REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the ex post evaluation of the 2014-2020 justice programme and interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 justice programme
Date: 2025-06-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European judicial area, access to the courts, democracy, 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, 3.6.2025  COM(2025) 267 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the ex post evaluation of the 2014-2020 justice programme and interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 justice programme {SWD(2025) 134 final}  
 
 
1. Introduction 
This report presents the findings of the evaluation1 of the justice programme carried out by the 
European Commission. The evaluation is made up of two components. The first component is 
the ex post evaluation of the 2014-2020 justice programme2, assessing its longer-term impact 
and  sustainability  effects,  based  on  the  results  of  the  first  part  of  the  ex  post  evaluation3 
completed in 2022. The second component is  the interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 justice 
programme4,  assessing  its  preliminary  achievements.  In  line  with  the  ‘better  regulation’ 
guidelines5, the evaluation assesses the two programmes against the criteria of effectiveness, 
efficiency, coherence, EU added value, and relevance. 

Since 2014, the justice programme has contributed to the development of a European area of 
justice based on the rule of law. From 2014 to 2020, the justice programme contributed to the 
further  development  of  a  European  Union  area  of  justice  based  on  mutual  recognition  and 
mutual trust by: (i) promoting judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters; and (ii) helping 
to train judges and other legal practitioners. Since 2021, the justice programme has continued 
to contribute to the further development of a European area of justice based on the rule of law, 
including the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, on mutual recognition and mutual 
trust, and on judicial cooperation. It  aims  to strengthen democracy,  the rule of law, and  the 
protection of fundamental rights. 

The evaluation is based on evidence gathered through a supporting study carried out by external 
experts6. The evaluation: (i) takes stock of an earlier impact assessment7 to analyse a proposal 
for a European programme on culture, rights and values; and (ii) acknowledges both the interim 
evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme  8 and the first part of the ex post evaluation9 of the 
2014-2020 programme. The interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 justice programme draws on 
the findings of both the first part and the second part of the ex post evaluation of the 2014-2020 
programme10.  

The ex post evaluation covers the implementation of the 2014-2020 justice programme from 
1 January 2014 until 31 December 2020, and all of the programme’s activities that took place 
in all participating countries during that time. The interim evaluation covers the implementation 
of  the  2021-2027  justice  programme  from  1 January  2021  until  31 December  2023,  and  all 
activities taking place in all participating countries during that time. 

A  wide  range  of  stakeholders  was  consulted  to  prepare  this  evaluation,  including 
representatives  of:  (i)  EU  Member  States  who  are  members  of  the  relevant  programme 
committees;  (ii)  programme  applicants  and  beneficiaries;  (iii)  agencies;  (iv)  civil  society 
organisations; and (v) the general public11. 

1 See Commission staff working document accompanying the report. 
2 Regulation (EU) No 1382/2013 of 17 December 2013, OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, pp. 73-83, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1382/oj. 
3 Considering that a significant number of projects were still ongoing in 2021, the first part of the ex post evaluation of the 2014-2020 justice 
programme  (COM/2022/121  final)  provided  an  overview  of  the  funding  distribution  and  assessed  preliminary  achievements.  This  report 
presents the second part of the ex post evaluation and focuses on the long-term impacts and sustainability of the effects of the  2014-2020 
justice programme. 
4 Regulation (EU) No 2021/693 of 28 April 2021, OJ L 156, 5.5.2021, pp. 21-38, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/693/oj. 
5 Better regulation: guidelines and toolbox. 
6  Some  data-quality  challenges  were  identified,  particularly  with  regards  to  the  data  availability  and  analysis  for  the  2014-2020  justice 
programme and mitigated to the extent possible to produce robust findings. 
7 SWD(2018) 290 final. 
8 COM(2018) 507 final. 
9 COM/2022/121 final. 
10 While the data collection activities for the ex post evaluation of the 2014-2020 justice programme (second part) and the interim evaluation 
of the 2021-2027 justice programme were carried out in parallel, the overall evaluation exercise was designed and planned as to allow for the 
findings of the ex post evaluation to feed the analysis of the interim one.  
11 Depending on the identified stakeholder group, dedicated methods and tools were used to conduct the consultations: questionnaire-based 
online public consultation, interviews, and targeted surveys. They complemented data and information collected through other methods, such 
as the desk research and case studies. 

1 

 
 
 
This  report  summarises  the  evaluation’s  key  findings,  and  includes  an  assessment  of  the 
synergies  between  the  two  programmes  (i.e.  the  2014-2020  programme  and  the  2021-2027 
programme). It points out observations and areas for improvement that the Commission could 
consider for the 2021-2027 programming period as well as for the following funding cycle. 

2. Key evaluation findings 

The key evaluation findings presented in the following sections are structured along the five 
evaluation criteria, with sub-sections for each programme12. 

2.1. Effectiveness 

Justice programme 2014-2020 

The ex post evaluation confirmed that the programme’s implementation yielded the expected 
results across all its specific objectives. 

The number and percentage of judiciary and judicial staff participating in training activities 
funded by the programme was set as an indicator of the specific objective related to judicial 
training.  The  threshold  of  16 000  trainees  was  already  reached  in  2017,  while  the  13% 
threshold13 was reached in 2020, presumably due to the expansion of the justice programme’s 
target  group  and  the  evolving  legal  context. The  2014-2020  justice  programme’s  continued 
funding  in  this  area  was  therefore  effective,  as  it  helped  legal  practitioners  to  engage  in 
continued training. 

