REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS assessing the implementation and achievements of the 2014-2020 justice programme
Date: 2022-03-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, EU programme, access to the courts, commitment of expenditure, drug addiction, fundamental rights, independence of the judiciary, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, rule of law, vocational training

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 22.3.2022  COM(2022) 121 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS assessing the implementation and achievements of the 2014-2020  justice programme {SWD(2022) 64 final} - {SWD(2022) 69 final}  
 
 
The Treaty on the  Functioning of the European  Union provides for the creation of a European 
area of freedom,  security  and justice based on the  mutual  recognition  of judicial decisions and 
mutual trust among Member States. Within this area, people are free to move and can rely on the 
respect of fundamental rights, as well as on shared principles, such as non-discrimination, gender 
equality,  effective  access  to  justice  for  all,  the  rule  of  law  and  well-functioning  independent 
judicial systems.  

These legally binding provisions in the justice area, set  by the Treaty,  were  also  reaffirmed by 
the European Council in the Stockholm  programme.1 The achievement of a Europe of law and 
justice is one of the political priorities of the EU and the 2014-2020 justice programme is one of 
the instruments that contribute to achieving this objective.  

This  report  sets  out  the  results  obtained  so  far  by  the  2014-2020  justice  programme  and  the 
qualitative and quantitative aspects of its implementation, as required by Article 14(2)(c) of the 
regulation that set up the justice programme for the 2014-2020 period ( ‘the Regulation’).2 The 
report  does  not  assess  the  long-term  impact  and  the  sustainability  of  the  effects  of  the  justice 
programme.  This  limitation  is  due  to  the  fact  that  around  30  %  of  the  projects  funded  by  the 
justice  programme  are  still  ongoing.  This  situation  has  been  exacerbated  by  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, which has caused the extension of the duration of several projects 

For these reasons, and in order to have a meaningful evaluation of the programme’s long-term 
results  and impacts, the  ex-post evaluation  will be carried out  in  two parts.  This  report and its 
supporting  documents,  represent  the  first  part  of  the  evaluation.  It  is  based  on  the  currently 
available data, provides an overview of the funding distribution and assesses the achievements of 
the justice programme so far. While the new justice programme 2021-2027 was already adopted, 
based  amongst  others  on  the  results  of  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  justice  programme  2014-
2020, this first part of the ex-post evaluation of the previous programme will be of added value 
in order to shed light on potential areas for improvement in the implementation phase of the new 
justice programme. 

The second part of the evaluation will be carried out at a later stage, once all final data will be 
available and in concomitance with the interim evaluation of the succeeding justice programme 
(2021-2027). This second part will assess the long-term impacts and sustainability of the effects 
of the justice programme and will provide recommendations for the new Multiannual Financial 
Framework after 2027, as appropriate.  

1 OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p. 1. 
2 Regulation (EU) No 1382/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a justice programme for the 
period 2014 to 2020 (OJ L 354 of 28.12.2013). 

1 

 
 
                                                           
This report is based on the findings of the evaluation prepared by the European Commission3 and 
supported by an external study. 4 

1.  Introduction and background 

The  2014-2020  justice  programme  was  set  up  by  Regulation  (EU)  No 1382/2013  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  Council.  Prior  to  2014,  three  individual  programmes,  the  criminal 
justice  programme,  the  civil  justice  programme  and  the  drug  prevention  and  information 
programme, covered the same thematic areas addressed by the justice programme. 

The Regulation sets its general objective as being to: 

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

Its specific objectives are to: 

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

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

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

  promote initiatives in the field of drug policy in relation to the judicial cooperation and crime 
prevention  aspects,  insofar  as  these  kinds  of  initiatives  are  not  covered  by  the  Internal 
Security Fund for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, 
and crisis management or by the health for growth programme.5 

The programme is implemented by the European Commission via direct management.  

