  strategy  and  the  European  judicial  training  strategy  share 
only  some  features.  The  Dublin  strategy  puts  in  place  a  new  common  strategic 
performance framework for training that aims to: 

183  The  implementation  of  these  strategies  is  not  evaluated  here;  their  characteristics  are  analysed  and 
compared  with  those  of  the  European  judicial  training  strategy  to  determine  the  level  of  coherence 
between them. 

184  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, The EU Strategy towards the Eradication of 
Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  2012–2016,  COM/2012/0286  final,  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52012DC0286. 

2020) 

185  Regulation (EU) No 1294/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 
establishing  an  action  programme  for  customs  in  the  European  Union  for  the  period  2014-2020 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
(Customs 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1294&from=EN. It must be noted that the Dublin strategy 
is  formally  no  longer  running.  Given  its  success,  in  2017  the  Commission  launched  the  2017-20  EU 
learning and development action plan for customs and taxation, which builds on the experience of the 
Dublin strategy. However, in the following subsections we will refer to the Dublin strategy for purposes 
of assessing its consistency with the European judicial training strategy. 

repealing  Decision  No 624/2007/EC, 

and 

186  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic 
and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  establishing  a  European  Law  Enforcement 
https://eur-
Training 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0172:FIN:EN:PDF. 

COM(2013) 

Scheme, 

final, 

172 

57 

 
                                                 
  standardise  training  and  development  –  setting  a  common  framework  for 

establishing and delivering similar high standards across the EU; 

  pool  capacity  –  pooling  the  capacities  of  all  stakeholders  involved  in  customs 
matters, and encouraging, supporting and structuring  the sharing of training and 
development capabilities across the EU; 
focus  on  the  future  –  putting  in  place  a  European  training  and  development 
framework focusing on the current and future needs of the workforce. 

 

These  objectives  are  different  in  nature  to  the  ones  for  the  European  judicial  training 
strategy as no quantitative target is set there. However, both strategies aim to improve the 
training  standards,  promote  the  sharing  of  training,  and  increase  the  capabilities  of  the 
target groups. 

As for the LETS, this instrument, as well as the European judicial training strategy, was 
enacted  to  respond  to  the  Stockholm  programme’s  priorities.  In  particular,  the  LETS 
aims to strengthen knowledge of the EU and cross-border dimension of law enforcement, 
achieving  effective  bilateral  cooperation  between  national  authorities  and  increasing 
training on specific topics, to spread best practice and so increase mutual trust. Therefore, 
it  is  apparent  that  both  instruments  set  as  key  objectives  an  increase  in  the  levels  of 
mutual  trust  and  cross-border  cooperation  between  national  authorities,  and  they  both 
recognise the relevance of training on EU law to this end. 

As  far  as  EU  funding  is  concerned,  all  the  strategies  reviewed  have  received  it.  The 
European  judicial  training  strategy  is  supported  by  a  wide  range  of  EU  funds.  The 
objectives of the EU anti-trafficking strategy were funded by various programmes, such 
as  the  DG  Home  Affairs  funding  programmes,  the  Instrument  for  Stability,  the  Justice 
programme and the Research programme.  

The  Dublin  strategy,  developed  under  the  Customs  programme,  is  specifically  funded 
under  that  programme187.  Implementation  of  LETS  is  backed  by  the  Internal  Security 
Fund in 2014-20 and by the European Social Fund, under certain conditions188. 

The governance mechanisms of the European judicial training strategy and the Dublin 
Strategy  are  quite  similar  in  many  respects.  The  European  judicial  training  strategy  is 
governed  by  a  composite  structure,  including  the  European  Commission’s  interservice 
group  and  the  Expert  Group  on  European  judicial  training  (in  which  judicial  training 
stakeholders are represented189).  

187  European  Commission,  The  Dublin  Strategy,  p. 14:  ‘Through  the  Customs  2013  Programme  the 
European  Commission  will  provide  financial  assistance  for  the  delivery  of  training  and  development 
courses as well as continue to fund the training and development support provision’. 

188  COM(2013) 172 final, pp. 10-11. 
189  The  idea  of  a  possible  agency  to  provide  governance  for  the  European  judicial  training  strategy  was 
discussed within the Expert Group and ultimately disregarded, due to the likely inadequacy of such an 
agency to fulfil this task. 

58 

 
                                                 
As for the EU anti-trafficking strategy, the Commission had a leading role in setting out 
the  range  of  priorities  and  measures  aimed  at  helping  Member  States  apply  Directive 
2011/36/EU. 

The  EU  Anti-trafficking  Coordinator  (EU  ATC,  based  in  DG  HOME),  on  the  basis  of 
Article 20  of  the  Directive,  ensures  consistency  in  EU  anti-trafficking  action  across 
policy areas  and works  together with  relevant  actors via regular  coordination  meetings. 
The coordinator liaises with the following bodies: 

  EU  institutions  (European  Parliament  and  Council  and  other  Commission 

departments via the interservice group); 

  seven  EU  JHA  agencies  (based  on  their  commitment  signed  first  in  2011),  via 

coordination meetings190; 

  national authorities, via the EU network of National Rapporteurs and equivalent 

Mechanisms; 

  civil  society  actors,  via  the  EU  Civil  Society  Platform  against  Trafficking  in 

human beings; 
international organisations.  

 

The Dublin strategy, supported by the Customs programme, is under direct Commission 
management,  but  its  governance  is  shared  between  the  Commission  and  the  Member 
States191. 

Governance of  LETS is  mainly handled by  CEPOL,  which has  a coordination role and 
consults other JHA agencies, as well as the Member States. 

The  Dublin  strategy  is  meant  to  be  a  ‘living  strategy’192,  i.e.  it  was  designed  as  an 
evolving  strategy  adapting  to  the  changing  needs  of  customs  officers.  In  practice,  the 
Member States  and the  Commission  regularly revise the  strategy,  under the lead of the 
European Training Steering Group193. In particular, this group was in charge of providing 
information on common training initiatives under the Customs programme.  

In contrast, there are no plans for regular revision of the strategy; but, as indicated by the 
Expert Group on European judicial training, the European judicial training strategy was 
flexible  enough  to  address  new  emerging  training  needs,  notably  through  the  Justice 
programme. 

In terms of target groups, none of the strategies reviewed address target groups as large 
and  comprehensive  as  that  of  the  European  judicial  training  strategy.  They  address 

190  The  second joint statement of commitment to  work against human trafficking  was  signed on 13 June 
2018  by  the  heads  of  ten  EU  agencies,  including  Europol,  Eurojust,  Frontex/ECBGA,  FRA,  EASO, 
EIGE, eu-LISA, EMCDDA, Eurofound and CEPOL. 

191  European Commission, The Dublin Strategy, p. 7. 
192  Ibid. 
193  The European Training Steering Group was an informal and temporary expert group of the Commission 
made up of officials from the national customs authorities appointed by their Member States to support 
the implementation of the Customs Programme, especially in the area of common training. The group 
no longer exists. 

59 

 
                                                 
categories  of  professionals  who  at  times  interact  with  those  addressed  by  the  strategy, 
which  suggests  that  the  four  strategies  cover  many  different  types  of  professionals 
involved in judicial cooperation without any major overlap.  

The target group addressed by the EU anti-trafficking strategy only slightly overlaps with 
the  one  targeted  by  the  judicial  training  strategy194:  the  EU  anti-trafficking  strategy 
focuses  on  those  who  fight  human  trafficking  and  protect  and  support  victims  of 
trafficking.  It  refers directly to the judiciary and cross-border law enforcement officers, 
who are also targeted by the European judicial training strategy and the LETS. The EU 
anti-trafficking  strategy  indicates  that  the  Commission  aims  to  strengthen  training  that 
focuses  on  these  two  justice  professions,  and  subsequently  refers  to  the  two  other 
instruments, ensuring coherence with them.  

In terms of subjects covered, the LETS Communication acknowledges the need for EU-
sponsored  training  in  criminal  matters  such  as  money  laundering,  cybercrime  and 
terrorism — all of which are issues relevant to law enforcement officials.  

The  European  judicial  training  strategy  has  to  some  extent  covered  these  issues  in 
training  for  justice  professionals.  Although  prosecutors  are  covered  by  both  strategies, 
the two strategic documents are explicitly aware of this partial  overlap. This meets the 
European Parliament’s call for a more coherent training framework for judicial and law 
enforcement officials in the EU195, and ensures coherence between the European judicial 
training strategy and the LETS196. 

b)  Coherence with national judicial training policies 

The European judicial training strategy is complementary to national judicial training 
policies.  Its  introduction  already  underlines  that  ‘the  creation  of  a  European  judicial 
culture that fully respects subsidiarity and judicial independence is central to the efficient 
functioning of a European judicial area’197. 

The  strategy  also  recalls  that  Member  States  bear  the  main  responsibility  for  judicial 
training. It is also important to highlight that the strategy also needs to respect the judicial 
independence  as  well  as  the  self-organisation  of  professional  associations  of  judges, 
prosecutors, lawyers, notaries, and bailiffs. So the strategy acknowledges that it would be 
neither  permissible  nor  appropriate  to  confer  on  the  EU  sole  responsibility  for  judicial 
training. 

194  Another  slight  overlap  exists  between  target  groups:  LETS  applies  to  ‘law  enforcement  of  all  ranks, 
from  police  officers  to  border  guards  and  customs  officers,  as  well  as,  where  appropriate,  other  state 
officials,  such  as  prosecutors’.  This  shows  partial  overlap  between  LETS  and  the  Dublin  Strategy  as 
regards  custom  officers  –  but  this  does  not  affect  the  coherence  of  the  European  judicial  training 
strategy. 

195  European  Parliament  resolution  of  14 December  2011  on  the  EU  Counter-Terrorism  Policy:  main 

achievements and future challenges (2010/2311(INI)). 

196  Ibid. 
197  COM(2011) 551 final, p. 2. 

60 

 
                                                 
It is clear, therefore, that the strategy does not aim to replace national training policies. 
The  strategy  actually  points  out  that  the  national,  regional  and  local  existing  structures 
are essential to ensuring that judicial training activities include an EU law dimension. So 
the strategy seeks to build on such structures, as well as on European ones, to achieve its 
objectives. Thus it ensures coherence with national policies by channelling EU priorities 
through existing networks already relied upon by national training providers. Moreover, 
securing such coherence is the main goal of the EJTN as a network of all national level 
judicial  training  providers.  It  is  also  significant  that  the  strategy  indicated  that  training 
half of all legal practitioners in the EU by 2020 was a shared challenge. 

In  this  sense,  the  strategy  fully  respects  a  bottom-up  approach198  and  the  principle  of 
subsidiarity:  indeed,  it  provides  the  general  framework  for  building  mutual  trust  across 
the EU through judicial training, without imposing mandatory requirements on Member 
States  concerning  their  national  judicial  training  policies.  It  also  enables  cooperation 
between national and EU-level networks, complementing the national level. 

Moreover,  EU-level  training  providers  are  aware  of  this  issue.  As  explained  and 
discussed  during  the  2018  conference  of  stakeholders,  EU-level  stakeholders  aim  to 
develop  and  deliver  training  activities  complementing  the  national  offer  and  thus 
bringing added value. 

5.5. EU added value 

The strategy brought about EU added value to a good extent. 

The key aspect of the strategy is the creation of the incentive for all stakeholders to reach 
its  common  objective  by  underlining  the  importance  of  training  on  EU  law  for  legal 
practitioners  and  showing  the  political  message  of  commitment  to  improving  this. 
Establishing a common objective for judicial training of EU legal professionals was also 
essential to generating this momentum. 

The  strategy  has  not  only  increased  the  number  of  training  activities  but  also 
promoted some types of activities that Member States could not have implemented 
themselves, such as exchange programmes. 

The  strategy  helped  improve  training  on  EU  law  for  several  categories  of  legal 
practitioners. 

It also contributed to the impressive development of the EJTN and the reinforcement 
of EU-level networks and training providers, such as CCBE, CNUE, ERA, EIPA and 
others. 

198  The  European  Parliament  stressed  the  importance  of  the  bottom-up  approach  for  judicial  training 

schemes in its Report on the mid-term review of the Stockholm Programme (2013/2024(INI)). 

61 

 
 
                                                 
5.5.1 Benefits from EU-level action 

The results of the targeted consultation confirm that the strategy and its implementation 
brought  added  value,  over  and  above  what  could  reasonably  have  been  expected  from 
action by Member States alone. Some two thirds of respondents thought this was the case 
(20% to some extent, 30% to a large extent and 17% to a great extent). 

A  key  impact  of  the  strategy  was  to  create  impetus  for  all  stakeholders  by 
underlining  the  importance  of  training  on  EU  law  for  legal  practitioners  and  giving  a 
message of political commitment to improving it199 and securing the funds to implement 
it. 