Overall, the programme contributed to the cumulative number of 800 000 legal practitioners 
receiving training on EU law by 2020 ahead of schedule14. Although this achievement cannot 
be  fully  attributed  to  the  justice  programme,  the  stakeholder  consultation  confirmed  that 
training was the most frequently mentioned activity associated with funded projects. Nearly all 
surveyed beneficiaries  (96%) indicated that training led to the acquisition of new skills and 
knowledge. 

The  2014-2020  programme  met  a  significant  number  of  targets,  even  though  not  all  those 
targets  related to  the promotion  of  judicial cooperation. Although achievements  in  this  area 
cannot  be  fully  attributed  to  the  justice  programme,  the  qualitative  data  provided  robust 
evidence to confirm its effectiveness.  

The 2014-2020 programme also met its target on the total number of information exchanges 
carried out via the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS)15, 16, 17. Qualitative 
evidence from the ex post evaluation showed that both mutual trust between members of the 
judiciary in  different  EU countries  and consistent implementation  of  EU law are key to  the 
effectiveness  of  the  programme.  Stakeholders  consulted  for  the  evaluation  said  that 
investments in judicial cooperation promoted the effective and comprehensive implementation 
of  EU  law.  Projects  promoting  court-based  support  of  judicial  practitioners  and  probation 
practices  have  proven  to  be  particularly  suited  to  facilitating  learning.  The  consultation 
activities showed that the programme was effective in disseminating best practices to address 
crucial  issues  such  as  gender-based  violence  and  mental  health  in  criminal  justice  systems. 
However,  one  target  was  not  met.  This  was  the  target  to  reduce  the  average  time  taken  to 
surrender a wanted person to a requesting country under the European arrest warrant to 10 days 

12 This report also refers to the 2014-2020 justice programme as the ‘previous programme’ and to the 2021-2027 justice programme as the 
‘current programme’. 
13 Ratio between the number of supported participants and the total number of legal practitioners. 
14 As early as 2016, this number had reached 820 000 people. 
15 Council Decision 2009/316/JHA. 
16 ECRIS is a decentralised IT system operated by Member States’ central authorities to exchange information on criminals. 
17 The final target of 3 500 000 exchanges in 2020 was exceeded by over 500 000 with a total of 4 136 249 exchanges. 

2 

 
 
 
by 2020. This target was not met by a margin of 11 days18 (i.e. this procedure still takes an 
average of 21 days). The observable tendency across Member States to increase the time taken 
for  the  surrender  procedure,  together  with  the  COVID-19  pandemic’s  effects,  are  likely 
explanations for this trend. 

The  2014-2020  programme  also  greatly  exceeded  its  target  for  the  number  of  ‘hits’  (i.e. 
individual  website  visits)  on  the  EU’s  e-justice  portal19,  which  was  the  criterion  set  by  the 
programme  for  access  to  justice.  As  confirmed  by  the  analysis,  the  e-justice  portal  was 
perceived  by  consulted  stakeholders  as  an  important  tool  to  make  information  available.  In 
addition,  feedback  from  consultation  activities  stressed  that  the  2014-2020  programme 
effectively  raised  awareness  of  the  important  role  of  professionals  who  support  victims  of 
crime. Projects implemented by the programme helped underline the role of these professionals 
as trusted companions for victims of crime during court proceedings. 

However, regarding the  programme’s  specific objective to  support initiatives in  the  field  of 
drugs policy as regards judicial cooperation and crime prevention aspects, the programme did 
not meet its target of assessing a set number of new psychoactive substances20. According to 
the  European  Union  Drugs Agency,  the  reason  for  the  observed  decline  in  the  number  of 
substances assessed is uncertain. Potential explanations for the decline are increased controls 
and interventions to reduce the sale and consumption of these substances. 

The  programme  design  allowed  for  the  necessary  flexibility  to  run  projects  that  covered 
multiple countries. Projects were also effective in disseminating knowledge and best practices 
across participating countries. Cross-country networks of project participants created with the 
help  of  programme  funding  continued  operating  after  the  projects  ended.  Long-lasting 
partnerships created by the programme increased mutual learning and thereby increased both 
the operational capacity of funded organisations and the sustainability of results. Funding was 
distributed across all Member States, with organisations in Italy, Belgium and Spain featuring 
most frequently within funded projects. 

Very  significantly,  the  2014-2020  justice  programme  was  also  effective  in  promoting 
digitalisation.  Although  promoting  digitalisation  was  not  a  programme  objective,  when 
confronted with the COVID-19 pandemic, the associated constraints that came about raised the 
need to find alternative ways of conducting training and cooperating within project consortia. 
The  programme  therefore  accelerated  digitalisation  by  funding  different  types  of  activities, 
including  activities  related  to  information  technology  (IT)  that  fell  under  its  remit. 
Nevertheless, evidence from projects showed that the uptake of digital tools has been uneven. 
Differing levels of digital literacy of participants, as well as differences in digital infrastructure 
in Member States, posed obstacles to legal practitioners. 

Finally, the stakeholder consultation highlighted that the 2014-2020 justice programme could 
have provided more support to members of the public in helping them to access social-support 
services  offered  by  civil  society  organisations  (CSOs). Another  challenge  was  the  limited 
involvement of judges as a target group of the projects. This could be explained mainly by the 
limited time judges usually have at their disposal to engage in  activities  in addition to their 
duties in court. 