In terms of geographical coverage, the justice programme is open to all EU Member States with 
the exception of Denmark and the United Kingdom.6 In addition to the EU Member States, the 
European Free Trade Association States that are party to the European Economic Area, candidate 
countries, potential candidates and countries acceding to the EU were also eligible to participate 

3 Commission staff working document accompanying the report on the ex-post evaluation of the implementation of the Justice programme 2014-
2020. 
4 Ex-post evaluation of the justice programme 2014-2020, Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini Srl SB and Ernst & Young, Final Report, August 2021. 
5 For more info, see https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/financing/fundings/security-and-safeguarding-liberties/internal-security-fund-police_en and 
https://ec.europa.eu/health/funding/programme/2014-2020_en. 
6 The justice programme has legal bases that belong to Part V of title III of the TFEU. Therefore, protocols 21 and 22 to the TEU and the TFEU 
apply and Denmark and the UK never participated to the justice programme. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                           
in the programme, provided that they concluded an agreement with the Union laying down the 
details of their respective participation in the programme. Albania joined the justice programme 
as of 2017 and Montenegro as of 2019. 

2.  Key elements and implementation of the programme 

In  line  with  Article  6  of  the  Regulation,  the  justice  programme  finances  a  wide  range  of 
activities  such  as  analytical  activities,  mutual  learning,  cooperation,  awareness  raising  and 
dissemination activities, training activities and actions to support the main actors, i.e.  European 
networks,  public  and  private  organisations,  which  are  usually  non-profit-oriented,  national, 
regional  and  local  authorities  in  EU  Member  States,  civil  society  organisations;  universities, 
research  institutions,  and  international  organisations,  whose  activities  contribute  to  its  specific 
objectives.  

Target  groups,  (groups  that  can  benefit,  either  directly,  by  participating  in  justice  projects' 
activities, or indirectly from the programme’s implementation), include potentially all people in 
the EU, since the programme aims to create a European area of justice where everybody is aware 
of and can exercise their rights. 

As  provided  for  by  the  Regulation,  the  programme  uses  action  grants,  operating  grants  and 
procurement  actions  as  the  main  funding  mechanisms  to  support  projects  related  with  its 
objectives. 

2.1. 

 The programme’s specific objectives 

  Specific objective 1: Judicial cooperation  

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

  Specific objective 2: Judicial training  

The programme supports projects that encourage the training of justice professionals on EU law, 
including language training on legal terminology with a view to supporting a common legal and 
judicial culture in the EU. Judicial training can address ’general’ competences, such as linguistic 
skills  and  terminology,  as  well  as  more  specialised  aspects,  such  as  knowledge  of  EU  law, 
judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters. It can take various forms such as seminars, e-
learning,  exchanges  of  professionals,  development  of  good-practice  guides  and  sharing  of 
experience.  Activities  funded  mainly  support  training  for  the  members  of  the  judiciary  and 
judicial staff, but also cover other justice practitioners associated with the judiciary. Finally, the 
development of tools for training providers is also promoted. The ultimate goal is supporting the 
correct application of EU law through the exchange of best practice and networking. 

3 

 
 
 
  Objective 3: Access to justice  

Actions financed in this area aim to provide EU citizens with effective remedies when EU law 
has been broken, especially where national procedures are too difficult for citizens to be used. In 
particular,  the  programme  promotes  the  use  of  alternative  types  of  remedies  and  non-remedies 
developed in the EU, which can provide a quick, efficient and less costly solution to disputes, for 
example, those supported by the e-justice portal. The activities funded also aim to encourage a 
close  cooperation  between  national  authorities  and  administrative  bodies,  which  is  particularly 
important for the effectiveness of certain EU rights.  

  Objective 4: Drug prevention policy 

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

2.2. 

 Budget 

The  initial  total  programme's  budget  for  2014-2020  was  EUR  377 604 000.  According  to  the 
annual work programmes, a total of EUR 333 971 000 has been planned between 2014 and 2020.   

The  tables  below  summarise  the  distribution  of  the  budgetary  planning  per  year  and  across 
specific objectives.   

Table 1 Budget planned per year 

Budget Year 

Amount planned AWP € 

Annual change % 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total 

€ 45 812 000 

€ 48 051 000 

€ 52 250 000 

€ 52 631 000 

€ 45 949 000 

€ 43 675 000 

€ 45 603 000 

€ 333 971 000 

- 

4,9% 

8,7% 

0,7% 

-12,7% 

-4,9% 

4,4% 

Source: 2014-2020 annual work programmes 

The overall budget increased steadily up to 2017, when it reached a peak of EUR 52 631 000. It 
declined from then until reaching approximately the same level as in 2014. The budget decreased 
as funds of the justice programme were  reallocated to the Civil Protection Mechanism (CPM - 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
COM(2017)772) and to  provide eu-LISA with the necessary financial resources to develop the 
European Criminal Records System for third country nationals. 