The  EU  funds  supporting  the  strategy  were  perceived  as  a  key  point  in  its 
implementation, bringing a clear added value.  These funds enable cross-border projects 
that  could  not  possibly  be  organised  by  any  Member  State  alone,  due  to  the  limited 
resources (including financial) available at national level.  

The interim evaluation of the Justice programme confirms this finding, underlining that 
the EU added value of this programme (which is crucial among the funding programmes 
supporting  the  strategy200)  is  evident  above  all  in  the  implementation  of  ‘transnational 
projects with a European dimension to tackle cross-border issues’201. As one respondent 
commented in the targeted consultation: ‘the added value of EU funding and strategy is 
creating  the  possibilities  and  facilities  to  bring  the  judicial  training  institutes  and 
magistrates from all over the EU together in common activities which a national member 
couldn’t do alone’. 

The  establishment  of  concrete  objectives  for  the  judicial  training  of  EU  legal 
professionals and the implementation of a system to monitor their achievement was also 
essential for creating an incentive to reach these objectives. 

The strategy’s specific target of training half of all legal professionals in the EU between 
2011  and  2020  has  already  been  achieved.  The  increase  in  the  number  of  legal 
practitioners trained is  a clear indicator of the added value of the  strategy, linked to  its 
specific  objective  and  monitoring  system,  which  is  regarded  as  a  useful  tool  by 
stakeholders  —  particularly  training  providers  —  for  closely  following  the  progress 
achieved annually and keeping them motivated to reach the strategy’s target. 

The  strategy  has  not  only  increased  the  number  of  training  activities  but  also 
promoted some types of activities that Member States could not have implemented 
alone, due to insufficient resources (organisational, human, budget, etc.) — for example, 
the exchange programmes. 

199  Minutes of the Expert group on European judicial training, 18 December 2017. 
200  The Justice Programme is the main financial source: 75.5 % of practitioners trained thanks to EU funds 

in 2016 took part in training funded by this programme. 

201  COM/2018/507 final. 

62 

 
                                                 
The strategy has indeed contributed to increasing the training activities on EU law, both 
at national and EU level: 

EU level 

Cross-border  judicial  training  activities  increased  as  a  result  of  the  strategy,  and 
especially the EU funds underpinning it. These activities bring EU added value and are 
highly  appreciated  by  stakeholders.  They  enable  practitioners  not  only  to  deepen  their 
knowledge of EU law, but also to meet their counterparts from other Member States.  

In  this  way,  they  gain  trust  in  other  judicial  systems,  when  hearing  from  their 
counterparts  about  how  they  work,  and  build  personal  networks,  which  are  useful 
subsequently when they are faced with cross-border cases. 

National level  

To  some  extent,  the  strategy  has  increased  interest  in  EU  law  training  activities 
nationally, by pointing out the need to train legal practitioners  on EU law and bringing 
this  issue  to  the  top  of  the  political  agenda,  triggering  a  commitment  by  national 
authorities to achieve its objectives.  

After  the  strategy  was  adopted,  some  Member  States  actually  adjusted  their  national 
judicial training curricula and implemented specific measures, to include or reinforce the 
EU law dimension: 

 

 

 

in France, l’École de formation du barreau de Paris hired a full-time equivalent 
staff member dedicated to designing learning material and supporting teachers in 
strengthening the EU law components of their courses202; 
in Germany, two dedicated full-time equivalents were assigned to implementing 
the strategy at federal level; 
in  Belgium,  participation  in  the  AÏAKOS  programme  was  made  mandatory  for 
trainee judges; 

  Other  countries,  such  as  Austria  (notaries),  Czechia  (judicial  school),  Cyprus 
(Supreme Court of Justice), Slovenia (national authority), Romania (judges) and 
Poland (judges) also took the strategy into account by putting in place measures 
to strengthen the EU law dimension in their training. 

These measures show the added value of the strategy (it was assumed that these countries 
would not have adopted them without the strategy). 

However, we should be careful not to attribute all changes systematically and exclusively 
to the strategy. 

The  strategy  helped  improve  training  on  EU  law for  most  of  the  categories  of  legal 
practitioners, beyond what could have been achieved at national level:  

202  This initiative lasted one academic year (2015/2016) and was not fully successful due to the reluctance 
of some teachers to change their teaching material. Other initiatives were subsequently implemented. 

63 

 
                                                 
  The numbers of judges and prosecutors participating in training increased greatly 
due to the expanded training offer supported by the EU-funded programmes; 
  Court staff  received  a focus that they never had  before, both within the strategy 
and  in  its  implementation,  as  they  became  a  priority  target  group  in  the  Justice 
programme calls for proposals; 

  Notaries organised cross-border training activities for thousands of participants in 
half  the  Member  States,  due  to  EU-funded  projects.  This  then  had  a  multiplier 
effect, leading to the organisation of additional national training activities; 

  The CCBE put training on its agenda, addressed the training needs of lawyers and 
launched  several  initiatives  to  improve  the  situation,  notably  the  European 
Training  Platform  and  the  memorandum  of  understanding  between  its  members 
on mutual recognition of training followed abroad. 

The full recognition of the EJTN, and the concrete responsibilities assigned to it, in the 
text  of  the  strategy  were  essential  for  the  impressive  development  of  this  network, 
which  more  than  doubled  the  number  of  participants  in  its  training  activities  between 
2011  and  2017.  The  explicit  call  in  the  strategy  for  EU-level  networks  and  training 
providers to help implement the strategy created the incentive for CCBE, CEHJ, CNUE, 
ERA,  EIPA  and  others  bodies  to  continuously  develop  their  activities,  and  gave  a 
favourable political and financial context for such development. 

These  organisations  do  not  only  deliver  training  activities,  but  also  sustain  the 
connections  among  their  members  (e.g.  through  annual  gatherings,  spreading  good 
practice, support for preparing proposals). The incipient cooperation between court staff 
training  providers  at  EU  level,  under  the  Justice  programme’s  action  grants,  was  also 
essential for starting to assess the court staff’s training needs in EU law. 

The  strategy  supported  the  development  of  training  methodology  guidelines  and 
identified training best practice and practical examples at European level, an effort which 
could not have been achieved only at national level. These tools were not only distributed 
through the European e-Justice Portal, but also used as pre-requisites when evaluating the 
quality  of  projects  submitted  in  response  to  calls  for  proposals  under  the  Justice 
programme, which contributed to their wide recognition at EU level. 

In  addition,  the  strategy  encouraged  the  development  of  training  material  and 
advertised the material developed under EU co-funded projects — some of which were 
uploaded to the e-Justice Portal. The ‘Advice for training providers’ – a compilation by 
the Commission  of  all  the recommendations and good  practice  from  previous EU-level 
studies,  handbooks  and  conferences  on  the  topic  –  is  recognised  as  a  valuable  tool  for 
training providers. 

The  strategy  also  helped  sustain  and  strengthen  the  EU-level  networks  such  as  the 
EJTN,  CNUE,  ACA-Europa  and  ENCJ,  due  to  the  operating  grants  awarded  under  the 
different EU funds notably in recognition of their role, under the strategy, of supporting 
activities by EU-level stakeholders. 

For  example,  the  continuous  increase  in  financial  support  for  the  EJTN  was  a  direct 
consequence  of  the  responsibilities  given  to  it  under  the  strategy  and  the  priority  this 

64 

 
established  for  it.  The  role  of  the  EJTN  and  other  training  providers,  receiving  either 
operating  grants  (e.g.  CNUE  received  two  operating  grants  including  to  support  its 
training  governance)  or  action  grants  (e.g.  CCBE,  ERA)  is  also  regarded  by  legal 
practitioners  as  crucial  for  implementing  the  strategy.  The  justice  professions  currently 
lacking a network (e.g. court staff) expressed their willingness to either join an existing 
network or create a new one203. 

5.5.2 Limitations in the strategy’s EU added value 

There were, nevertheless, some limiting factors in delivering full EU added value. 

The  stakeholder  consultation  showed  that  some  of  the  stakeholders  contacted  had  no 
awareness of the strategy. 

The  low  awareness  among  justice  professionals  of  the  European  e-Justice  Portal 
(and  the  training  material  available  there)  is  also  a  limiting  factor.  The  external  study 
supporting this evaluation concluded that high-level quality material resulting from EU-
funded  projects  does  not  reach  enough  stakeholders.  Because  these  do  not  all  benefit 
from  the  existing  material,  the  strategy  is  not  adding  its  full  potential  value  (and  this 
might  even  lead  to  some  wasted  efforts,  if  similar  projects  are  proposed  which  yield 
similar results). 

As to the EU funds, the external evaluation study and the 2018 conference’s conclusions 
noted  that  their  administrative  complexity  limits  the  submission  of  proposals,  as 
stakeholders tend to think that the benefits of receiving funding are not worth the effort 
needed to submit an application that complies with the general requirements.  

Many stakeholders (e.g. in Austria, Estonia, Germany and Greece) indicated that if they 
are involved, they actually prefer to have an associated partner role rather than the project 
leader  role,  which  entails  excessive  administrative  resources.  The  leading  role  is, 
therefore,  usually  held  by  EU-level  training  providers,  such  as  the  EJTN,  ERA,  EIPA, 
CCBE and CNUE.  

Some stakeholders with less administrative capacity, such as small national, regional and 
local training providers, even seem to have stopped applying for EU funds because of the 
administrative  burden  in  preparing  submissions.  However,  this  was  not  without 
advantages:  oversubscription  (criticised  by  Programme  Committees  as  a  waste  of 
resources for unsuccessful proposers) has been very limited in the judicial training field 
(also due to its highly specialised field), thus limiting wasted efforts. 

Despite the clear support which the networks bring to the strategy’s EU added value, one 
conclusion of the  external  evaluation  study  was  that  the various  networks are currently 

203  Beyond  the  temporal  scope  of  the  evaluation,  at  the  call  of  the  European  Commission  for  court  staff 
training  providers  to  cooperate  at  EU-level  and  following  internal  discussions  on  EJTN’s  future 
strategy,  the  EJTN  adopted  a  recent  decision  in  their  2019  General  Assembly  to  address  court  staff 
training and the welcoming of court staff training institutions into the EJTN fold. Changes to EJTN’s 
Articles of Association to accommodate this were subsequently approved at the General Assembly. 

65 

 
                                                 
not sufficiently meeting and discussing with each other, thereby missing the opportunity 
to  build  on  their  experience  and  knowledge  (i.e.  networking  between  the  networks)  to 
bring even higher collective added value. 

5.5.3 Likely consequences of withdrawing the strategy 

Since  the  strategy  was  regarded  as  a  policy  document  that  encourages  political 
commitment towards European judicial training, withdrawing the strategy could give the 
opposite  political  message,  i.e.  that  the  issue  is  no  longer  a  priority  on  the  European 
agenda. 

Since the increase  in  national  funds channelled to  judicial training  was  seen  as a direct 
consequence of this political signal, withdrawing the strategy could produce the opposite 
effect,  a  reduction  in  budgets  for  European  judicial  training.  Almost  all  stakeholders 
interviewed  emphasised  the  negative  effects  that  would  ensue  if  EU  financial  support 
was  stopped.  In  particular  the  training  providers  such  as  the  EJTN,  ERA  and  EIPA, 
essential actors in EU judicial training who rely on the EU operating and action grants, 
would be seriously impacted by this funding shortfall. 

For  example  the  EJTN  received  96%  of  its  budget  from  the  Justice  programme  for  its 
2017 work programme (a direct consequence of its responsibilities under the strategy and 
the priority given to this network). Without the EJTN’s specific role under the strategy, it 
is likely that it would also have to face a budget cut. This would drastically decrease their 
activities, and the impact they have. Indeed, if the remaining budget was sufficient only 
to fund the organisation of meetings by members, and not cross-border training activities 
or exchanges, the network would effectively cease to have any genuine impact. 

Withdrawing  the  strategy  would  also  have  an  impact  at  national  level,  since  some 
participating  countries  would  not  have  enough  resources  (financial,  human  or 
organisational), or in other cases the political interest, to provide judicial training. They 
would  not  be  able  to  organise  the  same  volume  and  variety  of  cross-border  training 
activities. 

Moreover,  without  the  tools  that  monitor  the  strategy  (such  as  the  annual  monitoring 
reports), it is likely that the commitment of training providers and other stakeholders to 
achieving  specific  quantitative  or  qualitative  goals  would  diminish.  Without  a  specific 
target  to  be  reached,  stakeholders  are  unlikely  to  remain  motivated  to  continually 
increase the number of training activities on EU law. 