18 The data showed that the average time increased from 16.7 days in 2019 to 21.26 days in 2020. 
19 The indicator set a target of a yearly 20% increase starting from the baseline of 441 000 hits. In 2020, total hits amounted to 4 619 548. 
20 As of 2015, the number of new substances assessed decreased. Between 2016 and 2020 the number of substances assessed was around 50. 
In 2020, the programme set out to assess 95 new substances, but only assessed 46. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Justice programme 2021-2027 

The interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 justice programme showed that the programme has 
been  effective  so  far  in  reaching  its  objectives.  For  example,  it  has  surpassed  its  goals  for 
judicial training and cooperation, despite the negative impact of external factors such as the 
COVID-19 pandemic and the political situation in some Member States. Overall, the findings 
gathered for this interim evaluation indicate that the programme is performing well, with most 
stakeholders expressing confidence in both its success and its alignment with the overarching 
goals of the EU’s justice agenda. 

Compared to its predecessor, and based on the findings of the ex post evaluation, the 2021-
2027 justice programme incorporated: (i) better programme-management and administrative 
procedures;  and  (ii)  better  monitoring  mechanisms21  and  data-collection  tools  to  track  the 
effectiveness of the funded projects. 

The  stakeholder  consultation  also  highlighted  that  beneficiaries  of  the  2021-2027  justice 
programme  believed  that  their  projects  contributed  to  programme  objectives  more  than 
previous  projects  under  the  2014-2020  programme. The  same  areas  remained  significant  in 
both programmes (i.e. improving the implementation of EU law, training, and raising public 
awareness). Nevertheless, beneficiaries of the 2021-2027 justice programme reported that their 
activities made an even greater contribution to improving access to CSO services and making 
cross-border systems more interoperable than projects and activities in the earlier programme. 
This  indicates  that  progress  was  made  in  areas  that  had  previously  been  regarded  as  more 
challenging. Overall, through its comprehensive approach and targeted initiatives, the 2021-
2027 justice programme has fostered a significant improvement in the knowledge, skills and 
behaviour  of  its  target  groups,  suggesting  strong  potential  for  long-term  effects.  Surveys 
conducted with the beneficiaries indicated that the  2021-2027 justice programme has raised 
awareness  of  the  importance  of  the  rule  of  law  and  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights 
among  participants,  with  a  marked  difference  in  knowledge  levels  compared  to  the  general 
public. This suggests that those reached by the programme activities increase their knowledge 
and  understanding  of  both  EU  law  and  the  rule  of  law.  Rule-of-law  aspects  addressed  by 
projects have continued to increase in importance, building on a foundation laid in the previous 
programming period. 

Stakeholders and beneficiaries expressed confidence in the sustainability of the programme’s 
outcomes22. The influence of the 2021-2027 justice programme is already visible through the 
connections and networks it has built, indicating a strong likelihood of long-term effects. The 
availability of training materials in multiple languages has also contributed to an even greater 
impact, ensuring that the benefits of the programme are accessible to a wider audience and will 
be of lasting use in the justice sector. A significant majority of beneficiaries believed that their 
projects have the potential to: (i) shape future legislation (such as in the field of victims’ rights); 
(ii)  improve  judicial  practices;  and  (iii)  set  new  EU  standards  for  judicial  cooperation  and 
access  to  justice. At  the  same  time,  some  beneficiaries  also  expressed  concern  about  their 
dependency on EU funding for the continuation of their initiatives. This dependency may limit 
these  beneficiaries’  contribution  to  the  examination  of  emerging  topics  and  their  ability  to 
respond to recent changes23, thus limiting the longer-term impact of the programme. 

The  communication  activities  funded  through  the  programme  have  demonstrated  their 
significant capacity for informing and engaging stakeholders, as evidenced by the many people 

21 The performance-monitoring framework was developed to take on board suggestions highlighted in the 2018 impact assessment and in the 
first part of the ex-post evaluation of the previous programme. 
22 A high percentage of beneficiaries (94%) believe that the impact of their projects will extend beyond their conclusion. 
23 Such as the adoption of new legislation (for example, the adoption of the Artificial Intelligence Act). 

4 

 
 
 
reached  through  various  initiatives24.  The  webpages  of  the  e-justice  portal  that  deal  with 
criminal matters have seen a 76% increase in visits between 2021 and 2022, with 2.25 million 
hits in 2022, reflecting a growing interest in the justice system across Member States. The EU 
Funding  &  Tenders  portal25  remains  the  primary  source  of  information  on  the  justice 
programme and its funding opportunities. Based on the evidence gathered through stakeholder 
consultations, it appeared that communication activities to raise awareness of the programme 
deriving  from  national,  regional  or  local  governments  have  decreased  from  8.7%  in  the 
previous  funding  period  to  3.7%  in  the  current  funding  period.  However,  71.6%  of  both 
successful and unsuccessful applicants said that the 2021-2027 justice programme was well-
known among potential applicants, mirroring results from the previous funding period from 
2014-2020.  Nevertheless,  evidence  gathered  for  this  evaluation  highlighted  a  disparity  in 
awareness  among different stakeholder groups.  Stakeholders in higher education and public 
authorities reported greater awareness of the programme than CSOs. This suggests that while 
the programme’s communication activities are effective, they may not be reaching all sectors 
equally. This can be explained by the technical nature of the programme, which mainly focuses 
on the specialised needs of the judiciary and judicial staff. In addition, there may be a need to 
increase communication efforts in some EU regions to further increase the overall effectiveness 
of the programme and the diversity of partnerships across Member States. In fact, although 
geographical balance is not an objective of the programme per se, the data showed that, until 
the end of 2023, organisations based in some Member States applied and received funds more 
frequently than organisations based in other Member States. 

