COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK on the mid-term evaluation of the Programme for exchange, assistance and training for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting ('Pericles IV' Programme)
Date: 2025-02-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, counterfeiting, cross-border cooperation, euro, exchange of information, fraud, fraud against the EU, vocational training

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.2.2025  COM(2025) 54 final   COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK on the mid-term evaluation of the Programme for exchange, assistance and training for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting ('Pericles IV' Programme) {SWD(2025) 44 final}  
 
 
1. 

Introduction 

The  Pericles  IV  programme,  established  by  Regulation  (EU) 2021/840  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council, is the fourth iteration of the Pericles programme. Its legal basis 
is  Article  133  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU).  The 
programme  pursues  the  general  objectives  of  preventing  and  combating  euro  counterfeiting 
and  related  fraud  and  preserving  the  integrity  of  euro  banknotes  and  coins.  It  therefore 
strengthens  the  trust  of  citizens  and  businesses  in  the  genuineness  of  these  banknotes  and 
coins  and  enhances  trust  in  the  EU’s  economy,  while  securing  the  sustainability  of  public 
finances.  The  specific  objective  of  the  programme  is  to  protect  euro  banknotes  and  coins 
against counterfeiting and related fraud. It seeks to achieve this objective in two main ways. 
The first way is by supporting and supplementing the measures undertaken by Member States. 
The second way is by assisting the competent national authorities in their efforts to develop 
close  and  regular  cooperation  and  exchange  best  practices  among  themselves,  with  the 
Commission and, where appropriate, with non-EU countries and international organisations. 

The  programme  can  therefore  broadly  be  qualified  as  a  capacity-building,  information 
dissemination  and  networking  initiative.  Its  activities  are  aimed  at:  (i)  the  exchange  and 
dissemination  of  information;  (ii)  the  provision  of  technical,  scientific  and  operational 
assistance;  and  (iii)  the  purchase  of  equipment  to  be  used  by  specialised  anti-counterfeiting 
authorities of non-EU countries to protect the euro against counterfeiting. 

The programme is inspired by three key principles: (i) transnationality, which requires at least 
two  countries  to  participate  in  all  programme  activities;  (ii)  multidisciplinarity,  which  is 
intended  to  facilitate  the  adoption  of  a  common  approach  to  euro  protection  by  the  target 
groups referred to hereinafter; and (iii) complementarity, with programme activities intended 
to supplement – and not to replace – other euro protection initiatives implemented by Member 
States or by EU/international institutions. 

The  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Pericles  IV  programme  was  conducted  in  accordance  with 
Article  13  of  Regulation  (EU) 2021/840.  The  evaluation  covered  the  criteria  of  relevance, 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence  and  EU  added  value,  as  prescribed  by  the  Better 
Regulation  Guidelines.  It  also  considered  the  sustainability  of  the  programme’s  actions  in 
protecting  the  euro  against  counterfeiting.  The  evaluation  reviewed  the  programme’s 
implementation  from  January 2021 to  March 2024, covering both  European Union Member 
States  (including  euro  area  and  non-euro  area  Member  States)  and  non-EU  countries.  This 
mid-term  evaluation involved various stakeholders,  including  national competent  authorities 
from EU Member States, programme applicants and beneficiaries, participants in programme-
funded actions, EU institutions such as the European Commission and the European Central 
Bank (ECB), agencies such as Europol and Eurojust, as well as international partners, such as 
competent  authorities  from  non-EU  countries  and  INTERPOL.  The  evaluation  reviewed  all 
types of actions under the Pericles IV programme, including conferences and large events for 
the  dissemination  of  information,  meetings,  seminars,  workshops,  training  activities,  studies 
and purchases of equipment. 

The  staff  working  document  (SWD)  accompanying  this  communication  provides  further 
details  of  the  Commission’s  mid-term  evaluation.  The  evaluation  is  based  on  a  variety  of 
sources,  including  an  independent  study  conducted  by  an  external  contractor,  which  is 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
published in parallel. The SWD presents the main insights from the mid-term evaluation and 
takes stock of the implementation of the Pericles IV programme. 

2. 

Overall conclusion of the evaluation 

The  evaluation  concludes  that  the  Pericles  IV  programme  is  delivering  on  its  objective  of 
contributing  to  the  prevention  and  combating  of  euro  counterfeiting,  thereby  preserving  the 
integrity of euro banknotes and coins. 