Finally, in the long term the results of withdrawing the strategy could be a lower level of 
both  understanding  of  EU  law  and  mutual  trust.  The  ever  tighter  integration  of  EU 
Member  States,  bringing  ever  more  cross-border  transactions,  travel  and  migration, 
naturally leads to the widespread need for legal practitioners from different EU countries 
to have a good knowledge of EU law and a sufficient level of mutual trust.  

66 

 
Without  the  strategy,  this  need  would  persist  but  Member  States  would  be  unlikely  to 
have  the  capacity  to  address  it  with  the  same  levels  of  benefit/achievement  that  the 
support provided through the strategy brings. 

5.6.Sustainability 

The strategy managed to have a lasting effect on its direct target audience and other 
main stakeholders, evident in: 

●  improved knowledge and use of EU law, and attitudes towards it; 
●  stronger mutual trust between justice professionals in the Member States; 
●  more cooperation and knowledge sharing among legal practitioners; 
●  training  providers’  increased  capacity  to  deliver  training  on  EU  law  and 

embed EU law in their curricula. 

However, the following challenges to the strategy’s sustainability remain: 

●  training material produced with EU support is not always re-used to its full 

potential; 

●  the potential of the European e-Justice Portal is under-explored; 
●  need to complement EU support at national level; 
●  some  stakeholders  do  not  consider  time  spent  on  judicial  training  as  an 

investment. 

5.6.1 Internal and external factors linked to sustainability 

The lasting impact of the strategy is linked to various internal and external factors, either 
actual or potential. It also depends on how sustainable the activities are at both EU and 
national level. 

In  the  study  conducted  for  the  interim  evaluation  of  Justice  programme,  80%  of 
respondents believed that the programme’s judicial training sub-objective  had produced 
lasting results.  

Though half of these (40% of all respondents) thought the programme very important for 
ensuring sustainable results, the other half thought the programme had only a low impact 
on this. The remaining 20% thought the programme had no impact on sustainability204. 

Factors influencing sustainability in the learning process  

Training is expected to produce a long-term impact if the knowledge and skills acquired 
are  likely  to  be  used  in  practitioners’  daily  activity,  improve  the  quality  of  their  work, 
maximise their efficiency and increase mutual trust.  

Internal factors 

204  Interim Evaluation of the 2014-2020 Justice Programme. Final  Report.  EY and Fondazione  Giacomo 

Brodolini for the European Commission, pp. 248-249. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  following  features  could  be  considered 
sustainability of the learning process (and hence the strategy):  

internal  factors 

influencing 

the 

tailoring training activities to specific groups of participants; 
linguistic accessibility of the training activities and materials; 

 
 
  quality of learning; 
  evaluation of the quality and impact of learning. 

According to  the stakeholders interviewed, the strategy, the Commission and  the EJTN 
are a source of inspiration in this respect, supporting training providers through valuable 
advice on how to create/organise practical training activities and promoting the four-level 
Kirkpatrick evaluation model. 

Multiplier effect  

Sustainability also depends on the potential for re-using training material. This is one of 
the factors assessed when evaluating proposals submitted in response to a call. 

Another  way  of  getting  a  multiplier  effect  for  the  target  audience  while  ensuring  high 
quality is the train-the-trainer (TTT) format205. The Justice programme made this format 
a funding priority206. 

The follow-up planned for the activities is also important. 

The study on the Justice programme found evidence of synergies and cooperation among 
projects  funded  under  this  programme  and  other  programmes/initiatives,  to  ensure 
against overlaps/duplications207.  

Some projects funded by the Justice programme (e.g. the projects ‘EU judiciary training 
on Brussels IIa Regulation: from South to East’ and ‘Interregional and practice oriented 
judicial  training  in  EU  civil  law’)  built  on  material  available  on  online  platforms.  This 
ensured  continuity  with  existing  activities  and  outputs,  and  also  enabled  them  to  use 
existing structures to develop new projects on different subjects208.  

The  EJTN,  ERA  and  Notaries  of  Europe  regularly  make  training  material  freely 
accessible on their websites. 

A good model of sustainability of the training material is the roll out of the seminars and 
online  courses  developed  by  the  Council  of  Europe  through  the  HELP  programme  at 
national level, translated in the national language of the participants. 

205  As well as teaching participants the field of EU law in question, Train-The-Trainer schemes develop the 
skills  necessary  to  become  a  trainer,  able  to  pass  on  knowledge:  presentational  and  teaching  skills, 
interaction, creation of learning materials, etc. 

206  For  example,  the  2017  call  had  as  a  priority:  ‘cross-border  training  activities  for  multipliers,  such  as 
judicial trainers or EU law court coordinators, where there are guarantees that the multipliers will pass 
on their knowledge to other legal practitioners in a systematic way.’ 

207  The case of the project ‘Europe for Notaries’, implemented by Notaries of Europe, is cited. 
208  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  2014-2020  Justice  Programme.  Final  report.  EY  in  association  with 

Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini for the European Commission, pp. 249. 

68 

 
                                                 
However, ensuring sustainability after the completion of the project can be complex, as 
suggested  by  interviews,  especially  for  beneficiaries  of  action  grants  (limited  in  time), 
and because of the lack of a common repository for the output of all projects. 

Digital tools  

E-learning is seen as a factor in sustaining the results of the strategy, due to the potential 
to re-use material and making it accessible to a great number of participants in a flexible 
manner  and  at  a  reasonable  cost.  According  to  68 %  of  the  targeted  consultation 
respondents, the Commission achieved its goal of promoting e-learning to some extent.  

The  external  evaluation  report  found  participating  countries  increasingly  aware  of  the 
importance  and  benefit  of  e-learning,  although  only  a  minority  of  the  stakeholders 
interviewed  actually  already  use  it  regularly  (in  the  targeted  consultation,  only  31% 
stated  they  were  actually  using  e-learning).  However,  to  be  sustainable,  an  e-learning 
module  should  provide  content  to  participants  in  a  dynamic  and  interactive  way  –  it 
cannot  consist  solely  of  providing  electronic  versions  of  handbooks  or  legal  texts,  as 
sometimes still appears to be the case. 

However, the strategy did not fully attain its sustainability goals for distributing material 
on  the  European  e-Justice  Portal,  because  stakeholders  were  insufficiently  aware  the 
Portal existed and found it difficult to use.  

A large percentage of respondents to the targeted consultation stated the Portal’s training 
section  was  not  particularly  useful  in  helping  them  learn  about  EU  law  or  providing 
relevant training material for training providers: 

 

just  32%  thought  the  strategy  had  achieved  its  goal  of  developing  the  Portal  to 
support European judicial training; 

  23% found the Portal ‘extremely’ to ‘very useful’ in supporting the strategy; 
  45% thought the Commission should improve the Portal’s training section. 

External factors 

Time for training seen as an investment 

Key  factors  here  include  the  extent  to  which  justice  practitioners,  Member  State 
authorities and representatives of professional associations in the sector view the training 
activities  as  bringing  value  to  their  daily  work,  and  their  willingness  to  keep  their 
knowledge of an ever-changing EU legal environment up-to-date. 

The strategy succeeded  overall  in raising the awareness  of justice professionals  on 
the  importance  of  EU  law  for  their  daily  practice:  two  thirds  of  respondents  to  the 
targeted consultation had changed their attitude towards EU law (to some extent/a large 
extent or a great extent); the interviews also confirmed this finding (mentioning some or 
a large improvement in practitioners’ attitudes towards EU law, and increased awareness 
of  its  importance)  —  although  47%  of  the  consultation  respondents  attributed  the 

69 

 
continued  ignorance  of  EU  law  to  a  lack  of  understanding  of  its  relevance  to 
practitioners’ daily work. 

However, the external  evaluation  study identified a  negative perception  of time spent 
on  training,  which  hampers  the  sustainability  of  the  strategy:  legal  practitioners 
interviewed  said  they  had  no  time  to  devote  to  learning  and  no  (or  too  little)  time 
available  for  training;  classroom  sessions  and  exchanges  were  regarded  as  highly  time 
consuming,  obliging  attendees  to  suspend/delay  their  daily  tasks;  respondents  to  the 
targeted consultation also confirmed this lack of time (nearly half said they had no time 
to  attend  training,  an  issue  which  the  strategy  does  not  take  sufficiently  into  account 
when addressing their needs). 

In addition, some interviewees mentioned that Court presidents are not always aware of 
the  added  value  of  training  activities  on  EU  law,  and  hence  refuse  their  requests  to 
participate. However, interviewees from a few Member States (e.g. Bulgaria, Germany) 
stated that the attitudes of their court and prosecution officers towards dedicating time to 
training  activities  had  improved  since  the  strategy  was  adopted.  The  exchange 
programme for Court Presidents, put in place by the EJTN in 2017, was also designed to 
help change attitudes in this regard. 

5.6.2  Lasting  effect  on  direct  target  audiences  and  other  main 
stakeholders 

Lasting effect on training providers 

This consists mainly of the systematic inclusion of EU law in the curriculum of training 
providers at national and EU level. 

39% of respondents to the targeted consultation saw a ‘very’ to ‘extremely’ lasting effect 
of the strategy in the available training on EU law. These results were confirmed by the 
stakeholders  interviewed,  who  mentioned  that,  thanks  to  the  strategy,  providers  now 
include  EU  law  training  in  their  national  curriculum  (either  as  a  separate  subject  or 
within already existing courses) to a greater extent than before. 

The improved capacity of providers to organise good quality training on EU law (clearly 
recognised under the efficiency criterion) also boosts the strategy’s sustainability. 

The  potential  re-use  by  providers  of  the  training  material  produced  at  EU  level  should 
also boost sustainability. Many interviewees use EJTN material, which they consider of 
suitable quality, or material from other EU schools or other stakeholders (e.g. the EJTN’s 
Train-the-trainer handbook and linguistic training methodologies, training material from 
the HELP programme, and booklets on regulations from CNUE209).  

209  http://www.ejtn.eu/Methodologies--Resources/;  http://help.elearning.ext.coe.int/;  http://www.notaries-

of-europe.eu//index.php?pageID=194. 

70 

 
                                                 
However,  the  material  produced  with  EU  support  is  not  always  re-used  as  much  as  it 
could be. Most of the providers and Member State authorities interviewed have their own 
learning  material,  which  they  distribute  through  their  website  or  e-learning  platforms. 
Some  of  them  create  themselves  up  to  80%  of  the  material  required,  sometimes  in 
cooperation with ERA or EIPA or with speakers they invite; they even share documents 
and best practice with partner countries. 

The lasting effect of the strategy on training providers is also enhanced by the train-the-
trainer activities. The trainers who attend are expected to act as further multipliers of the 
knowledge. 

The networks and their continued existence are also important multipliers of the training 
activity, spreading the results to their members. Building on the  networks and ensuring 
they  work  well  was  a  clear  objective  of  the  strategy,  achieved  to  a  great  extent,  which 
clearly increases its sustainability. 

The most important network in this regard is the EJTN, which provides its members with 
standard  guidelines,  curricula,  lists  of  experts,  etc.  –  which  they  can  use  for  their  own 
training activities, potentially on a national wide basis. 

However, the continuation of the EJTN and the other networks depends to a large extent 
on  the  EU  providing  financial  and  organisational  support.  The  participants  in  the 
validation  workshop  also  underlined  the  importance  of  bringing  together  training 
providers and existing networks every year, to allow for cooperation and the creation of 
partnerships,  as  done  at  the  yearly  conferences  hosted  by  the  Commission.  Indeed,  the 
2018  conference  of  stakeholders  concluded  that  –  while  there  is  no  need  for  further 
networks – communication and coordination among existing networks should be further 
improved. 

Lasting effect on legal practitioners and other stakeholders 

By  their  nature,  the  results  of  training  initiatives  always  include  a  sustainability 
component:  the  knowledge  attained,  awareness  raised  and  exchanges  initiated  are  all 
meant  to  last  and  be  reflected  in  the  stakeholders’  behaviour  after  the  training  and  the 
underlying  project  have  finished.  The  lasting  effect  is  reflected  in  their  level  of 
knowledge of EU law, changes in attitude towards EU law and the use of EU law. 

The strategy has increased practitioners’ knowledge of EU law. The prime indicator of 
this  is  the  increased  number  of  training  activities  on  EU  law  and  participants  in  them. 
Despite differences among legal practitioners in Member States, most of the interviewees 
mentioned that practitioners’ knowledge of EU law increased as a result of the strategy, 
especially younger practitioners, since more EU law is now included in initial training. In 
the public consultation, roughly 61% of respondents said they had knowledge of EU law 
(33% to some extent, 20% to a large extent and 8% to a very large extent). 

Regarding  the  use  of EU  law,  86%  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  said  they 
remember having used knowledge acquired at  an EU law training session in their daily 

71 

 
work.  Interviewees  also  noticed  an  increase  in  the  use  of  EU  law  in  the  daily  work  of 
legal practitioners, ascribed to increased knowledge in and a change in attitude towards 
EU law (and related training). 