Since  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  programme  has  put  more  emphasis  on  digitalisation. 
Beneficiaries have increasingly made use of digital tools in their activities, thereby increasing 
their effectiveness. At the same time, since the pandemic, the programme has also increasingly 
focused on gender mainstreaming. This focus includes: (i) implementation of a methodology 
to track data on how funded activities affect gender equality; (ii) more explicit requirements 
for gender equality in call documents and evaluation criteria; and (iii) a dedicated analysis of 
the  gender  dimension  of  project  proposals.  The  requirement  for  a  more  dedicated  focus  on 
integrating gender mainstreaming in the projects co-funded by the justice programme improved 
the programme’s effectiveness, as interventions were better aligned with the needs of target 
groups.  Over  80%  of  the  projects  funded  have  incorporated  measures  to  promote  gender 
equality, and were able to effectively mainstream gender equality in their proposals. However, 
the evidence gathered for this evaluation highlighted that some applicants would still benefit 
from further guidance, such as more good-practice examples tailored to the specific objectives 
of the justice programme. 

Overall, the 2021-2027 justice programme has increased efforts to ensure inclusivity, combat 
discrimination, and support vulnerable groups. This indicates that the programme has taken a 
forward-looking  approach  to  creating  a  fair  and  equitable  justice  system  across  the  EU26. 
Ensuring  non-discriminatory  access  to  justice  for  all  is  a  new  component  of  the  current 
programme  that  is  already  showing  good  progress,  in  part  through  supporting  gender 
mainstreaming  and  mainstreaming  non-discrimination  in  all  its  activities as  required  by  the 
programme’s legal basis. 

24 The programme’s monitoring data indicates that 201 888 people were successfully reached through awareness-raising activities, while 379 
mutual-learning activities have engaged a remarkable 2 288 580 people. 
25 EU Funding & Tenders Portal │ European Commission 
26 Between 2021 and 2023, around 32% of programme-funded projects addressed the needs of migrants, refugees, LGBTI individuals, and 
persons with disabilities; 13% of projects focused on protecting children’s rights in legal proceedings. 

5 

 
 
 
2.2. Efficiency 

Justice programme 2014-2020 

Overall,  the  evaluation  found  that  the  2014-2020  justice  programme  was  cost-effective27  in 
attaining its objectives. 

Feedback  from  beneficiaries  largely  confirmed  that  the  benefits  of  participating  in  the 
programme  outweighed  associated  costs.  The  benefits  mainly  lay  in  the  formation  of  new 
partnerships  promoting:  (i)  mutual  trust  between  judicial  actors;  (ii)  implementation  and 
application  of  EU  law;  and  (iii)  awareness  and  promotion  of  the  protection  of  fundamental 
rights. 

Despite  an  overall  positive  assessment  of  the  programme  by  stakeholders,  the  application 
process and administrative burden of applying for programme funded projects is a resource- 
and  time-intensive  challenge  for  applicants,  and  first-time  applicants  in  particular.  More 
experienced applicants still perceived the process as burdensome, albeit to a lesser extent than 
first-time applicants. Consulted stakeholders also frequently mentioned administrative burden 
as a problem due to the extensive reporting requirements, with the highest staff costs attributed 
to administrative activities. 

Notwithstanding these challenges, stakeholders valued the Commission actions to simplify the 
administrative process. The digitalisation of the application process with the  introduction of 
the  EU  Funding  &  Tenders  portal  was  considered  by  consulted  stakeholders  as  the  most 
significant simplification made by the Commission. 

Regulation (EU) 1382/201328 set a budget of EUR 377 604 000 for the period 2014-2020, with 
yearly amounts set in the work programmes. Based on data collected for this evaluation, over 
90%  of  the  budget  planned  for  grants  and  procurement  (i.e.  EUR 332 125  700)  has  been 
committed (i.e. more than EUR 304 000 000). 

At the level of specific objectives, funding implemented under the specific objectives on access 
to  justice  and  judicial  training  was  slightly  above  the  average  ‘consumption  rate’  (the 
‘consumption  rate’  or  ‘utilisation  rate’  is  the  percentage  of  planned  funding  allocated  to  a 
programme that has actually been awarded to activities under that programme). By contrast, 
funds  implemented  under  judicial  cooperation  and  drugs  policy  had  below-average 
consumption rates. 

Figure 1: Consumption rate of available budgets per specific objective 

Source: Elaboration of programme data (DG JUST). Acronyms refer to specific objectives of the 2014-2020 justice 
programme: (1) facilitating and supporting judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters (JCOO); (2) supporting and 

27 Measuring the value provided for the investment made. 
28 Regulation (EU) No 1382/2013 of 17 December 2013, OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 73-83, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1382/oj. 

6 

 
 
 
 
promoting judicial training (JTRA); (3) facilitating effective access to justice for all (JACC); (4) supporting initiatives in the 
field of drugs policy as regards judicial cooperation and crime prevention aspects (JDRU). 

Juxtaposing the relative funding consumption rate against the planned budgets yields a more 
nuanced picture. 