Table 2 Budget planned per specific objective 2014 -2020 (in €) 

Action Grant 

Operating Grant 

Procurement 

Other 

Amount Planned 
€ 

Share of total 

€ 49 089 600 

€9 258 400 

€ 35 833 000 

€ 237000,00 

€ 94 418 000 

€ 48 454 400 

€ 14 473 170 

€ 36 436 430 

€ 44 493 000 

€ 69 380 000 

€ 6 035 000 

- 

- 

- 

Drugs  

€16 781 000 

- 

€ 3 500 000 

Total 

€ 158 818 000 

€ 93 111 570 

€ 818 044 30 

237 000 

€ 99 364 000 

€ 119 908 000 

28,45% 

29,94% 

36,12% 

€ 20 281 000 

6,11% 

€ 333 971 000 

100% 

Specific 
Objective 

Judicial 
Cooperation 

Access to 
Justice 

Judicial 
Training 

Source: annual work programmes 2014-2020 

The  distribution  of  funds  across  specific  objectives  shows  that,  in  every  year,  the  specific 
objective ‘judicial training’ received a large part of the available financial resources. As a result, 
the programme complies with the allocation set out in the annex to the programme’s legal basis. 
Judicial cooperation and access to justice are also important pillars of the justice programme. As 
for drug prevention policy, when  considering the low proportion of the budget, account should 
be  taken  of  the  fact  that  the  focus  of  activities  in  this  field  mainly  lies  in  complementing 
initiatives  related  to  judicial  cooperation  and  crime  prevention.  Furthermore,  this  specific 
objective  is  highly  correlated  with  other  EU  instruments  such  as  Internal  Security  Fund  or  the 
health for growth programme.  

2.3. 

 Applications received and projects selected 

In the period covered by the 2014-2020 annual work programmes, 118 calls for proposals were 
launched.  A  large  proportion  of  projects  was  funded  under  the  specific  objective  access  to 
‘justice for all’ (JACC).  

The  tables  below  summarise  the  allocation  of  funds  and  the  distribution  of  types  of  activities 
implemented through projects.    

Table 3: Number of funded projects per year (Action Grants (AG) and Operating Grants (OG) 

SOs 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

TOT 

Judicial 
Cooperation 

Judicial 
Training 

28 

40 

16 

33 

29 

28 

25 

22 

16 

12 

19 

14 

162 

181 

29 

32 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
SOs 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

TOT 

Access to 
Justice 

Drugs 

Total. 

37 

7 

112 

32 

6 

87 

32 

5 

94 

30 

5 

96 

25 

4 

76 

22 

5 

55 

16 

- 

49 

194 

32 

569 

Source: Data for 2014-2015 are retrieved from the interim evaluation of the justice programme. The projects funded for 2016-
2020 have been retrieved from the project database  

Overall,  the  number  of  projects  funded  decreased  during  the  programming  period,  reaching  its 
lowest  point  in  2020  with  49  projects.  This  decrease  is  generally  reflected  within  the  specific 
objectives, which also showed an overall decrease in the number of projects selected for funding. 

Regarding  the  type  of  activities,  implemented  through  action  and  operating  grants,  Figure  1 
below  depicts  the  distribution  of  activities  over  the  entire  programming  period.7  Training 
activities and analytical and monitoring activities were  key components of projects funded. 

Figure 1 Types of activities implemented by projects (AGs and OGs) funded by the justice programme (2014-2020) 

Procurement was  also  a  significant  funding mechanism throughout  the programming period. A 
total  of  EUR  81,7  million  was  allocated  for  procurement  in  the  2014-2020  annual  work 
programmes. The largest proportion of the budget for procurement activities was allocated to the 
‘judicial training’  specific objective (36%), followed by ‘access to justice’ (30%).  

7 Multiple activities per project were considered when creating the overview. 
To see the types of activities funded by the Justice Programme in 2014, 2015 and 2016, see the interim evaluation of the Justice 
Programme 2014-2020, Ernst & Young Financial-Business Advisors, final report, April 2018, p. 71-72. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 4 Number of procurement contracts signed per year 

SOs 

JCOO 

JTRA 

JACC 

JDRU 

Tot. 