The  level  to  which  EU  law  was  used  after  the  implementation  of  the  strategy  was 
compared  to  that  used  before  (the  baseline).  This  also  showed  an  increased  level  of 
recognition of EU law and enforcement of cross-border judgments following the strategy. 

interviews  were  conducted,  most 

Regarding  the  level  of  mutual  trust  between  justice  professionals  in  Member  States 
where 
that  cross-border 
cooperation  had  improved  significantly  compared  with  previously  (when  previously,  in 
some  Member  States,  there  were  little  or  no  opportunities  for  contact  with  peers  from 
other Member States). 

interviewees  noticed 

The main factor increasing mutual trust is the networking and sharing of experience and 
best  practice.  This  is  directly  supported  by  the  exchanges  that  take  place  through  the 
EJTN  or  individual  funded  programmes:  EU  cross-border  activities  and  specifically  all 
activities organised by the EJTN helped increase the level of mutual trust. Interviewees 
indicated  how  much  they  appreciate  the  chances  which  the  EJTN  offers  to  take  part  in 
conferences  and  workshops,  where  practitioners  can  meet  counterparts  from  other 
Member States. Also, at the validation workshop, face-to-face activities were deemed to 
be the best way of building mutual trust. Many interviewees and workshop participants 
stressed  the  benefits  of  face-to-face  contacts  between  practitioners  from  different 
Member States – ensuring sustainability through cross-border meetings and conferences, 
training  and  exchange  programmes.  It  was  very  clear  that  most  interviewees  could  see 
the  added  value  of  these  cross-border  initiatives  and  were  very  pleased  to  be  able  to 
participate or organise them more easily than before the strategy – thanks to a change in 
attitudes and increased financial support. 

Some interviewees indicated that the strategy has helped create a space in which judicial 
professionals can be part of the EU judicial culture, sharing best practice and setting up 
cross-border  internships  and  exchange  programmes.  In  particular,  the  strategy  was 
essential in ensuring smooth contact between notaries across Member States, improving 
cross-border cooperation. Smaller jurisdictions in particular saw a significant increase in 
mutual trust; before the strategy they did not have such opportunities for interacting with 
other jurisdictions. 

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

This  evaluation  shows  that,  overall,  the  2011  strategy  achieved  its  objectives, 
efficiently  and  at  reasonable  cost.  It  complemented  national  policies  in  the  field  in  a 
relevant  and  coherent  manner,  in  full  respect  of  the  subsidiarity  principle,  and  added 
lasting value that Member States would not otherwise have been able to achieve. 

72 

 
 
The  strategy  created  political  momentum,  which  prompted  increased  commitment  to 
judicial training by both EU and national bodies, backed up with additional funds.  

Its objectives were found to be concrete, realistic and relevant to the needs of justice 
professionals. The indispensable character of the EU action and its clear benefits were 
largely acknowledged;  in  particular the huge increase in  cross-border training  activities 
and judicial exchanges could not otherwise have been achieved. 

The operational, specific and general objectives were achieved to a good extent.  

The target of training half of all legal practitioners on EU law between 2011 and 2020, 
in itself a driver of political change, was achieved two years ahead of time. Over the 7 
years,  almost  all  the  categories  of  justice  practitioners  targeted  reached  the  annual  5% 
target of trained practitioners per profession.  

The  objective  of  1,200  judicial  exchanges  per  year  was  surpassed  and  the  number  of 
training  activities  constantly  increased.  The  success  of  the  AÏAKOS  programme 
represents substantial progress towards the objective that all newly appointed judges and 
prosecutors  should  take  part  in  an  exchange  organised  by  national  judicial  training 
institutions. 

The  strategy  led  to  almost  doubling  the  total  funds  made  available  to  train  legal 
practitioners  through  EU  programmes  and  greatly  improved  the  capacity  of  networks 
such as  the European Judicial  Training Network  (EJTN) and training providers such as 
the  Academy  of  European  Law  (ERA)  and  the  European  Institute  of  Public 
Administration (EIPA-Luxembourg). 

The  direct  link  between  EU  financial  support  and  the  increases  in  the  number  of 
participants  and  training  activities  led  stakeholders  to  underline  the  importance  of  this 
financial support, calling for an increase of  the amounts dedicated to  European judicial 
training. 

Other operational objectives were achieved to a certain extent:  

 
 

improving the national regulatory frameworks; 
increasing support for training on legal terminology in foreign languages. 

Outstanding needs that were identified: 

 
 

 

improving the training section on the European e-Justice Portal; 
further improvement in  training  lawyers and  court staff, as well as  bailiffs, on 
EU law; 
increased  training  of  prison  staff  and  probation  officers,  at  the  end  of  the 
judicial  chain  (on  EU-specific  issues  such  as  anti-radicalisation  and  the  EU’s 
Fundamental Rights Charter). 

Other factors suggested as increasing the strategy’s effectiveness include improving the 
potential for e-learning, increasing awareness of the European e-Justice Portal and further 
simplifying access to EU funding opportunities. 

73 

 
Overall, the strategy helped increase knowledge of EU law while reinforcing mutual 
trust between legal practitioners. 

The strategy was considered efficient and the costs associated with implementing it were 
deemed, overall, to be proportionate and justified, especially regarding the number of 
legal practitioners trained. But although the need to continue monitoring results is largely 
accepted, since the strategy and the annual reports seem to be both a political trigger and 
a  driver  of  global  commitment,  further  improvements  and  simplification  of  the  process 
were suggested in the feedback received. 

The  relevance  of  the  strategy’s  scope  was  confirmed,  with  a  clear  expectation  that  its 
objectives should be further extended – not just geographically, but also to new subjects 
and to cover other professions. 

The evaluation results confirmed the need to more effectively reach some categories of 
justice professionals (notably lawyers, court staff) and address further subjects like the 
rule of law, fundamental  rights,  judge craft and  legal  terminology.  The need to  remain 
flexible, to address continuously evolving challenges, was also underlined. 

Beyond  confirming  the  geographical  focus  of  the  strategy  on  EU  Member  States,  the 
evaluation results highlighted the need to continue addressing also countries outside the 
EU  who  wish  to  follow  European  values  (supporting  knowledge  about  the  rule  of  law 
and EU legislation). 

The strategy is coherent overall, with no major inconsistency. It fits well with other EU 
instruments  affecting  the  judicial  training  field  and  with  other  strategies  that  have 
training  objectives,  and  is  coherent  with  the  judicial  training  policies  of  the 
participating countries. 

The  strategy  brings  EU  added  value.  The  political  interest  triggered  by  the  strategy 
enabled EU funds to be allocated to this subject. Most strategy objectives would not be 
achieved to the same extent or at all at national level without it. The strategy offered EU-
level  networks  and  training  providers  a  framework  for  coordinating  their  efforts 
towards shared goals. 

The  EU  added  value  of  the  strategy  relies  also  on  expanding  the  capacity  of  EU-level 
networks  and  organisations,  which  proved  to  be  key  players  for  training  justice 
professionals at European level, helping the strategy meet its objectives. 

The EJTN was widely praised for the high-quality cross-border training offered to judges 
and  prosecutors  in  the  EU,  and  for  its  contribution  to  increasing  the  number  of 
participants,  training  activities  and  exchanges.  Its  nine  ‘Judicial  training  principles’  are 
becoming a general reference in the judicial world and the exchange programme for new 
and experienced judges and prosecutors has become a symbol of common identity for its 
participants, sharing the same values and belonging to a unique European culture. 

74 

 
The role of other EU-level training providers (ERA, EIPA-Luxembourg) and networks, 
such  as  CNUE  for  notaries  and  CCBE  for  lawyers,  was  also  deemed  instrumental  in 
furthering  training  on  EU  law  for  these  professions.  The  need  for  further  cooperation 
between  training  providers  of  court  staff  and  of  prison  and  probation  officers  was  also 
underlined; further developments in this respect are ongoing. 

This makes the case for a continued need for training projects with an EU dimension, and 
shows that the continued work of the networks depends on EU financial and coordinating 
support. 

In terms of sustainability, the lasting effect of the strategy is visible in: 

improved knowledge of, attitudes to and use of EU law; 

 
  strengthened mutual trust;  
 

increased cooperation and knowledge sharing among justice professionals in the 
participating countries;  

  consolidated  capacity  of  training  providers  and  networks  to  deliver  training  on 

EU law.  

Remaining challenges to sustainability include: 

 

the  training  material  produced  with  EU  support  is  not  always  re-used  to  its  full 
potential; 
the potential of the European e-Justice Portal is under-explored;  

 
  need to complement EU support at national level; 
  some stakeholders are reluctant to  consider time spent  on  judicial training as an 

investment; 

  mechanisms  allowing  better  controls  on  the  quality  and  sustainability  of  the 
training material used by practitioners and financed by the EU should be further 
considered. 

Overall,  the  results  of  the  evaluation  of  the  2011  European  judicial  training  strategy 
were widely acknowledged as highly positive and support the case for continuing efforts 
in this field.  

The  strategy  created  high  expectations  within  the  legal  community  that  the 
Commission  will build  on the strategy’s successes  to  date and benefit from  the lessons 
learned from implementing the strategy when further developing policy in this area. 

Table 4. Overview progression table 

Effectiveness   Efficiency  Relevance  Coherence 

EU added 
value 

Sustainability  

Assessment to 
baseline 

Colour code: 

To a great extent 

To good extent  

To some extent 

To a limited extent 
Not at all 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEXES 

Table of annexes 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 77 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 80 

ANNEX 3: EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS ..................................................................... 89 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................................................................................... 91 

ANNEX 5 FUNDING DEDICATED TO JUDICIAL TRAINING ............................................................. 95 

ANNEX 6 EXTERNAL EVALUATION SUPPORT STUDY .................................................................... 97 

ANNEX 7 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... 98 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

  DG Justice and Consumers 
  PLAN/2017/2022 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

This  evaluation  has  been  steered  by  DG  Justice  and  Consumers  since  November  2017 
under the scrutiny of the Interservice Steering Group on European judicial training (ISG), 
which comprises representatives of DGs CNECT, COMP, DEVOC, DGT, EAC, EMPL, 
ENV,  FPI,  GROW,  HOME,  HR,  NEAR,  OLAF,  SANTE,  SG,  SJ  and  TAXUD,  of  the 
executive agencies EACAE and ERCEA and of the European External Action Service. 

The  ISG  was  consulted  at  each  stage  of  the  evaluation  process  and  reviewed  each 
deliverable  produced  by  the  contractors  and  this  staff  working  document  (SWD).  The 
consultations took place on: 

  21 November 2017,  by  email,  regarding  the  draft  intervention  logic  of  the 
strategy,  the  draft  consultation  strategy  and  the  draft  consultation  for  the  open 
public consultation; 

  11 December 2017,  by  email,  regarding  the  amended  consultation  strategy,  the 
amended  questionnaire  for  the  open  public  consultation,  the  draft  questionnaire 
for the targeted consultation and the draft privacy statement accompanying both 
questionnaires; 

  20 February 2018, by email, regarding the draft terms of reference for an external 
evaluation  study  together  with  its  annexes:  evaluation  roadmap,  evaluation 
targeted  consultation 
design,  open  public  consultation  questionnaire  and 
questionnaire; 

  1 June 2018,  by  meeting,  regarding  the  draft  inception  report  of  the  external 

contractor; 

  12 September 2018,  by  meeting,  regarding  the  draft  final  report  of  the  external 

contractor; 

  8 May 2019, by meeting, regarding this draft staff working document. 

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

  None. 

4.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The SWD was developed in line with the Evaluation Roadmap published in November 
2017210, to which 2 feedbacks were received. 

210  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-5430278_en 

77 

 
 
                                                 
The consultation strategy planned for the following sources of evidence to feed into the 
evaluation: 

  Literature review, 
  572 replies to the open public consultation and 28 position papers, 
  87 replies to the targeted consultation and 8 position papers, 
  45 face-to-face interviews with key stakeholders in 10 EU Member States and 43 

phone interviews in 18 EU Member States, 

  3 phone interviews with the judicial schools of Albania, Montenegro and Serbia, 
  14 phone and face-to-face interviews at EU level (Commission staff, MEPs, EU-

level training providers, EU-level association of justice professionals), 

  Data provided by the national  and EU training providers  of judges,  prosecutors, 
court  staff,  lawyers,  notaries,  bailiffs  and  mediators  in  reply  to  the  annual  DG 
JUST data collection exercise for publication of  the report on European judicial 
training, from 2011 until 2017, 

  A  conference  of  stakeholders  organised  by  the  European  Commission  on  18-

19 June 2018, 

  A validation workshop on preliminary findings with 6 EU-level stakeholders on 

31 July 2018. 

Section 4 of the staff working document addresses the data robustness issues. 