Figure 2: Planned budgets per specific objective 

Source: Elaboration of programme data (DG JUST) 

The  2014-2020  justice  programme  was  effective  in  achieving  its  objectives,  and  the 
consumption rate shows it was effective in engaging almost all its planned funds. On the one 
hand, this high consumption rate helped ensure that the funding was extensively deployed. On 
the  other  hand,  the  unused  budget,  albeit  not  comparatively  large,  could  have  been  used  to 
further  promote  the  programme’s  objectives.  Interviews  carried  out  for  this  evaluation 
confirmed that first-time beneficiaries in particular underestimated the resources they needed 
to implement their project, thus leading to lower funding requests than planned at programme 
level. This finding is in line with the evidence from the first part of the ex post evaluation of 
the 2014-2020 programme that identified the underestimation of project costs as a key reason 
for not utilising the programme’s entire budget. 

The  evaluation  criterion  of  efficiency  was  also  assessed  through  cost-effectiveness  ratios29, 
which measured total annual costs in relation to outputs under a specific programme objective. 
For instance, the evaluation scrutinised the programme’s investments in training activities and 
two  large  and  important  IT  systems,  which  together  trace  the  programme’s  performance  in 
judicial cooperation, access to justice and judicial training. These investments in the two large 
and  important  IT  systems  and  in  training  activities  are  therefore  good  proxies  for  the 
programme’s cost-effectiveness. 

Firstly, the evaluation analysed the training sessions and produced a cost-effectiveness ratio 
based on this analysis30. The annual cost-effectiveness ratio exhibited a decreasing trend until 
2018, and then dropped even further, reaching its lowest level in 2020. The number of people 
trained was at its lowest in 2019 and at its highest in 2020. The rapid change in the number of 
people trained, and the corresponding change in associated costs, can be largely explained by 
the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Triggered by the onset of the pandemic in 2020, the 
digitalisation  of  training  courses  increased.  By  funding  remotely  organised  training,  the 
programme improved its cost-effectiveness. However, these figures should be contextualised, 

29 Although the ratios are only an approximation of relative cost-effectiveness (because annual budgets varied), they still provide a longitudinal 
insight into the programme’s efficiency. 
30 The total annual programme budget was weighted by the total number of people trained in training courses to produce the cost-effectiveness 
ratio. 

7 

 
 
 
 
as  the  work  of  the  European  Judicial  Training  Network  (EJTN)31,  focusing  on  in-person 
exchanges,  illustrates.  Networking  and  in-person  exchanges  remained  important  features 
contributing to the quality of judicial training courses. 

Figure 3: Cost-effectiveness ratios of the number of the judiciary members trained (2014-2020) 

Source: Elaboration of programme data (DG JUST) 

Another  factor  contributing  to  the  programme’s  cost-effectiveness  were  EJTN  activities  at 
European level that created economies of scale. The EJTN established an enabling environment 
for large-scale and impactful judicial training. As a result, the programme was able to support 
training sessions at a lower cost. 

The number of exchanges in ECRIS was another one of the indicators used to measure how the 
programme  promoted  judicial  cooperation.  It  is  therefore  a  good  way  to  gauge  cost-
effectiveness. The cost of each exchange decreased continuously from 2014 until 2019. The 
number of exchanges via ECRIS also increased over the years and thus contributed to the good 
cost-output  ratio. The  pandemic  also  had  an  effect  on  the  number  of  exchanges  via  ECRIS 
(pushing up costs slightly), albeit to a very small degree. 

Figure 4: Cost-effectiveness ratios of ECRIS exchanges (2014-2020) 

Source: Elaboration of ECRIS data (DG JUST) 

The slight increase in costs in 2020 can be mainly attributed to the reduced activity of national 
competent authorities32. Among other factors, teleworking and a lack of skilled staff were the 

31 Regulation No 2021/693 establishing the 2021-2027 justice programme provides that the programme shall support EJTN’s expenditure and 
that any operating grant to that effect shall be awarded without a call for proposal. 
32 Based on Eurojust data. Available at: https://db.eurocrim.org/db/en/doc/3528.pdf. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
underlying factors. However, after a short transition period, activities returned to normal. As a 
result,  the  reduced  activity  only  slightly  increased  the  cost  of  operating  ECRIS.  From  a 
longitudinal perspective, the marginal cost (i.e. the cost for one additional exchange) dropped 
significantly  between  2014  and  2020.  The  strong  decrease  in  marginal  costs  illustrates  the 
usefulness of ECRIS – and by extension its cost-effectiveness. 

The number of hits on the e-justice portal33 was used as a proxy in the programme’s impact 
assessment34 to measure how the programme provided access to justice. Like investments in 
ECRIS,  the  cost  of  hits  on  the  e-justice  portal  decreased  over  the  period  in  which  the 
programme was being implemented. The programme invested in expanding, maintaining and 
raising  awareness  of  the  e-justice  portal.  The  impact  of  these  actions  is  illustrated  by  the 
increased  number  of  hits  on  the  portal.  The  increased  use  of  the  e-justice  portal  therefore 
showed the cost-effectiveness of building a larger digital structure. 

Figure 5: Cost-effectiveness ratios of hits on the e-justice portal (2014-2020) 

Source: Elaboration of e-justice portal’s data (DG JUST) 

In conclusion, the three cost-effectiveness assessments illustrate the programme’s long-term 
cost-effectiveness through training and increases in the use of established IT systems. 

Justice programme 2021-2027 

Evidence gathered for the evaluation showed that the 2021-2027 justice programme has so far 
been cost effective overall. This means that the programme is producing optimum results for 
the investment made. Stakeholder feedback also corroborates this view, as most respondents 
confirmed that the benefits of the justice programme 2021-2027 outweigh its costs. As for the 
2014-2020 justice programme, collaboration and long-term partnerships led to several main 
benefits  for  target  groups,  such  as:  (i)  increased  awareness  and  knowledge  of  the  issues 
addressed by the programme; (ii) increased skills; and (iii) greater cooperation. 