2014 

2015 

2016 

20178 

20189 

201910 

2020 

32 

1 

28 

2 

63 

36 

2 

23 

1 

62 

22 

1 

19 

- 

42 

26 

1 

31 

- 

58 

40 

2 

32 

- 

74 

24 

- 

45 

- 

69 

21 

- 

28 

- 

49 

Information  communication  technology  tools  and  other  IT-related  activities  were  the  most 
common types of  procurement activities contracted (see Figure 2) over 2014-2020, followed by 
mutual learning. 11 

Figure 2 Types of procurement activities (2014-2020) 

Source: analysis of procurement data provided by DG JUST. 

2.4. 

 Main achievements of the programme 

The  system  of  indicators  introduced  for  the  2014-2020  justice  programme  has  proven  to  be 
appropriate for measuring its achievements. 
One  cross-programme  indicator  measures  progress  towards  the  general  objective  of  creating  a 
European area of justice based on mutual recognition and mutual trust. The indicator is defined 

8 For 2017, one procurement contract was not associated with a specific objective. 
9 For 2018, two procurement contracts were not associated with a specific objective. 
10 For 2019, two procurement contracts were not associated with a specific objective. 
11 The average is calculated over the procurement contracts provided by DG JUST, which, for 2014 and 2016, is lower than the 
numbers included in the interim evaluation.  

7 

020406080100120140160180TrainingAwareness raisingAnalytical and monitoringMutual learningICT tools and related activities 
 
 
 
                                                           
as  the  cumulative  number  of  legal  professionals  receiving  training.  All  EU  judicial  training 
activities are included, not only those through the justice programme. The target to be reached by 
2020 is set at 700 000 legal practitioners receiving training. This was reached well in advance, in 
2017, with 820 199 legal practitioners trained. 

In general, the indicators appropriately reflect the priorities for each specific objective in the 
programme, and are measurable with respect to their baseline. The evaluation carried out 
has  shown  significant  progress  on  several  fronts.  For  example,  in  the  area  of  judicial 
cooperation  in  civil  and  criminal  matters,  the  number  of  exchanges  of  information  in  the 
European  Criminal  Records  Information  System  had  surpassed  its  2020  target  of  3  500  000 
exchanges in 2019. In relation to the ‘access to justice’ specific objective, both 2020 targets, the 
number  of  hits  on  the  e-justice  portal  and  the  number  of  victim  support  organisations  with 
national coverage have already been reached or exceeded.  12 A similar success was recorded in 
the  field  of  judicial  training,  where  the  flagship  target  of  the  2011  –  2020  European  judicial 
training strategy13, to train half of all legal practitioners (800 000) in EU law between 2011 and 
2020,  was  met  in  2017.  Additionally,  the  programme  contributed  to  the  achievement  of  the 
judicial training strategy’s overall goal that EU funds support the training of at least 20 000 legal 
practitioners  annually.  Within  the  framework  of  the  judicial  training  strategy,  the  justice 
programme’s initial annual goal of 16 000 members of the judiciary and judicial staff trained was 
met in 2015 and 2017, as a subsequent reduction in funds for judicial training calls for proposals 
led to a reduction in the number of people trained. 

However,  some  of  the  selected  indicators  are  difficult  to  measure.  A  case  in  point  is  the 
second indicator for judicial cooperation, which is defined as ‘the average length of the surrender 
procedure under the European Arrest Warrant’. This indicator, which did not reach its target, is 
difficult  to  measure  since  it  is  influenced  by  external  factors.  These  include  for  example  the 
different degree of incorporation of EU directives at national level, as well as the different levels 
of  judicial  system  reforms  within  EU  Member  States,  which  have  a  significant  impact  on  the 
level  of  enforcement  of  the  EU  acquis.14  Another  example  is  the  indicators  related  to  drug 
prevention  policy.  Both  indicators  the  number  of  new  psychoactive  substances  researched  and 
the number of problem opioid users in drug treatment did not reach their target. In contrast to the 
external  factors  that  impacted  the  surrender  procedure  under  the  European  Arrest  Warrant,  the 
indicators related to drug prevention policy were more influenced by macroeconomic conditions.  

As a result, due to the influence of external factors, it is difficult to assess the extent to which the 
programme contributed to meeting the targets set by selected indicators. 