DG  Justice  and  Consumers  organised  two  meetings  of  the  thematic  Expert  Group  on 
European judicial training211, which comprises experts of training of justice professionals 
representing  the  different  professions  and  legal  traditions  of  the  EU.  The  meeting  of 
December 2017 took place at the start of the open public and targeted consultations and 
sought the experts' feedback on the consultations' questions212. The meeting of May 2018 
took place after the consultations and discussed the validity and relevance of the replies 
to the consultations213. The Expert Group was also consulted by email on the draft Staff 
working document in April 2019. 

DG  Justice  and  Consumers  contracted  an  external  contractor  (Deloitte)  to  carry  out  an 
evaluation study, under the supervision of the  Interservice Steering Group on European 
judicial training (ISG). The contractor carried out all the requested tasks: reviewing the 
intervention  logic  of  the  European  judicial  training  strategy,  creating  statistics  graphs 
from the replies to the open public and targeted consultations conducted by the European 
Commission,  carrying  out  the  evaluation  to  provide  evidence-based  responses  to  the 
evaluation  questions  regarding  the  implementation  of  2011  strategy  and  proposing 
recommendations  (as  the  Deloitte  summary  of  the  replies  to  the  consultation 
questionnaires  was  deemed  not  accurate  enough,  DG  Justice  and  Consumers  also  used 
the DORIS European Commission analysis tool to redraft the summaries of the replies to 
the consultation). 

211  http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=224 
212  Minutes are available here:  
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupMeeting&meetingId=1947 
213   Minutes are available here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupMeeting&meetingId=5010. 

78 

 
                                                 
The  ISG  requested  some  changes  to  the  contractor’s  inception  report,  namely  the 
originally planned online focus group for lawyers was replaced by additional interviews 
with  the  secretariat  of  the  Human  rights  Education  for  Legal  Professionals  Programme 
(HELP), with judicial training bodies of some candidate countries: Albania, Montenegro 
and Serbia and with DG NEAR staff responsible for the funding programmes relevant for 
judicial  training  in  third  countries.  The  ISG  made  minor  suggestions  to  improve  the 
intervention  logic,  the  evaluation  matrix  and  the  stakeholder  mapping  and  to  include  a 
comparison with other training strategies, such as the Law Enforcement Training Scheme 
(LETS).  The  ISG  also  emphasised  that  a  clear  distinction  should  be  made  between  the 
strategy  itself  and  how  it  was  financed  (the  scope  of  the  strategy  is  broader  than  the 
financing provided by the European Commission and the evaluation scope reflected this). 
The ISG took note that the neighbourhood countries would not be covered by the study 
but  would  be  mentioned  in  this  staff  working  document,  to  the  extent  that  they  be 
concerned by the strategy. To ensure the best possible quality of the study, and in view of 
the  extension  of  the  schedule  provided  by  DG  Justice  and  Consumers  to  finalise  this 
evaluation,  the  ISG  asked  the  contractor  to  resubmit  its  draft  final  report.  The 
intervention  logic  was  further  refined  by  the  ISG  for  the  benefit  of  this  staff  working 
document,  to  ensure  that  it  be  better  aligned  with  the  strategy  itself.  The  contractor 
finalised the external evaluation study (resubmitted final report) on 22 March 2019. 

79 

 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

1.  CONSULTATION  STRATEGY:  OBJECTIVES,  STAKEHOLDERS,  CONSULTATION 

METHODS AND TOOLS 

1.1.  Objectives 

The purpose of the consultation carried out from November 2017 until July 2018 was to 
assess  to  which  extent  the  strategy  adopted  by  the  Commission  in  2011214,  which  set 
objectives for the training of justice professionals to be reached by 2020, was successful, 
what  were  the  drawbacks  and  if  the  current  strategy  was  still  fit  for  nowadays' 
challenges. 

The  analysis  was  conducted  against  the  following  evaluation  criteria:  effectiveness, 
efficiency, relevance, coherence, EU  added value, sustainability.  The  assessment  of the 
EU financial support to European judicial training covered the financial years from 2011 
to  2017  included.  The  evaluation  covered  all  Member  States,  candidate  countries,  and 
potential candidates as well as neighbourhood countries. 

1.2. 

Identified stakeholders 

The  consultation  aimed  at  obtaining  input  from  all  possibly  interested  stakeholders,  in 
particular: 

  The justice professionals; 
  The training providers for justice professionals, at EU and at national level; 
  The  organisations  or  associations  representing  justice  professions,  at  EU  and  at 

national level; 
  The EU institutions; 
  The  national  authorities  (judicial  authorities,  governments,  ministries,  regional 

authorities…); 
International or intergovernmental organisations; 

 
  EU platforms, networks or associations of justice professionals; 
  Universities, law faculties, research institutes, publishing companies. 

1.3.  Consultation methods and tools 

In  order  to  ensure  a  wide  consultation  of  all  possible  stakeholders,  several 
complementary formats and tools were used: 

  A public consultation, based on an online general questionnaire; 
  A targeted consultation, based on an online specific questionnaire; 

214  2011 Commission Communication ‘Building trust in EU-wide justice — A new dimension to European 

judicial training’: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0551. 

80 

 
 
                                                 
  Meetings of the Expert Group on European judicial training; 
  Conference of stakeholders; 
 

Interviews of the main stakeholders and a validation workshop conducted by the 
external contractor - Deloitte. 

2.  CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES 

The consultation activities included:  

  Publication of the Evaluation and Fitness Check Roadmap215; 
  A  public  consultation,  based  on  an  online  general  questionnaire  in  English, 
French and German, to which contributions could be made in any of the official 
EU  languages.  A  targeted  consultation,  based  on  a  questionnaire  in  English, 
complemented  the  public  consultation.  The  contributions  are  available  on  the 
European Commission’s consultation webpage216. 

  Two  meetings  of  the  Expert  Group  on  European  judicial  training:  at  the 

start217 and after the consultation218; 

  The conference "Shaping the future of judicial training. Fit for 21st century 
justice", which gathered the main stakeholders, wrapped up the consultation and 
enabled discussing the results; 

  Interviews of the main stakeholders and a validation workshop conducted by the 

external contractor – Deloitte. 

3.  RESPONDENT STAKEHOLDERS 

For  the  general  consultation,  572  replies  were  received,  2/3  of  them  from  people 
replying in their professional capacity/on behalf of an organisation.  

The respondents were mainly justice professionals, from a variety of professional areas at 
a  national,  regional  or  local  level,  and/or  representatives  of  consultancies/  law  firms, 
trainers,  NGOs,  ministries,  European  level  bodies  representing  a  specific  justice 
profession and a handful of citizens. 

The  main  justice  professions  represented  by  the  respondents  who  replied  to  this 
consultation  were:  judges  (42.8%);  court  staff  (14.3%);  lawyers  (12%)  and  prosecutors 
(11%).  Other  professions  also  represented,  though  to  a  lower  degree,  included:  prison 
management  and  staff,  bailiff  or  enforcement  officers,  mediators,  legal  translators  or 
interpreters, probation officers, insolvency practitioners and court experts.  

As  for  the  geographical  coverage,  the  replies  originated  from  almost  all  the  other  EU 
Member  States,  except  Denmark,  Malta  and  Slovakia.  Germany  (29.9%)  and  Italy 
(19.7%) were the most active. 

215  The  feedback  received  on 

the  roadmap 

is  available  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-

regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-5430278_en. 

216  https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/training-justice-professionals-eu-law-evaluation_en 
217  http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupMeeting&meetingId=1947 
218  http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupMeeting&meetingId=5010 

81 

 
                                                 
The  targeted  consultation  addressed  specialists  in  training  of  justice  professionals  on 
EU law in  the EU. Most major EU-level  actors replied to  it:  the EJTN, the CCBE, the 
Council  of  Europe  (HELP  programme),  ERA,  EIPA-Luxembourg  and  the  European 
Union Intellectual Property Office – EUIPO. 

In  total,  87  replies  to  the  targeted  consultation  were  received.  2/3  replied  in  their 
professional capacity/on behalf of an organisation and the others replied in their personal 
capacity.  Almost  half  of  the  respondents  were  justice  professionals.  National-level 
training  structures  and  ministries  or  national  public  bodies  represented  1/3  of  the 
respondents.  The  rest  were  individual  trainers,  EU  level,  regional  or  local  training 
providers  or  bodies  representing  a  specific  justice  profession.  The  vast  majority  of  the 
respondents, which replied to this consultation, were non-profit organisations (90.9%). 

Among the respondents, the representation of justice professions included: judges (45%); 
prosecutors  (32%);  court  staff  (25%);  lawyers  (14%);  bailiff  or  enforcement  officers 
(9%);  prison  management  and  staff  (9%).  Other  represented  professions  were  notaries, 
probation  officers,  mediators,  insolvency  practitioners,  legal  translators  or  interpreters 
and  court  experts  replied  in  smaller  percentages.  Seven  respondents  belong  to  “other” 
professions. 

Replies  came  from  all  the  EU  Member  States,  except  for  Denmark,  Malta,  Poland, 
Slovakia and Slovenia. The main contributors were Spain (1/5), Italy, France, Germany 
and Ireland. Two replies also came from the Republic of Moldova. 

The  respondents  for  both  questionnaires  were  active  in  all  areas  of  law:  criminal, 
administrative, civil and fundamental rights. 

The  members of the  thematic Expert  Group on European judicial  training219 were 
nominated  in  their  personal  capacity  for  their  proven  competence  and  experience  in 
training  legal  practitioners  in  European  law.  As  a  group,  they  represent  all  legal 
professions  and  EU  legal  traditions;  they  represent  experience  from  smaller  and  bigger 
training providers; and they ensure geographical and gender balance. 

The  conference  gathered  representatives  of  EU-level  organisations  and  networks220, 
including some of their national members, and national authorities thus covering training 
of all legal professions in the EU and in some Western Balkans countries. 

Representatives of the main stakeholders were interviewed by the external contractor and 
attended the validation workshop. 

219  http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2241 
220  EJTN,  CCBE,  CNUE,  ERA,  EIPA-Luxembourg,  European  University  Institute  (EUI),  ENCJ,  ACA-
EUROPE,  Network  of  the  Presidents  of  Supreme  Judicial  Courts  in  the  EU,  Help/  CoE,  EPTA, 
UEHJ/CEHJ, EUROPris, CEP, representatives of the European Parliament and the Court of Justice of 
the EU and agencies (FRA, EASO Director and EU liaison officer, CEPOL, EUIPO, EPO). 

82 

 
                                                 
4.  METHODOLOGY AND TOOLS USED TO PROCESS THE DATA 

The  Commission  assessed  the  results  of  the  public  consultation  using  DORIS.  The 
external contractor also analysed them and produced statistics graphs. 

The  Expert  Group  on  European  judicial  training  discussed  these  results  and  validated 
them  while  the  conference  ‘Shaping  the  future  of  judicial  training.  Fit  for  21st 
century justice’ endorsed them. 

5.  FEEDBACK ON THE ROADMAP  

A  feedback  expressed  concerns  that  the  application  of  EU  law  is  endangered  by  the 
attitude  of  some  judges  who  address  cases  involving  EU  law  issues  as  domestic  ones, 
without considering the applicability of EU law. 

Further concerns were expressed regarding lawyers lagging behind in their knowledge of 
EU  law  and  other  legal  professionals,  which  should  be  targeted  in  future  (i.e.  prison 
officers). 

One respondent considered how the enforcement of EU law can be endangered if the rule 
of  law  and  the  independence  of  the  judiciary  are  not  respected  and  concluded  that  the 
training has to provide the necessary tools to prevent such scenario. In the same line, the 
insufficient  acknowledgement  of  the  role  and  ‘acquis’  of  the  Council  of  Europe  in 
judicial training on European human rights standards was pointed out. 

6.  RESULTS OF EACH CONSULTATION ACTIVITY. 

6.1.  Training activities on EU law 

The results of the public consultation, confirmed during the Expert Group meetings and 
Conference,  showed  that  the  best  suited  types  of  training  activities  on  EU  law  are 
interactive  learning  methods  (workshops,  seminars,  round  tables,  debates)  as  well  as 
exchanges  between  practitioners.  For  some  professions  such  as  notaries,  classical 
methods are still predominant. The need of having exchanges for the court staff and for 
other professions was underlined. 

There is a consensus that a combination of both face-to-face and e-learning are needed. 
In  the  context  of  EU  calls  for  proposals  for  action  grants,  the  Expert  Group  concluded 
that the preferences for one type of training or the other should be assessed on a case by 
case basis. The consultation revealed different perceptions on the potential of e-learning 
and its sustainability, varying depending on generation and professions. For some it can 
be considered as a solution for lack of time, for others it’s not the appropriate training to 
answer  the  objective  of  mutual  trust  notably.  Interactivity  seems  to  be  the  key  issue  to 
address.  