The programme-management and administrative procedures have improved over the years in 
the 2021-2027 programme compared with the 2014-2020 programme. Challenges remain for 
beneficiaries and applicants to complete the administrative tasks associated with the application 
process  and  reporting.  These  administrative  tasks  remain  costly  and  time-consuming. 
Nevertheless,  many  stakeholders  also  acknowledged  the  improvements  brought  by  the 
simplified procedures introduced by the Commission. 

33 The e-justice portal instead provides online access to information  for members of the public when trying to obtain information on legal 
matters, procedures or legal practitioners to aid them. 
34 SWD(2018) 290 final. 

9 

 
 
 
 
Overall, and even if it is too early to draw definitive conclusions, stakeholders said that the 
simplification measures introduced in the 2021-2027 programming period have been positive 
and  largely  reduced  the  administrative  burden  compared  with  the  previous  programming 
period.  These  simplified  procedures  include  the  use  of  lump-sum  contributions,  a  simpler 
reporting process and the introduction of the e-Grants system. These changes have simplified 
administrative and application procedures. 

The introduction of lump sums should also help simplify – and increase the quality of – final 
reporting,  which  is  still  challenging  for  some  beneficiaries.  However,  the  introduction,  at 
Commission  corporate  level,  of  standardised  unit  costs  for  travel  and  accommodation,  was 
assessed less positively by stakeholders. This was because these unit costs often fail to reflect 
actual market rates. In addition, when it comes to financial reporting, it remains difficult to 
maintain two separate bookkeeping records (i.e. one based on actual costs and another one on 
standardised unit costs). This adds a layer of complexity, especially for public authorities. 

Furthermore, thanks to a more structured approach for assessing the performance of funded 
activities, the current programme is better equipped than the 2014-2020 programme to ensure 
that funds are used efficiently. This is a significant improvement compared with the previous 
funding  period.  The  performance  monitoring  framework  for  the  2021-2027  programme 
supports efforts to ensure that the programme remains responsive to beneficiaries’ needs and 
emerging challenges. 

Collaboration with existing networks, such as the EJTN, has continued to show the potential 
for  improving  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  programme.  As  highlighted  by  the  ex  post 
evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme, these networks enable beneficiaries to organise large-
scale events with extensive outreach at reduced costs, thus achieving economies of scale. 

There  were  also  several  external  factors  influencing  the  efficiency  of  the  programme. 
Stakeholders particularly highlighted economic and political factors (e.g. inflationary pressures 
caused by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine). Challenges linked to the COVID-19 
pandemic were no longer considered an issue after early 2022, since the programme had been 
quick and flexible in adopting mitigating measures. In the longer term, COVID-19 has even 
increased the efficiency of projects funded under the justice programme  by accelerating the 
uptake of digitalisation35. 

On the number of judicial staff trained under the current justice programme, findings indicate 
that, overall, cost effectiveness improved between 2021 and 202236. 

35 Approximately 29% of projects funded over the period under analysis redirected funds to support the transition to digital platforms and to 
cover increased IT support costs. 
36 In 2021, a sharp increase in the ratio reversed the trend of improved cost-effectiveness. The reasons for this could be varied, including 
potential changes in programme execution, increased costs, or external factors. The subsequent decrease in 2022 brought the ratio back down 
to a level very similar to that of 2020, essentially recovering from the spike in 2021 and returning to a more cost-effective state. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6: Cost-effectiveness ratio for the number of members of the judiciary trained (2021-2027) 

Source: Elaboration of programme data (DG JUST). Note: 2023 data not yet available at the time of carrying out the analysis 

On exchanges of information in ECRIS, data showed increases in cost effectiveness over the 
period  2021-2023.  The  combined  data  from  2014  to  2023  showed  a  predominant  trend  of 
increasing cost-effectiveness, given the steady decrease in the cost per exchange of information 
on ECRIS. 

Figure 7: Cost-effectiveness ratio of ECRIS exchanges (2021-2027) 

Source: Elaboration of ECRIS data (DG JUST) 

Finally, looking at the number of hits on the e-justice portal, despite a brief increase in costs in 
2021, the programme demonstrated a strong ability to improve its cost-effectiveness for this 
indicator over subsequent years, culminating in a significant reduction in costs per hit by 2023. 
This  suggests  that  the  programme  became  increasingly  efficient  in  delivering  its  intended 
results over time, with the cost per hit on the e-justice portal decreasing substantially. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8: Cost-effectiveness ratio of hits on the e-justice portal (2021-2027) 

Source: Elaboration of e-justice portal’s data (DG JUST) 

2.3. Coherence 

Justice programme 2014-2020 

The ex post evaluation showed that the 2014-2020 programme reached its goals overall and in 
a  coherent  way.  In  particular,  the  programme  succeeded  in:  (i)  enhancing  the  protection  of 
fundamental rights; (ii) ensuring effective remedies; (iii) promoting judicial training; and (iv) 
promoting  cooperation  without  duplicating  other  EU  funding  programmes.  Survey  results 
indicated that the programme has been unique in offering funding that addressed stakeholders’ 
specific needs. 70% of surveyed beneficiaries said they would not have been able to secure 
other EU funding without the justice programme. 