The programme has generally proven effective in improving information exchange, technical 
skills, institutional frameworks and operational capabilities in combating euro counterfeiting, 
both in EU Member States and in non-EU countries. It has successfully facilitated networking 
and  collaborative  investigations,  leading  to  significant  achievements  such  as  investigations 
resulting in the seizure of counterfeit euros and the dismantling of criminal organisations. 

By  providing  technical  training,  seminars,  staff  exchanges  and  studies,  the  programme  has 
supported  measures  undertaken  by  Member  States,  especially  where  national  funding  is 
limited. The Pericles IV programme has therefore ensured an efficient use of resources thus 
far in achieving the programme’s outputs, results and impacts. While management costs are 
comparatively high in  relative terms compared to similar programmes,  this is mainly due to 
the  limited  overall  budget  of  the  programme.  Their  overall  share  is  also  declining  due  to 
digitalisation,  indicating  overall  efficiency  gains.  The  close  involvement  of  DG  ECFIN  in 
action  coordination  and  implementation,  for  example  by  chairing  the  meetings  of  the  Euro 
Counterfeiting  Experts  Group  (ECEG),  ensures  Member  State  buy-in  and  effective 
monitoring. The programme undergoes mid-term and ex post evaluations. However, given the 
small  size  of  the  programme  and  the  high  degree  of  continuity  over  multiple  programming 
periods, the question of the proportionality of two evaluation requirements per funding cycle 
relative to the overall budget may need to be considered. 

Additionally, the programme is found to be complementary to and coherent with initiatives 
undertaken  by  other  EU  institutions,  such  as  the  ECB,  and  agencies,  such  as  Europol.  As 
Member  State  initiatives  are  limited  in  scope,  the  programme  fills  this  gap  by  offering 
multinational  and  multidisciplinary  actions  that  provide  expertise  and  foster  the  building  of 
relationships  among  Member  States  and  with  non-EU  countries.  Indeed,  the  programme 
provides  significant  EU  added  value  by  establishing  and  enhancing  relationships  and 
cooperation  among  Member  States,  non-EU  countries,  EU  institutions  and  international 
organisations that go beyond the scope of individual national authorities. 

The  programme  also  continues  to  be  highly  relevant  and  has  adapted  to  evolving  threats. 
Constant attention is needed to counter emerging counterfeiting threats and to ensure that the 
number of counterfeit euros detected remains both under control and at low levels: as long as 
cash is used, the risk posed by counterfeits persists. Finally, the programme works to ensure 
the  sustainability  over  time  of  its  outputs  and  future  progress  towards  its  objectives  by  the 
transfer  of  knowledge  through  regular  follow-up  actions  and  ongoing  support.  Stakeholders 
point to evolving threats and a degree of staff turnover within competent national authorities, 
and emphasise the need for training to be repeated every 2-3 years. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. 

Key lessons learned 

Overall, the evaluation confirms that there is still a need for Pericles actions and that that need 
is  likely  to  increase.  It  sets  out  some  key  lessons  learned,  which  are  useful  for  continued 
implementation of the programme. 

With  regard  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  programme,  the  evaluation  points  out  that  the 
programme  should  continue  to  focus  on  connecting  those  Member  States  and  non-EU 
countries that have a direct stake or expertise in a particular area, so that the programme can 
ensure that actions are meaningful and productive. The evaluation also points to the need to 
maintain  the  balance  between  the  different  types  of  actions  eligible  for  funding,  such  as 
studies and the purchase of equipment for non-EU countries, throughout the remainder of the 
programming period. 

The evaluation indicates that the Pericles IV programme can be made even more relevant by 
maintaining its focus on current and future threats, including altered-design banknotes and the 
distribution  of  counterfeits  through  the  internet.  But  the  evaluation  also  indicates  that  the 
programme  should  focus  on  potential  threats  to  the  future  digital  euro  and  the  impact  of 
artificial  intelligence  on  counterfeit  currency  production  and  identification.  In  order  for  the 
programme  to  be  future-proof,  it  might  need  to  attract  specific  expertise,  for  instance  by 
extending the scope for participant experts to address these developments and potential new 
threats.  A  two-track  approach  would  be  useful  in  this  regard,  paying  sufficient  attention  to 
both: (i) the need for Member States (and non-EU countries) to develop basic technical anti-
counterfeiting  skills  and  (ii)  emerging  threats  and  those  authorities  with  the  capacities  to 
address  these  threats.  Other  ways  of  strenghtening  the  programme  would  be  to  get  the 
judiciary, customs and parcel  and delivery services  more involved in programme actions, to 
share agendas and topics of such actions in advance and to adapt the content of the actions to 
the  expected  audience.  ECEG  meetings  and  the  annually  updated  Pericles  strategies  are  the 
ideal forumst to put the lessons learned into practice. 