The quality of the speakers, interactivity with the speakers and between the participants, 
the distributed material and the size of the group were the major  criteria identified by 
respondents  to  assess  quality.  The  quality  and  the  relevance  of  the  training  offer,  in 

83 

 
particular the content and its practice orientation seem the main factors for an increased 
participation  of  justice  professionals  in  training  activities  on  EU  law  in  a  cross-
border setting. The quality of the speakers, the methodologies used, the accessibility of 
the training offer in  terms  of time and budget,  the promotion  of training offers and the 
language were also mentioned. 

The Expert Group and the conference confirmed that training in 2018 should be regarded 
as  an  investment,  as  part  of  modern  management  and  the  activities  should  be  more 
practical and needs orientated. 

As for factors  to  increase the training offer on EU law, respondents  most  frequently 
mentioned EU financial support. As for the support to the integration of EU law into 
training activities on national topics, the increased awareness of the need for training 
on EU law among stakeholders responsible for training offer and a better understanding 
of the relevance of EU law for the daily practice of justice professionals  across the EU 
were recalled. 

6.2. 

Scope of the European judicial training 

The majority  of respondents  who replied to  this question considered that  the strategy 
still addresses the current training needs. 

Regarding the strengths of the strategy, the respondents welcomed the goal to train half 
of the EU’s justice professionals by 2020, as necessary and realistic, and the flexibility of 
the  strategy,  able  to  encompass  emerging  needs  (e.g.  enhanced  training  on  data 
protection,  asylum,  labour  rights,  etc.).  The  target  audiences,  training  contents  and 
training methodologies referred to in the strategy were considered useful.  

The participants in the conference of stakeholders and the experts agreed that EU support 
is essential to provide a European dimension. It  enables the promotion of the European 
culture  among  practitioners.  Notaries  declared  that  the  strategy  opened  the  opportunity 
for training on relevant topics of EU law. 

As  for  the  areas  for  improvement,  the  replies  mentioned  the  types  of  training  (e.g. 
increased  use  of  e-learning),  the  content  (e.g.  judgecraft,  human  rights,  rule  of  law, 
languages and case management), the target groups (e.g. court staff) and increase of the 
financial means available to  support and implement  the strategy. Regarding  court staff, 
many improvements were suggested, including the idea that the EJTN should expand its 
activities and develop a new strategy in order to design and implement training activities 
to address them. 

As a factor of improvement, the Expert Group agreed on the need to increase visibility of 
the  strategy  and  to  anchor  it  at  national  level  by  convincing  decision-makers  of  the 
importance  of  training  of  justice  practitioners,  with  relevant  support  from  the 
Commission.  The  experts  showed  concerns  about  the  long-lasting  effects  of  the  EU-
funded  projects  and  stressed  the  need  that  these  effects  should  be  monitored  and  that 
qualitative materials should be easily accessible.  

84 

 
A large majority of respondents considered that, in the future, the strategy should set new 
objectives,  which  should  be  both  quantitative  and  qualitative  and  differentiated  per 
justice profession, in  accordance with  their different  needs, depending on the degree of 
complexity and the area of law that the justice profession deals with. The Expert Group 
advanced  the  idea  of  having  common  objectives  with  sub-specific  objectives  for 
different target audiences and topics.  

The same large majority thought that the strategy should also focus beyond the European 
Union on other countries, namely on the countries that wish to join the EU and possibly 
other neighbourhood countries. The extension to candidate countries was broadly shared 
by the experts and participants to the conference, though more scepticism was shown for 
neighbourhood countries. Some caution was expressed in terms of budget, as the Justice 
Programme should primarily address EU Member States.  

6.3.  Results of the strategy  

The replies showed that the strategy was successful in meeting its objectives at more than 
50%. Some results were more tangible than others. The following results were perceived 
by more than 2/3 of the respondents as the most successful ones:  

 

 

increasing  the  number  of  participants  in  the  exchanges  of  both  experienced  and 
new judges and prosecutors, in EU (co-funded) training activities on EU law;  
the  European  Commission  increasing  its  financial  support  to  the  EJTN  and  to 
European judicial training in general;  

  Member  States  reinforcing  the  financial  contribution  to  their  national  judicial 

training structures in the EJTN; 
improving the quality of training activities on EU law; 

 
  supporting training on legal terminology of foreign languages; drafting guidelines 

on training methodologies; 

  national judicial training structures reinforcing their participation in the EJTN; 
  EU financial support to high-quality projects; 
  encouraging consortia or regional  groups of national  judicial schools to  develop 

common training. 

Other results were perceived by more than a half of respondents as successful: 

  developing the European e-Justice Portal to support European judicial training; 
 
 
 
 

training on EU law being integrated into the initial training of legal practitioners; 
recognition of training activities attended abroad for national training obligations; 
the development of e-learning; annual gatherings to promote best practice; 
targeting all legal practitioners and encouraging public-private partnerships. 

About  two  thirds  of  respondents  considered  that  the  strategy  and  its  implementation 
brought  added  value,  over  and  above  what  could  reasonably  have  been  expected  from 
national  interventions  which  it  complemented,  having  a  lasting  effect  on  the  justice 
professionals who took part in EU law training and their attitude towards EU law in their 
daily practice. 

As  factor  of  progress  linked  to  the  strategy,  the  influence  of  networking  and 
cooperation between all stakeholders and between Member States, including the regular 

85 

 
exchanges  between  the  European  Commission  and  the  stakeholders  was  essential.  The 
financial support provided by the EU constituted also a crucial factor on top of flexibility 
and simplification of the administrative burden. The role of the EU, as a policy actor and 
vector  of  common  values,  the  functions  of  the  strategy  as  providing  a  solid  ground  for 
long-term  planning,  sustainability  and  advocacy  for  judicial  training  at  both  EU  and 
national level were also mentioned, as well as raising the awareness of the relevance of 
EU law to court staff and bailiffs. 

The  first  and  foremost  drawback  in  the  implementation  of  the  strategy  was  that 
justice professionals did not have time to take part in training. Other drawbacks were: 

insufficient budget , 
justice professionals were not replaced when they took part in training; 
training did not count as working time; 
lack of approval from the hierarchy to take part in training; and 

 
 
 
 
  EU  law  was  not  systematically  included  in  national  law  training  as  intended  by 

the strategy. 

As for the main benefits of the strategy, almost one third of the respondents referred to 
the  improved  quality  of  legal  decisions  and  stronger  integration  of  EU  law  in  practice. 
Some  others  stated  that  it  created  the  basis  for  long-term  planning  of  the  individual 
Member States in this area. 

6.4.  Means and actors of the strategy  

When  asked  how  they  fulfil  their  training  needs,  respondents  answered  that  they 
mainly  trained  themselves  on  EU  law  via  the  internet,  through  interaction  with 
colleagues,  with  face-to-face  or  online  training  and  using  library.  Almost  two  thirds  of 
them were informed about good practices on EU law that could be applicable to their 
work and half of them about the training offers on EU law available in  other Member 
States,  mainly  by  internet  or  intranet.  Other  sources  of  information  were  EU  law  court 
coordinators, newsletters, meetings, training, and information from public authorities. 

Half of the respondents interacted with training providers from other Member States, 
mainly on training topics, on participation in a common EU-funded cross-border training 
project, on best training practices and on training needs, mostly via email, but also during 
meetings of the network they belong to and during bilateral face-to-face meetings.  

The vast majority of respondents considered that cooperation at EU level between the 
training  providers  was  important  and  that  EU-level  networks  of  training  providers 
were useful. One of the strongest points emerging was the benefit of sharing knowledge, 
best  practice  and  lessons  learned,  which  helps  create  better  training  programmes  and 
strengthen standardisation of EU professional training.  

The  usefulness  of  EU-level  networks  of  training  providers  was  praised,  with  the 
particular achievements of the EJTN mentioned several times. The CCBE indicated that 
the  cooperation  between  lawyers'  training  providers  should  be  encouraged.  The  idea  of 
having a directory of institutions and officials responsible for the training of prison and 

86 

 
probation  staff,  by  strengthening  EPTA  and  exploring  the  possibilities  under  CEP  to 
create a network for the probation staff was recalled. EJTN and several of its members 
suggested  promoting  the  creation  of  new  national  networks  of  EU  law  experts  and 
supporting  the  existing  ones.  Most  of  the  respondents  also  thought  that  national 
thematic networks of justice professionals are useful.  

The  vast  majority  of  respondents  considered  that  discussions  between  justice 
professionals  of  different  Member  States  were  helpful  to  raise  awareness  of  the 
importance of EU law in daily practice and that training activities with participants from 
different Member States trigger mutual trust and the feeling of belonging to a common 
European judicial community.  

An  overwhelming  majority  of  respondents  considered  that  the  EU  should  support 
training of justice professionals on EU law, first and foremost via financial support, 
and that these funds were not sufficient for the current training needs on EU law of 
the justice professions. 

Half  of  the  respondents,  the  experts  and  most  of  the  participants  to  the  Conference 
indicated  that  there  were  elements  of  EU  financial  support  to  European  judicial 
training  that  could  be  simplified  or  otherwise  improved,  such  as  bureaucracy,  the 
application  procedures  for  action  grants,  the  reporting  process,  the  requirements  on  the 
budget for a project and the reimbursement process.  

Half  of  the  respondents  had  already  taken  part  in  applying  for  EU  (co)funded 
projects. The ones that didn't take part indicated that it was too complicated to answer an 
EU  call  for  proposals,  their  organisation  was  too  small  or  didn't  know  of  any  EU 
(co)funding possibilities.  

The  other  possible  measures  of  support  mentioned  were:  promoting  training 
methodologies,  fostering  cooperation  among  training  providers  at  EU  level,  providing 
guidelines  or  handbooks  on  specific  topics  of  EU  legislation,  improving  the  training 
section  of  the  European  e-Justice  Portal  and  raising  the  awareness  of  the  relevant 
stakeholders.  

As for the promotion of the quality of EU (co)funded projects, the recommendations 
regarded monitoring and evaluation; funding; increased cooperation and re-training needs 
assessments and post training evaluation. 

Only  7  respondents  replied  to  the  question  on  the  usefulness  of  public-private 
partnerships and they didn't know of any public-private partnership in the field of 
European judicial training. In the Expert Group it was broadly agreed that the concept 
of  public-private  partnership  is  not  suitable  for  judicial  training  though  collaboration 
between public and private sector can work in other terms.  

Half of the respondents thought that the European e-Justice Portal had been useful in 
supporting  the  strategy  and  that  its  training  section  should  be  further  developed. 
The CCBE requested the European Training Platform tool to be inserted in the Portal.  

87 

 
Most  of  respondents  thought  that  the  EU  should  help  develop  more  technological 
support for European judicial training activities.  

6.5.  Monitoring any other feedback  

Though the need to monitor and include quantitative objectives to  measure progress  of 
the strategy is confirmed, opinions are varied.  

A  relative  majority  thought  that  the  strategy's  process  for  reporting  and  monitoring 
had  been  timely  and  efficient,  but  many  didn't  know  (44.3%).  Difficulties  were 
highlighted in providing data for the annual reports because the questions did not always 
match  with  the  national  context.  The  CCBE  underlined  that  the  number  of  trained 
lawyers in some countries does not correspond to reality since there is no unified system 
for the collection of statistics on this issue. 

Nevertheless, more than half of the respondents indicated that there should be a yearly 
monitoring system to follow the implementation of the strategy. 

Several respondents suggested having both quantitative and qualitative indicators. 

The quantitative indicators mentioned were: the number of training activities organised 
on  EU  law,  the  number  of  participants  in  training  activities  organised  on  EU  law,  the 
number of EU law topics discussed within the framework of training activities organised 
and the number of practitioners willing to participate.  

As qualitative indicators, respondents refer to the evaluation of the training activities by 
those  who  have  participated  in  them  and  the  measure  of  the  impact  of  training  on  the 
daily practice of the participant  several  months  after participation in  the  activity. Other 
indicators  were  also  suggested,  such  as  the  methodology  used  in  training,  the  trainers' 
(practice-oriented) performance, the quality of the training materials and resources used, 
the types of certification and the use of native speakers in language activities.  

As for the Expert Group and the conference, no one questioned the need to monitor and 
report as such. In general, participants agreed on the need to include qualitative elements, 
particularly for the EU-funded projects. Some experts called for a reporting mechanism 
every  two  years  to  alleviate  the  burden  it  represents  and  allow  witnessing  the 
improvement.  

There was a plea for having a common evaluation form for EU-funded projects, so that 
data can easily be collected and integrated into statistics.  