12  The  e-justice  portal  provides  information  on  justice  systems  and  improves  and  facilitates  the  access  to  justice  throughout  the  EU,  in  23 
languages. More info available at the following link: https://e-justice.europa.eu/home. 
13  COM(2011)551 final. 
14 These obstacles were mentioned by several projects and shown also by the ‘justice scorecards’. 

8 

 
 
                                                           
There  is  still  room  for  further  improvements  as  there  is  currently  no  uniform  satisfaction 
survey  to  capture  the  perceptions  of  participants,  who  took  part  in  training  activities.  Each 
project  implemented its own evaluation  scheme.  However, as of 2021, the  programme  collects 
data  from  beneficiaries  in  relation  to  the  perceived  quality  of  funded  activities  in  a  more 
consistent way. 

2.5. 

   Participants and partnerships 

The  results  from  the  analysis  strongly  suggest  that  the  justice  programme  creates  successfully 
transnational partnerships. The programme's transnational nature is a key part of its unique added 
value,  according  to  responses  from  the  Justice  Programme  Committee  Members  from  EU 
Member States.  

According  to  beneficiaries,  partnerships  developed  through  operating  grants  and  action  grants 
under  the  justice  programme  have  had  beneficial  effects  on  the  capabilities  of  their  respective 
organisations.  Beneficiaries  report  substantially  increasing  their  organisation’s  capacities  by 
benefitting  from  networks  and  mutual  learning  experiences  funded  through  the  programme. 
Operating  grants  promoting  the  creation  and  maintenance  of  networks  are  essential  pillars  that 
support  actors  in  developing  judicial  cooperation,  access  to  justice  and  judicial  training. 
Operating grants are of key importance, as they provide framework partners with the possibility 
to plan their activities over the course of four years with the European Commission's support.  

While networks contribute to the transfer of knowledge and capacities across EU Member States, 
it is clear that Member States did not participate equally in the justice programme. In terms 
of  geographical  distribution  of  resources,  participation  in  the  programme  was  more 
concentrated  in  a  number  of  Member  States  (e.g.  Italy,  Belgium,  Spain,  Germany,  the 
Netherlands  and  France)  while  for  instance  there  was  a  lower  demand  from  Member  States, 
which  joined  the  EU  after  2004,  except  for  Bulgaria  and  Romania.  About  22%  of  all 
beneficiaries  are networks established either in  either Italy or Belgium who carry out activities 
that cover most of the EU Member States.  

3.  Results of the evaluation 

As  demonstrated  by  the  study,  the  justice  programme  is  performing  well  with  regard  to  its 
specific objectives, in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, complementarity, 
and  synergies,  EU  added  value,  equity  and  scope  for  simplification.  There  is  room  for 
improvement, in particular, in relation to the programme’s geographical distribution of resources. 

9 

 
 
 
3.1. 

 Effectiveness 

In  terms  of  effectiveness15,  the  current  analysis  confirmed  the  main  result  of  the  interim 
evaluation.  The  activities  funded  through  action  grants,  operating  grants  and  procurement 
achieve  the  expected  results.  In  other  words,  the  budget  available  has  been  used  to  achieve 
results that are well aligned with the programme’s general and specific objectives.  

While the programme-specific indicators are appropriate for monitoring progress towards 
the programme’s objectives, the programme’s current monitoring system could benefit from a 
more systematic and robust approach to data collection. The Commission addressed this problem 
in its proposal leading to Regulation 2021/693 providing the legal base for the 2021-2027 justice 
programme. As a result, from 2021, the justice programme will address the need to obtain more 
in-depth insights about target groups, which was identified as a potential area for improvement 
for  the  2014-2020  programme.  Moreover,  since  the  programme  has  a  wide  scope,  its 
effectiveness is affected by internal and external factors. The main external factor mentioned 
by beneficiaries in interviews is the COVID-19 pandemic, which required many beneficiaries to 
re-design  the  implementation  of  their  project  or  to  cancel  it.  However,  macroeconomic 
conditions, the refugee crisis and the transposition of EU law by Member States are also external 
factors  that  affected  the  justice  programme’s  effectiveness.  As  for  internal  factors,  the  most 
salient  area  for  improvement  is  the  application procedure.  The  study  shed  light  on  the  need  to 
provide  more  guidance  and  assistance  to  applicants,  in  addition  to  the  existing  materials.  This 
would allow the playing field among applicants to be more level and thereby broaden the pool of 
quality proposals. This in turn, would increase the programme’s effectiveness. 

3.2. 