At  programming  level,  the  evaluation  of  the  EU  drugs  strategy37  confirmed  the  2014-2020 
justice programme’s complementarity in the area of EU drugs policy. Interventions funded by 
the  justice  programme  specifically  focused  on  judicial  cooperation  and  crime  prevention, 
thereby  addressing  areas  that  were  not  covered  by  the  EU’s  internal  security  fund38  39. 
Nevertheless,  although  interventions  funded  through  the  programme  did  not  overlap  with 
initiatives  funded  by  the  EU’s  internal  security  fund,  justice-programme  stakeholders 
confirmed that interventions related to the EU drugs policy fitted much better within the remit 
of the internal  security fund (thus validating the  soundness  of their transfer there  under the 
2021-2027 justice programme). 

Furthermore,  projects  focusing  on  the  digitalisation  of  justice  effectively  added  to  national 
digitalisation initiatives. The evaluation identified synergies in this area with the Connecting 
Europe Facility (CEF)40: funding for digital infrastructure projects under CEF was aligned with 
projects advancing judicial training online funded under the justice programme. 
Finally, there were also salient synergies between the justice programme and the EU’s rights, 
equality and citizenship (REC) programme41, in part thanks to the close coordination between 

37 Final assessment of the EU drugs strategy 2013, available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/daf5ddf5-cd52-11ea-
adf7-01aa75ed71a1. 
38 Regulation (EU) 2021/1149. 
39 The complementarity between the 2014-2020 justice programme and the internal security fund was further confirmed by the fund’s interim 
evaluation (SWD (2018) 341). 
40 Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013. 
41 Regulation (EU) No 1381/2013. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
the  Commission  departments  responsible  for  the  two  programmes.  This  close  coordination 
helped  align  the  approaches  of  the  justice  programme  and  the  REC  programme  when 
evaluating funding proposals. 

Justice programme 2021-2027 

The actions funded under the 2021-2027 justice programme and the objectives of these actions 
were shown to be coherent with EU policies in the justice field. The actions funded under the 
current programme have a stronger focus on e-justice, the digitalisation of judicial systems and 
cross-border information-exchange tools than actions funded under the previous programme 
for 2014-2020. The stakeholder consultation confirmed that, so far, the current programme also 
aligns well with national policies in these areas42. 

Thanks in part to its focus on three specific objectives43, the 2021-2027 justice programme is 
coherent  and has created synergies with other funding programmes, such as the citizenship, 
equality, rights and values programme44, in particular in relation to support provided to victims 
of  crime  and  other  vulnerable  groups.  Furthermore,  since  the  current  programme  plays  an 
important role in helping Member States to interconnect with existing EU instruments and IT 
systems, there is complementarity and synergies  between the 2021-2027 justice programme 
and  programmes  dealing  with  both  EU-level  IT  systems  and  the  digitalisation  of  national 
judicial systems (such as the digital Europe programme45, the Technical Support Instrument46 
and the Recovery and Resilience Facility)47. 

The 2021-2027 justice programme is also coherent with EU  international commitments and 
objectives, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, specifically goal 1648. 

Finally,  only  a  small  percentage  of  beneficiaries  said  that  they  believed  they  could  secure 
alternative  EU  funding  if  the  justice  programme  were  unavailable  –  public  authorities  and 
higher education institutions being the most optimistic about this possibility. CSOs said they 
were  very  unlikely  to  find  alternative  sources  of  funding  if  the  programme  were  to  be 
discontinued. 

2.4. EU added value 

Justice programme 2014-2020 

The  stakeholder  consultation  indicated  that  beneficiaries  would  not  have  been  able  to 
implement  their  projects  in  the  absence  of  the  justice  programme49.  Beneficiaries  pointed 
specifically to the projects’ geographical scope, which would have been smaller  if they had 
been based on national funding. The projects’ thematic scope would also have been limited if 
it had relied only on national funding. According to beneficiaries, national funding is typically 
tailored to specific groups, such as victims of a specific kind of crime. By contrast, the justice 
programme was perceived as more flexible. Finally, the beneficiary organisations said that their 
ability to implement projects of a larger scope would not have been sufficient if they did not 
have access to EU funding. 

Public authorities such as courts, ministries and higher education institutions were among the 
stakeholders that reported most frequently that they would have been able to secure national 

42 Based on feedback from programme committee members, who generally belong to ministries of justice of Member States. 
43 Regulation (EU) No 2021/693, Article 3(2). 
44 Regulation (EU) No 2021/692. 
45 The Digital Europe Programme (Regulation (EU) 2021/694). 
46 Technical Support Instrument (TSI) (Regulation (EU) 2021/240). 
47 The Recovery and Resilience Facility (Regulation (EU) 2021/241). 
48  SDG 16:  ‘promoting peaceful  and inclusive  societies  for  sustainable  development, provide  access  to  justice  for  all and build  effective, 
accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels’. 
49 This finding is echoed by the results of the online survey. Only 9% of surveyed beneficiaries were confident that if the justice programme 
had not existed, Member States would have been a viable alternative source of funding for them. 

13 

 
 
 
funding in the absence of funding from the justice programme. By contrast, CSOs were less 
confident that they would have been able to find alternative funding sources. The underlying 
reasons  for  beneficiaries  to  rely  on  EU  funding  from  the  2014-2020  justice  programme 
included the specificity of national funding instruments50, which was excessively restrictive in 
the view of stakeholders. 