Though  agreeing  on  the  difficulty  to  go  beyond  the  Kirkpatrick  level  1  and  2,  some 
experts also raised the need to measure the impact of training after completion.  

88 

 
 
 
ANNEX 3: EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS 

This  annex  presents  the  evaluation  criteria  and  evaluation  questions  answered  by  this 
staff working document. 

What is the baseline and current situation? 

What  is  the  baseline  against  which  the  implementation  of  the  strategy  should  be 
assessed? What is the origin of the European judicial training strategy? 

What is the current situation for the different main stakeholders? What types of training 
activities  are  being  held?  Which  areas  of  law  do  training  activities  focus  on?  Which 
problems have been encountered related to (a) the implementation and (b) the application 
of the European judicial training strategy? 

Evaluation  criterion  1:  effectiveness  (the  extent  to  which  the  European  judicial 
training strategy has been successful in achieving its objectives) 

To what extent has the European judicial training strategy been successful in achieving 
its  operational  objectives?  Has  the  strategy  been  more  effective  at  achieving  some 
objectives than others? Has the strategy been more effective at targeting training on some 
areas of law than others? To what extent has the European judicial training strategy been 
successful in achieving its specific objectives? To what extent has the European judicial 
training strategy been successful in achieving its general objectives? 

Evaluation  criterion  2:  efficiency  (the  costs  and  benefits  associated  with  the 
implementation  of  the  European  judicial  training  strategy  and  whether  they  are 
proportionate) 

What  are  the  costs  and  benefits  associated  with  the  implementation  of  the  European 
judicial training strategy? Are the costs and benefits associated with the implementation 
of  the  European  judicial  training  strategy  proportionate?  To  what  extent  are  the  costs 
associated  with  the  strategy  justified,  given  the  effects  it  has  achieved?  How 
proportionate  were  the  costs  of  the  implementation  of  the  strategy  by  different 
stakeholders groups, taking into account the distribution of associated benefits? 

What  factors  influenced  the  efficiency  with  which  the  observed  achievements  were 
attained? What is the potential to reduce inefficiencies and simplify the strategy at both 
EU  and  national  level? How  efficient  is  the  governance  structure  of  the  strategy?  How 
timely  is  the  strategy's  process  for  reporting  and  monitoring?  How  efficient  is  the 
strategy's process for reporting and monitoring? 

Are the funds associated with the implementation of the current strategy sufficient for the 
current training needs and problems of the justice professions? At EU level? At national 
level? 

89 

 
Evaluation  criterion  3:  relevance  (the  extent  to  which  the  European  judicial 
training strategy still addresses current training needs and problems of the justice 
professions) 

What are the practice needs of justice professionals? Have they evolved over time? If so, 
how?  To  what  extent  do  the  objectives  of  the  European  judicial  training  strategy  still 
address current training needs of the justice professions within the EU? How relevant is 
the  strategy  to  the  different  stakeholders,  including  EU  citizens?  Is  the  geographical 
coverage of the strategy adequate in relation to the objectives? 

Evaluation criterion 4: coherence (to what extent have the elements of the European 
judicial training strategy worked well together between themselves and with other 
EU policies and interventions) 

To what extent is the strategy coherent internally i.e. to what extent have the elements of 
the European judicial training strategy worked well together and between themselves? To 
what  extent  is  the  strategy  coherent  externally  with  other  EU  interventions  relating  to 
application  of  EU  law?  Is  the  strategy  complementary  to  national  judicial  training 
policies?  What  external  factors  and  policy  developments  at  national  and  EU  level, 
directly  and  indirectly  linked  to  the  European  judicial  training  strategy,  have  most 
influenced progress? 

Evaluation criterion 5: EU added value (the added value delivered by the European 
judicial  training  strategy  and  its  implementation,  over  and  above  what  could 
reasonably have been expected from national interventions in the Member States) 

What  is  the  added  value  delivered  by  the  European  judicial  training  strategy  and  its 
implementation, over and above what could reasonably have been expected from national 
interventions in the Member States alone? Are there clear benefits from EU level action? 

What would be the most likely consequences of withdrawing the strategy? 

Evaluation criterion 6: sustainability: the extent to which the implementation of the 
strategy has a lasting effect on the direct beneficiaries and other main stakeholders. 

To  which  extent  has  the  implementation  of  the  strategy  a  lasting  effect  on  the  direct 
beneficiaries  and  other  main  stakeholders?  What  are  the  existing  factors  or  potential 
factors that might be linked with sustainability?  

90 

 
 
 
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS 

This  annex  provides  a  description  of  the  methodological  approach  to  the  evaluation  by 
summarising  the  methodological  approach  of  the  external  evaluation  study,  the  use  of 
descriptive statistics and the further refinement of the intervention logic. 

1.  METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION STUDY 

The  external  contractor  carried  out  its  work  in  3  phases:  inception,  data  collection  and 
final analysis and reporting221. Each phase is described below. 

The inception  phase  comprised the kick-off meeting, the  gathering of information  and 
the elaboration of the methodological approach, the drafting of interview guides for use 
in fieldwork and phone interviews, the inception report meeting and the inception report. 
It  also  included  the  preparation  of  the  statistical  graphs  to  represent  the  replies  to  the 
open  public  consultation  and  to  the  targeted  consultation.  Following  the  kick-off 
meeting, the contractor adjusted the methodology and the methodological tools, namely 
the intervention logic and the evaluation matrix. 

The European judicial training strategy’s intervention logic helps visualise the causality 
between the relevant activities and their expected effect. In other words, it shows how the 
strategy’s various inputs and activities inter-relate and ultimately lead to the achievement 
of  higher-level  objectives.  The  relationships  depicted  in  the  intervention  logic  also 
provided a framework for the evaluation. 

The evaluation  matrix222 is  the logical  link between the study  objectives  and the actual 
analysis, as it operationalises the research questions to  be considered in  the assignment 
by connecting it with judgment criteria and indicators. The evaluation matrix furthermore 
links  these,  in  a  systematic  and  structured  way,  with  the  appropriate  data  sources  and 
hence  it  drove  the  data  collection  process  all  along  the  study  –  to  ensure  that  all  data 
necessary  is  collected  and  can  be  used  to  produce  evidence-based  conclusions  and 
recommendations. 

The data collection phase comprised the data collection, the interim report meeting and 
the interim report. The contractor collected the relevant qualitative and quantitative data 
and used the following tools: 

  Desk  research  and  literature  review223,  including  DG  Justice  and  Consumers’ 
annual  reports  on  European  judicial  training,  reports  from  the  funding 
programmes,  studies of the pilot  project  on European judicial training, raw data 
collected for the annual reports, minutes of the meetings of the Expert Group on 
European  judicial  training,  minutes  of  meetings  of  the  interservice  group  on 
European judicial  training, the training section of the European  e-Justice Portal, 

221  Deloitte. Inception report. 
222  Deloitte. Final report. Annex D, page 176. 
223  Deloitte. Inception report. Annex D. Page 127. 

91 

 
                                                 
literature  shared  by  the  interviewed  stakeholders,  position  papers  uploaded  by 
respondents to the open public consultation and to the targeted consultation; 
  Strategic interviews in the form of phone and face-to-face interviews at EU level: 
Commission  staff,  EU-level  training  providers,  EU-level  association  of  justice 
professionals (14 interviews); 

  Replies to the open public consultation and targeted survey; 
  Attendance  at  relevant  meetings:  meeting  of  the  Expert  Group  on  European 
judicial training on 30 May 2018, conference on Shaping the future of European 
judicial training on 18-19 June 2018; 

  Fieldwork, i.e. face-to-face interviews in 10 Member States of representatives of 
authorities in charge of training of legal professionals (ministry or council of the 
judiciary),  representatives  of  associations  of  legal  professions,  national  (public 
and private) training institutions (45 interviews); 

  Phone interviews in 18 Member States of representatives of authorities in charge 
of  training  of  legal  professionals  (ministry  or  council  of  the  judiciary), 
representatives of associations of legal professions, national (public and private) 
training institutions (43 interviews);  

  Phone  interviews  with  EJTN  observer  members  in  Serbia,  Albania  and 

Montenegro (one in each country). 

The contractor checked the qualitative and quantitative information collected against the 
indicators contained in  the evaluation  matrix to  ensure that  all the evaluation  questions 
were addressed correctly. The contractor compared the data collected to the data needed 
to answer the research questions and identify any gaps. 

The  final  analysis  and  reporting  phase  comprised  the  final  report  meeting,  two  draft 
final reports and the final report. During the analysis, the contractor triangulated the data 
collected  in  order  to  channel,  combine  and  cross-validate  findings  and  arguments  from 
several sources. It sought to answer the evaluation questions and organised a validation 
workshop  to  discuss  the  preliminary  findings  of  the  analysis  with  the  Commission  and 
with  6  EU-level  stakeholders.  A  process  of  final  analysis  and  judgment  took  place  to 
produce the final report including the contractor's conclusions and recommendations.  

2.  DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 

The main data analysis  method used was descriptive statistics - in  particular  to  analyse 
the stakeholder consultation's responses (using inter alia the DORIS tool of the European 
Commission). Limitations include of course the fact that these stakeholder consultations 
do not provide statistically significant results. 

3.  LIMITATIONS REGARDING DATA 

As  mentioned  in  Section  4  of  this  staff  working  document,  the  first  limitation  is  that 
whilst  some  data  are  fully  available,  for  others  the  information  has  been  difficult  to 
gather. 

92 

 
Some further accuracy issues hamper the  annual judicial training reports of DG  Justice 
and Consumers. E.g. almost no “other stakeholders” (such as private training providers) 
report to the Commission on the training activities they deliver. The concept of training 
on EU law still raises some issues as some stakeholders only took into account training 
activities  exclusively  dealing  with  EU  law,  while  others  included  all  types  of  training 
activities as long as they had an EU law dimension (despite the clear definition provided 
in the data collection questionnaire that all types of training activities should be included 
as long as they have an EU law dimension)224. Some discrepancies were also identified 
between  the  total  number  of  legal  practitioners  trained  provided  in  the  reports  and  the 
raw data of the Commission. This is because in 2011, EU-funded participants to training 
activities were included in the total figure presented in the report and not subsequently; in 
2013, the annual raw data comprised some formulas mistakes, leaving some countries out 
of the total number of legal practitioners trained. The level of granularity of the data (i.e. 
type  of  training,  topic  addressed,  duration)  used  to  prepare  the  reports  has  also  been  a 
limiting factor: there is no data available, either at EU level or in EU Member States, on 
the individual training activities delivered each year, or the exact topic targeted by these 
(only  a  general  overview  on  the  law  areas  is  provided).  The  countries  which  use  the 
European  Social  Fund  to  support  judicial  training  report  on  the  number  of  participants 
trained thanks to the fund - which are then included in the Commission's annual reports; 
but  the  information  about  the  types  of  activities,  the  topics  covered  and  the  budgets 
allocated are more difficult to collect. Also, for technical reasons, the stakeholders do not 
always know the exact number of participants in e-learning activities – limiting also the 
level of details of some findings. 

4.  FURTHER REFINEMENT OF THE INTERVENTION LOGIC 

For  the  purpose  of  this  staff  working  document,  the  European  Commission  further 
refined  the  intervention  logic225  that  had  been  redrafted  by  the  contractor226,  so  that its 
wording  would  better  reflect  the  exact  content  of  the  2011  Communication  "Building 
trust in EU wide justice - A new dimension to European judicial training"227. 

The specific objective 3 was reworded as follows: “Citizens and businesses benefit from 
their EU law rights everywhere in the EU”. 

The operational objectives were divided into 8 clearer separate objectives: 1. Increase the 
number  of  judicial  training  activities,  including  judicial  exchanges;  2.  Increase  the 
number of overall / co-funded beneficiaries of training sessions and exchanges, incl. via 
e-learning; 3. Channel more financial support to judicial training; 4. Improve the reach of 
training  activities  by  targeting  all  groups  of  legal  practitioners  and  covering  all  EU 

224  When compiling the figures, the Commission has taken account of respondents’ statements that EU law 
had  been  covered  in  the  training  of  all  trainees  or  in  all  training  activities,  where  these  were 
accompanied by information on the length of time devoted to EU law or on the topics covered. 
225  Figure 1 — the European judicial training strategy’s intervention logic, p. 8 of this document. 
226  Deloitte. Final report. Figure 2, page 25. 
227  COM(2011) 551 final. 

93 

 
                                                 
Member  States  and  candidate  countries;  5.  Improve  national  training  programmes  and 
regulations,  e.g.  by  integrating  EU  law  into  national  initial  training,  ensuring  mutual 
recognition  of  training  attended  abroad;  6.  Improve  the  capacity  of  training  providers, 
e.g. by strengthening the EJTN as well as encouraging  consortia and PPPs;  7.  Improve 
the  quality  of  training  activities  on  EU  law,  e.g.  by  developing  the  European  e-Justice 
Portal  as  support,  drafting  guidelines  on  methodologies,  sharing  of  best  practice;  8. 
Support training on legal terminology of foreign languages. 