 Efficiency 

The  programme  made  also  significant  progress  in  terms  of  its  efficiency  compared  to  its 
predecessor  programmes.16  Consulted  stakeholders  who  were  consulted  repeatedly 
confirmed the cost efficiency of the programme. Applicants and beneficiaries alike stressed that 
the  relatively  high  costs  of  drafting  a  proposal  are  outweighed  by  the  even  higher  benefits  of 
participating  in  the  programme.  This  finding  is  in  line  with  the  positive  feedback  on  the 
streamlining  of  the  application  process.  However,  there  are  also  some  aspects  on  which  more 
critical  views  were  expressed.  For  example,  applicants  repeatedly  stated  that  despite  visible 
improvements in the management cycle, they had experienced difficulties in complying with the 
application requirements in the time allotted by the European Commission. In relation to the use 
of  the  available  budget  by  project  beneficiaries,  underspending  at  project  level  still  impacts 
negatively the programme’s efficiency. 

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

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
3.3. 

 Relevance 

The analysis showed very high levels of relevance17 for the programme and its actions. The 
analysis concludes that project objectives and activities are relevant to the needs of targeted 
stakeholders.  Vice-versa,  the  groups  targeted  through  the  programme  are  relevant  for  the 
achievement  of  the  programmes’  specific  objectives.  This  is  the  result  of  the  programme’s 
structure,  which  is  flexible  enough  to  adapt  and  modify  priorities  to  emerging  needs  on  the 
ground. 
identified.  
These  include  engaging  more  systematically  and  openly  with  stakeholders  to  better  align  the 
activities and specific objectives outlined in the annual work programmes with the needs of the 
programme’s 
groups.  
There is also a need to continue existing and successful efforts to expand the programme’s target 
group  and  include  more  stakeholders  relevant  to  the  programme.  In  particular,  civil  society 
organisations in the area of victims’ rights, could be even more actively supported. 

improvement 

However, 

target 

areas 

were 

few 

for 

a 

3.4. 

 Coherence, complementarity, synergies 

The  current  analysis  found  that  the  programme  has  a  good  level  of  coherence  and 
complementarity with other EU instruments, programmes and actions. It underscored that, 
especially  in  the  case  of  judicial  training,  the  merging  of  the  predecessor  programmes  into  the 
justice  programme  has  increased  the  coherence  with  other  EU  initiatives.  The  same  is  true  for 
other  training  objectives,  as  it  reduced  the  likelihood  of  duplications.  This  result  confirms  the 
findings  outlined  in  the  interim  evaluation.  Complementarity  with  national  projects  is  also 
high.  This  has  been  achieved  by  the  transnational  design  of  activities  funded  under  the  justice 
programme,  which  ensures  that  national  activities  do  not  replace  or  replicate  funded  activities 
funded  under  the  justice  programme.  The  programme  is  also  coherent  with  international 
obligations,  such  as  the  UN  2030  sustainable  development  agenda.  For  instance,  the  UN 
objective of ensuring peace and security is linked to the creation of just and inclusive societies 
that provide equal access to justice, effective rule of law,  and transparent and effective judicial 
institutions.  
The programme also  contributes to  the harmonisation  of international  private law by  financing 
the EU’s membership in The Hague Conference on Private International Law. 
Nevertheless,  as  potential  for  overlaps  exists,  this  should  be  closely  monitored  to  maintain  the 
high level of complementarity.  
Finally, programme beneficiaries have identified and maximised synergies with projects funded 
by other EU initiatives, such as the rights equality and citizen’s programme, as well as with other 
projects  within  the  justice  programme.  However,  the  exchange  of  expertise  and  best  practices 
between different beneficiaries is an area for improvement. Thus, there is untapped potential for 
beneficiaries  to  make  use  of  the  networking  opportunities  the  justice  programme  offers  and 
actively engage in dialogue with each other.  

17 Relevance: whether and to what extent the justice programme addresses needs and problems of the target groups identified in the 2011 impact 
assessment and in the legal basis of the programme (as well as emergent needs related to the creation of a European Area of Justice) and whether 
its objectives are still relevant for the needs and problems of the beneficiaries. 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.5. 