Regarding the sustainability of the programme to remain effective, the key lesson learned is 
the importance of taking sufficient follow-up actions and providing regular training sessions. 
These can help to correctly apply and reinforce learning outcomes and ensure that updates on 
current  trends  and  developments  are  shared  widely  by  highlighting  the  constantly  changing 
and evolving nature of the threat posed by euro counterfeiting. By regularly participating in 
actions funded by the programme, the Commission DG implementing the programme allows 
the  quality  and  sustainability  of  those  actions  to  be  assessed  on  an  ongoing  basis.  Many 
actions – both those organised by the Commission itself and Member State actions – have a 
strong  ‘train  the  trainers’  dimension  and  are  repeated  periodically,  ensuring  that  knowledge 
remains  up  to  date  as  competent  authority  staff  changes.  One  final  lesson  learned  is  that 
potential  language  barriers,  including  between  implementers  and  other  participants  in 
programme  actions,  should  be  minimised,  for  example  by  encouraging  implementers  to 
provide interpretation where appropriate. 

4. 

Continuation of the Pericles IV programme and the way forward 

The evaluation concludes that the current implementing structure of Pericles IV is  generally 
effective,  efficient,sustainable  and  remains  relevant  in  adapting  to  evolving  threats.  Pericles 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IV  addresses  a  critical  gap  in  many  Member  States,  where  resources  for  organising 
international  and  multidisciplinary  training  on  euro  counterfeiting  are  often  limited.  By 
providing  targeted  support,  the  programme  strengthens  the  EU’s  capacity  to  combat  euro 
counterfeiting and supports the development of new relationships, networks and transnational 
cooperation efforts.  

The Commission intends to continue connecting relevant countries with each other while also 
maintaining a balance and encouraging specific types of action. This can be achieved through 
its  annual  Pericles  strategies  and  the  meetings  of  the  Euro  Counterfeiting  Experts  Group 
(ECEG).  The  Commission  will  reflect  on  the  possibilities  for  extending  the  length  of  those 
meetings  to  two  days.  It  considers  it  worthwhile  to  encourage  greater  involvement  of  the 
representatives of judicial authorities in ECEG meetings and Pericles IV actions, especially in 
the  light  of  acute  threats  such  as  altered-design  banknotes.  Inviting  Eurojust  to  regularly 
attend the ECEG meetings is an important step that has already been taken in that direction. 

Although  the  programme’s  budget  is  generally  appropriate  to  maintain  a  high  level  of 
effectiveness, a decrease in funding has meant that fewer actions have been implemented and 
fewer  participants  trained  than  in  previous  generations  of  the  programme.  Indeed,  feedback 
received  from  stakeholders  indicates  that  the  reduced  budget  of  Pericles  IV  compared  with 
previous  generations  of  the  programme  has  negatively  affected  their  decision-making  and 
ability to organise Pericles actions.  

The  programme’s  success  is  largely  due  to  its  design,  which  reflects  its  unique  legal  basis1 
and  focus  that  enables  close  cooperation  between  Member  States  and  the  European 
Commission  through  DG  ECFIN.  As  Pericles  IV  is  a  stand-alone  programme,  the 
Commission  DG  managing  it  acts  as  an  operational  business  unit,  integral  to  strategy 
development,  planning  and  implementation  of  actions.  This  ensures  that  the  programme 
remains  aligned  with  the  needs  of  Member  States  and  action  participants,  bringing  added 
value and effectiveness. 

1 The Pericles programme for euro-area Member States is based on Art. 133 TFEU (ordinary legislative 
procedure) and the Pericles Programme for non-euro area Member States is based on Art. 352 TFEU 
(special legislative procedure). 

5