The  inputs  were  clarified  into  5  different  inputs:  1.  EU  governance;  2.  National 
implementation; 3. EU financial programmes; 4. National funding; 5. Private funding. 

The  expected  outputs  were  reformulated  into  8  different  outputs,  to  reflect  the  8 
operational objectives: 1. Increased number of judicial training activities at national and 
EU level, 1,200 EJTN exchanges/year; 2.  By 2020, half of all EU legal  practitioners to 
have taken  part in  at  least  one European judicial training  activity, including  e-learning; 
20 000  participants  per  year  supported  by  EU  financing;  New  judges  and  prosecutors 
benefiting from an exchange programme; All legal practitioners benefiting from at least 
one week’s training on EU law during their career; 3. Increased share of financial support 
devoted  to  judicial  training;  4.  Enlarged  reach:  more  professions  of  legal  practitioners 
receiving training on EU law; wider geographical reach; 5. Improved national regulatory 
framework:  EU  law  included  in  initial  training,  mutual  recognition  of  training;  6. 
Strengthened  EJTN;  New  partnerships,  including  PPPs;  Increased  capacity  of  training 
providers;  7.  Improved  quality  of 
training  activities;  published  guidelines  on 
methodology  and  evaluation;  improved  Portal  training  section;  8.  Increased  support  to 
training on legal terminology of foreign languages. 

The  third  expected  result  now  reads:  Better  enforcement  of  rights  for  citizens  and 
businesses in the EU. 

94 

 
ANNEX 5 FUNDING DEDICATED TO JUDICIAL TRAINING 

Table 5. Overview of the main EU funding towards European judicial training 

Funding per year in 
Million Euro (2011-
2017) 

(Civil and 
criminal) 
Justice 
programme 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

TOTAL 

Share 

AG228 
OG229 
Proc. 

TOTAL 
AG 
OG 
Proc. 

TOTAL 
AG 
OG 
Proc. 

TOTAL 
AG 

OG 
Proc. 

TOTAL 
AG 
OG 
Proc. 

TOTAL 
AG 
OG 
Proc. 

TOTAL 
AG 

OG 
Proc. 

TOTAL 
AG 
OG 
Proc. 

TOTAL 
AG 
OG 
Proc. 

3.7 € 

5.5 € 
0.7 € 
9.9 € 
3.9 € 
6.1 € 
0.4 € 

10.3 € 
4.6 € 
6.5 € 
-   € 
11.1 € 
7.4 € 

7.3 € 
0.6 € 
15.3 € 
10.0 € 
7.9 € 
-   € 

17.9 € 
12.8 
8.8 
-   € 
21.6 € 
11.8 € 

9.5 € 
0.8 € 
22.1 € 
54.2 € 
51.6 € 
2.4 € 
108.2 € 

50% 
48% 
2% 

228  Action grants. 
229  Operating grants. 

Grand 
total 
4.8 € 

7.3 € 
2.3 € 
14.5 € 
4.6 € 
8.7 € 
1.9 € 

15.2 € 
12.4 € 
9.2 € 
2.2 € 
23.7 € 
11.1 € 

10.0 € 
1.7 € 
22.8 € 
13.4 € 
10.6 € 
1.7 € 

25.7 € 
15.0 € 
11.5 € 
2.4 € 
28.9 
12.6 € 

12.2 € 
2.4 € 
27.3 € 
74.0 € 
69.4 € 
14.7 € 
158.1€ 

Rights, 
Equality 
and 
Citizenship 
programme 
0.5 € 

Erasmus + 
/ Jean 
Monnet 
programme 
-   € 

Hercule III 
programme 
0.7 € 

LIFE 
programme 
-   € 

-   € 
-   € 
0.7 € 
0.3 € 
-   € 
-   € 

0.3 € 
1.7 € 
-   € 
-   € 
1.7 € 
0.6 € 

-   € 
-   € 
0.6 € 
0.3 € 
-   € 
-   € 

0.3 € 
0.8 € 
-   € 
-   € 
0.8 € 
0.1 € 

-   € 
-   € 
0.1 € 
4.5 € 
-   € 
-   € 
4.5 € 

-   € 
0.2 € 
0.2 € 
-   € 
-   € 
0.2 € 

0.2 € 
-   € 
-   € 
0.2 € 
0.2 € 
-   € 

-   € 
0.3 € 
0.3 € 
-   € 
-   € 
0.3 € 

0.3 € 
-   € 
-   € 
0.3 € 
0.3 € 
-   € 

-   € 
0.3 € 
0.3 € 
-   € 
-   € 
1.7 € 
1.7 € 

100% 
0% 
0% 

0% 
0% 
100% 

1.8 € 

1.8 € 
-   € 
2.6 € 

2.6 € 
-   € 
2.6 € 

2.6 € 
-   € 

2.7 € 

2.7 € 
-   € 
2.7 € 
-   € 

2.7 € 
-   € 
2.7 € 
-   € 
2.7 € 
-   € 

2.7 € 
-   € 
2.7 € 
-   € 
17.8 € 
-   € 
17.8 € 

0% 
100% 
0% 

-   € 
1.4 € 
1.9 € 
0.5 € 
-   € 
1.4 € 

1.8 € 
6.1 € 
-   € 
2.0 € 
8.1 € 
3.1 € 

-   € 
0.9 € 
4.0 € 
3.0 € 
-   € 
1.5 € 

4.5 € 
1.4 € 
-   € 
2.1 € 
3.5 € 
0.7 € 

-   € 
1.4 € 
2.1 € 
15.3 € 
-   € 
10.6 € 
25.9 € 

59% 
0% 
41% 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 6. Contributions to training providers (2011 and 2017) 

Training 
provider 

Source  
of funding 

2011 

2017 

%  of  increase 
(2011-2017)  

EIPA 

EJTN 

Commission 
Member States 
Commission 
Member States 
Commission 
Member States 

€5 500 000 
€359 000 
€320 478 
€365 693 
€4 464 000 
€2 115 000 
Total 
€13 124 171 
Source: Deloitte based on data provided by the Commission, DG JUST, and the relevant training providers. 

€9 500 000 
€396 900 
€587 670 
€498 340 
€5 067 360 
N/D   
€16 050 270 

72.7% 
10.6% 
83.4% 
36.3% 
13.5% 

22.3% 

ERA 

Table 7. EJTN funding and activities (2011-2017) 

Criminal justice programme 
2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

Justice programme 

2016 
8.8 

2017 
9.5 

5.5 

6.1 

6.5 

7.3 

7.88 

93,9% 
73.4% 

95% 
94,5% 
83.1%  89.25% 

95% 

95% 
93.5%  98.4% 

96% 
95,7% 
94.5%  96.97% 

2,671 

3,336 

3,882 

4,256 

5,032 

5,556 

6,317 

1,592 

2,413 

2,756 

3,177 

3,625 

4,342 

5,174 

10,686  15,702  17,180 

21,618  24,726 

27,312 

30,612 

121 

175 

162 

182 

201 

217 

259 

€436 

€379 

€357 

€332 

€330 

€318 

€313 

24 

44 

48 

52 

67 

76 

116 

928 

1,222 

1,280 

1,622 

1,815 

2,217 

2,694 

of 

grant 

EJTN's 
(in € million) 
Co-funding rate 
Implementation level 
Number 
participants 
(Catalogue included)230 
Number  of  participants 
(Catalogue excluded) 
Number  of 
training 
days (Catalogue excluded) 
Number  of  persons 
served 
staff 
per 
(catalogue excluded) 
Cost per training day 
(Catalogue excluded) 
Number of seminars 
(Catalogue excluded) 
Number of exchanges 
Source: EJTN data. 

230  EJTN’s  catalogue  lists  the  national  judicial  training  activities  opened  to  participation  of  foreign 

participants sent by other EJTN members. 

96 

 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 6 EXTERNAL EVALUATION SUPPORT STUDY 

The external study carried out by Deloitte is available at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/cross-border-cases/training-legal-practitioners-and-training-
practices_en.  

97 

 
 
 
ANNEX 7 GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS 

Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AEAJ 

AECLJ 

ACA Europe 

Blended learning 

CCBE 

CCEs 

CEHJ 

CEP 

CEPEJ 

CEPOL 

CJEU 

CNUE 

CoE 

Association of European Administrative Judges 

Association of European Competition Law Judges 

Association  of  the  Council  of  State  and  Supreme 
Administrative Jurisdictions 

or 

techniques 

resources),  and  applying 
learning 

Combining  methods, 
resources, 
especially face-to-face and distance learning (including 
them 
electronic 
in  an 
environment. 
interactively  meaningful 
Learners  should  have  easy  access  to  different  learning 
resources  in  order  to  apply  the  knowledge  and  skills 
they  learn  under  the  supervision  and  support  of  the 
teacher inside and outside the classroom. 

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe 

Court coordinators in European law 

European Chamber of Judicial Officers 

Confederation of European Probation 

European Commission For the Efficiency of Justice of 
the Council of Europe 

European  Union  Agency 
Training 

for  Law  Enforcement 

Court of Justice of the European Union 

Notaries  of  Europe  –  Council  of  the  Notariats  of  the 
European Union 

Council of Europe 

Continuous training 

Every  training  activity  after  the  initial  training  (as 
defined in this glossary) has ended. 

DG COMP 

DG EAC 

DG EMPL 

The  European  Commission  Directorate-General  for 
Competition 

Directorate-General for Education and Culture 

Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs 

98 

 
DG ENV 

DG GROW 

DG HOME 

DG JUST 

E-learning 

EALCJ 

EASO 

ECBA 

EELA 

EIPA-Luxembourg 

EJTN 

ELF 

ENCJ 

ENI SPCs 

EP 

EPO 

EPTA 

ERA 

ERDF 

ESF 

ETP 

EU 

EUI 

and Inclusion 

Directorate-General for the Environment 

Directorate-General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry, 
Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 

Learning supported by information and communication 
technologies 

European Association of Labour Court Judges 

European Asylum Support Office 

European Criminal Bar Association 

European Employment Lawyers Association 

European  Centre  for  Judges  and  Lawyers  of  the 
European  Institute  of  Public  Administration,  which  is 
based in Luxembourg 

European Judicial Training Network 

European Lawyers Foundation 

European Network of Councils for the Judiciary 

European  Neighbourhood  Instrument  South  Partner 
Countries 

European Parliament 

European Patent Office 

European Network of Penitentiary Training Academies 

Academy of European Law 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Social Fund 

European Training Platform 

European Union 

European University Institute 

99 

 
EUIPO 

E.U.R. 

EuroPris 

FRA 

FTE 

GEMME 

HELP 

Initial training 

IPA 

ISG 

LIFE 

MFF 

N/A 

N/D 

OLAF 

OPC / PC 

PPP 

REC 

TC 

TFEU 

European Intellectual Property Office 

European Union of Rechtspfleger231 

European  Organisation  of  Prison  and  Correctional 
Services 

Fundamental Rights Agency 

Full-time  equivalent  (arithmetic  measure  of  staff 
numbers) 

European Association of Judges for Mediation 

Human  rights  Education  for  Legal  Professionals, 
training programme of the Council of Europe 

or 

Post-university  professional  (not  academic)  training 
necessary  for  passing  the  last  examination  to  enter  the 
before 
judicial 
career, 
legal 
registration/appointment  as 
after 
professional, 
taking 
registration/appointment  as 
legal 
professional  as  far  as  the  training  is  part  of  the  basic 
training common for the majority of professionals. 

fully  qualified 
just 
fully  qualified 

taking 

place 

place 

or 

Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance 

Interservice Steering Group 

L’Instrument 
Financier 
(Financial instrument for the environment) 

pour 

l’Environnement 

Multiannual Financial Framework  

Not applicable 

Data not available 

European Anti-Fraud Office 

Open public consultation 

Public-private partnership 

Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme 

Targeted consultation 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

231 High ranking judicial officials. 

100 

 
                                                 
TTT 

UEHJ 

UIHJ 

Train the trainer 

European Union of Judicial Officers 

International Union of Judicial Officers 

Abbreviations of Member States 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czechia 
Germany 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 

Finland 
France 
Croatia 

FI 
FR 
HR 
HU  Hungary 
Ireland 
IE 
Italy 
IT 
Lithuania 
LT 
Luxembourg 
LU 
LV 
Latvia 
MT  Malta 

NL  Netherlands 
Poland 
PL 
PT 
Portugal 
RO  Romania 
Sweden 
SE 
Slovenia 
SI 
Slovakia 
SK 
UK  United Kingdom 

101