 EU added value 

The study fully confirms the programme's high added value.18 In particular, the EU added value 
is  evident  through  the  promotion  of  transnational  projects  to  tackle  cross-border  issues, 
especially in training and information exchanges. High EU added value is also created by the 
provision  of  crucial  financial  resources  to  fund  activities  in  key  areas  that  are  not  necessarily 
high on the agenda of individual Member States.  In addition, some projects (like exchanges of 
professionals) by their nature require joint actions of all Member States. Thus, individual action 
by Member States would not be able to achieve the same results in terms of size and scope as the 
justice programme. This finding is supported by the results of the Justice Programme Committee 
member survey which show that the majority of members believe that without EU funding, the 
activities implemented through the justice programme would not be possible. 
Against  this  backdrop,  the  conclusion  drawn  in  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  programme  still 
holds  true:  limiting  EU  intervention  would  have  negative  effects  on  the  overall  capacity  of 
national  and  European  actors  to  address  issues  in  the  areas  covered  by  the  programme  or 
implement the types of activities funded by the programme.19 The most likely consequences of a 
reduction  or  withdrawal  of  EU  involvement  through  the  justice  programme  would  entail 
significant  difficulties  in  developing  transnational  projects.  These  would  be  accompanied  by  
reduced coherence across Member States in terms of understanding and implementation of  EU 
law. 
This  would  also  undermine  the  adoption  of  innovative  legislative  frameworks  and  the 
introduction  of  cutting-edge  approaches  to  tackling  the  needs  of  vulnerable  groups  and 
developing  new  tools  and  practices.  In  other  words,  it  would  be  difficult  to  achieve  objectives 
responding to an EU-wide strategy. 

3.6. 

 Equity 

With a view to the equity20 of the programme, the current evaluation reiterates the finding from 
the  interim  evaluation  that  resources  and  support  provided  through  the  programme  are  not 
distributed in a balanced manner across different target groups, EU Member States and types of 
beneficiaries.  On  the  macro  level,  there  is  a  discrepancy  between  high  application  rates  from 
countries  like  Belgium,  Italy,  Spain,  Germany,  the  Netherlands  and  France  and  comparatively 
low  application  rates  from  countries  like  Latvia,  Poland,  Croatia,  Slovakia  and  Cyprus.  An 
improved geographical spread of resources across participating countries is, therefore, a key area 
improvement.  
for 
On  the  meso  level,  the  analysis  revealed  that  overall  the  programme’s  target  groups  have 
become more diverse and include a wider variety of justice professionals. Yet, as the legal 
base  for  the  2021-2027  justice  programme  highlights,  it  will  be  important  that  civil  society 
organisations  are  more  involved  in  interventions  that  the  programme  funds  relating  to  the 

18 EU added-value: to what extent the effects from  EU action are additional to the value that would be the likely consequence of limiting the EU 
intervention through the programme.  

19 Finding also supported by interview feedback from five beneficiaries. 
20  Equity:  whether  and  to  what  extent  the  Justice  Programme  has  distributed  the  available  resources  fairly  among  beneficiaries  in  different 
Member  States,  took  into  consideration  the  needs  of  target  groups,  promoted  gender  mainstreaming,  the  rights  of  the  child  and  the  rights  of 
people with disabilities. 

12 

 
 
                                                           
promotion  of  victim’s  rights.  This  finding  dovetails  with  the  low  application  rates  in  the 
aforementioned  countries.  Civil  society  organisations  from  underrepresented  countries  might 
need  additional  support  as  they  might  not  have  the  necessary  capacity  to  apply  to  the  justice 
programme.  
On the micro level, more robust and systematic monitoring data would allow for deeper insights 
into the target group’s composition to be drawn. This could be facilitated by collecting data, that 
are  disaggregated  inter  alia  by  sex,  age  and  disability  status.  In  turn,  the  insights  gathered  at 
project level could inform the programming on a macro level to increase the funding’s impact on 
an  even  more  diverse  group  of  stakeholders.  This  finding  is  also  related  to  the  cross-sectional 
themes  like  gender  equality,  children’s  rights  and  the  rights  of  people  with  a  disability.  More 
robust data would therefore facilitate the identification of areas, in which the rights of women, 
men,  girls  and  boys  and  people  with  a  disability  are  not  as  well  promoted  as  they  could  be.  
The  promotion  of  the  cross-sectional  priorities  of  gender  equality,  rights  of  the  child  and 
rights  of  people  with  disabilities  is  highly  significant  for  the  justice  programme  and  it  is 
enshrined in its legal basis.  In particular, the principles of mainstreaming gender equality and 
children’s  rights  are  evaluated  during  the  process,  under  the  quality  of  proposals.  While  these 
cross-sectional priorities are deeply embedded within the programme, the analysis concludes that 
some  applicants  struggle  with  understanding  these  concepts.  As  a  result,  some  projects  funded 
through the programme do not live up to their potential in promoting gender equality, the rights 
of the child and the rights of people with disabilities. Although all cross-sectional themes require 
further attention, there are also differences in the degree to which the programme addresses them 
at project level. While gender equality and children’s rights receive specific attention in funded 
projects,  the  rights  of  people  with  disabilities  are  not  as  prominently  featured  within  projects. 
Thus,  there  is  a  need  to  collect  better  data  on  the  composition  of  targets  and  to  raise  more 
awareness among applicants on cross-sectional themes such as gender mainstreaming, children’s 
right and rights of people with a disability. 

3.7. 

 Scope for simplification 

Concerning the scope for simplification21, it should be noted that important changes have been 
adopted by the European Commission  to  review, speed up and simplify  the process  during the 
2014-2020  programming  period.  However,  while  the  current  management  model  is 
considered  to  be  appropriate,  and  changes  have  been  positively  welcomed  by  project 
beneficiaries, beneficiaries have identified some issues and room for further improvement.  

The scope for simplification includes the need for simpler application and results-based reporting 
procedures,  improved  monitoring  and  management  tools  to  more  systematically  collect 
information on outputs, results and targets achieved, as  well as help  for organisations with 
difficulties  in  working  in  English  only.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  perceived  burden 
and  complexity  varies  among  project  beneficiaries.  Organisations  with  larger  capacity  and 
greater experience in  applying, coordinating, and participating in  projects  report  a much easier 
applicants. 
and 
Finally, despite improvements in the monitoring and management tools, there is still room for 

organisations 

first-time 

smoother 

situation 

smaller 

than 

and 

21 Scope for simplification: whether and to what extent the management of the justice programme could be further simplified. 

13 

 
 
                                                           
improvement,  especially  when  it  comes  to  adapting  the  application  portal  to  the  types  of 
beneficiaries supported by the programme or supporting first-time applicants and beneficiaries to 
navigate the tool without the risk of delaying their activities.  

4. Conclusions and the way forward 

In conclusion, the justice programme is a unique financial instrument in the area of justice and 
rights in Europe. Its resilient design allows it to respond to external shocks, such as the COVID-
19 pandemic and find flexible answers to emerging needs and problems. This report on the first 
part of the ex-post evaluation of the 2014-2020 justice programme confirms it is contributing to 
upholding  EU  values,  such  as  the  rule  of  law,  the  independence  of  the  judiciary  and  the 
effectiveness  of  the  justice  system.  The  report  also  underlines  the  programme’s  key  role  in 
supporting  Member  States  to  achieve  more  efficient  justice  systems.  In  fact,  the  interviews 
conducted  with  stakeholders  clearly  indicate  the  importance  of  the  programme  for  the  purpose 
referred to in the text. While the long term impacts are not known, short term results are visible 
for  example  in  terms  of  exchanges  of  best  practices  and  digitalization  of  justice  systems.  The 
2014-2020 programme has already proven to be an important tool to establish a European area of 
justice based on mutual  recognition and mutual trust, yet, there are still areas  for improvement 
for future justice programmes, as outlined in this report: 

 

 

  a closer alignment of the timing of the application cycle with stakeholders’ needs; 
 

the  implementation  of  a  better  monitoring  system  to  more  systematically  collect 
information on outputs, results and target groups; 
 targeted  activities  ensuring  a  more  balanced  geographical  spread  of  funds  across 
participating countries; 
finally,  the  further  integration  of  results-based  reporting  and  dedicated  initiatives  to 
facilitate the application process for applicants, who currently lack the capacity, expertise 
and  experience  to  draft  quality  proposals,  including  with  a  view  to  designing  non-
underspending  projects,  might  contribute  to  even  more  effective,  efficient,  relevant, 
equitable and accessible justice programmes in the future.  

Bearing these opportunities in mind, the current justice programme as of 2021, already addressed 
some of the identified points, for example, by introducing a more granular monitoring of project 
data to provide a better insight into the project outputs, results and target groups. 

14