Feedback from programme committee members contextualised these limitations by identifying 
two areas in which the 2014-2020 justice programme had helped level the playing field among 
Member  States.  The  first  is  the  added  value  from  training  sessions  co-funded  by  the 
programme,  which  were  perceived  to  be  very  valuable  and  impactful  for  programme 
stakeholders. The second is the programme’s contribution to digitalising justice systems and 
making  them  interoperable  with  the  justice  systems  of  other  Member  States.  Digitalisation 
proved particularly important to overcoming issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Justice programme 2021-2027 

The 2021-2027 justice programme continues to provide a unique added value that is difficult 
to  replicate  at  national  level.  The  programme  adds  value  over  and  above  that  created  by 
Member  States  acting  alone.  Beneficiaries  still  believe  that,  although  alternative  funding 
sources exist51, the support offered by the justice programme is unparalleled in its scope and 
impact. So far, the programme has enabled organisations to undertake extensive activities that 
would otherwise have taken years to accomplish or would have been significantly scaled down. 
In most cases, no national funding was available to provide the same kind of support to EU 
justice  policies,  such  as  cross-border  digitalisation  or  inherently  transnational  activities. 
Beneficiaries  acknowledged  the  programme’s  role  in  accelerating  processes  and  facilitating 
cross-border projects, which would be limited in scope and scale without its support. The 2021-
2027 justice programme therefore fills in a crucial funding gap, especially in areas requiring: 
(i) international cooperation; and (2) victims’ support. 

Stakeholders  and  participants  particularly  value  the  justice  programme  for  fostering  the 
creation and awareness of EU-level networks and enabling smaller Member States to undertake 
projects that would be beyond their capacity otherwise. Cross-border collaboration increased 
from  69%  of  all  funded  projects  in  the  2014-2020  period  to  78%  in  the  2021-2023  period, 
showing  a  continued  focus  on  increasing  cooperation  among  different  legal  professionals 
across EU Member States. Institutional participation also grew as 69% of justice programme 
projects  in  2014-2020  involved  universities,  national  training  academies  and  judicial 
authorities,  against  78%  in  2021-202352.  This  suggests  that  stopping  the  programme  would 
likely significantly reduce the scope of justice-related activities, particularly those involving 
cross-border initiatives. 

The  arguments  based  on  the  subsidiarity  principle,  put  forward  as  part  of  the  2018  impact 
assessment,  are  still  valid.  The  objectives  set  out  in  the  impact  assessment  are  still  better 
addressed at EU level due to: (i) the persistent nature of the difficulties facing cross-border 
cooperation in the area of justice; (ii) the paradigm shift needed for a true change in the legal 
cultures of Member States to cooperate with each other’s judicial systems; and (iii) the need 
for EU law to be applied coherently by national courts. 

The added value of the 2021-2027 justice programme also lies in its more targeted approach, 
greater focus on digitalisation, and use of improved monitoring systems. These improvements 

50  Interviews  clarified  that  this  limited  scope  of  national  funding  related  to  specific  budgets  earmarked  under  targeted  national  funding 
programmes. 
51 Such as private entities, regional and national research projects or other EU-level opportunities (amongst those more frequently mentioned 
in consultations). 
52 Based on results of text-mining analysis. 

14 

 
 
 
render the current programme even more effective in meeting the evolving needs for justice of 
the EU and its citizens. 

2.5. Relevance 

Justice programme 2014-2020 

The  evaluation  confirmed  the  relevance  of  the  2014-2020  justice  programme  previously 
identified in both the interim evaluation of the 2014-2020 programme and the first part of the 
2014-2020 programme’s ex post evaluation. The stakeholder consultations confirmed that the 
programme  sufficiently  met  the  needs  of  its  target  groups.  Successful  and  unsuccessful 
applicants alike both agreed in surveys that the programme was relevant, with no statistically 
significant  link  between  perceptions  based  on  the  applicant’s  geographic  location  or 
organisational type. Beneficiaries also confirmed that the programme helped address needs at 
national level53. 

A  third  of  all  beneficiaries  participated  in  either  a  follow-up  project  or  a  different  project, 
pointing to the programme’s relevance to its stakeholders over time. This long-lasting relevance 
is in part thanks to the programme’s ability to adjust its priorities and address emerging needs, 
also following the merge of the formerly separate civil justice programme54, criminal justice 
programme55 and drug prevention and information programme56.  

The programme further proved its flexibility throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Reporting 
extensions,  reallocations  of  funds,  and  shifting  from  in-person  to  online  and  hybrid  project 
activities made it possible to implement projects throughout the pandemic. 

Notwithstanding their positive feedback and high level of engagement, stakeholders said that 
they would have appreciated additional support in disseminating project results. 

The first part of the ex post evaluation identified a need to broaden the justice programme’s 
target group, in particular by actively supporting CSOs working on victims’ rights. However, 
this evaluation did not find strong evidence for this need, as only scattered feedback suggested 
a need to better include correctional services and prison staff in the target groups. These mixed 
findings  indicate that the current  justice programme should closely monitor its relevance to 
CSOs working on victims’ rights. 

Justice programme 2021-2027 

Some of the needs and challenges identified in the 2021-2027 justice programme’s intervention 
logic still exist and need to be addressed. This is despite some of the recent progress made in 
this area. For instance, insights from the EU Justice Scoreboard57 and data collected via recent 
Eurobarometer  surveys58  highlighted  progress  in  Member  States’  efforts  to  deliver  effective 
national  justice  systems,  but  these  insights  also  suggest  that  there  is  a  continued  need  for 

53 84% of surveyed beneficiaries believed that the 2014-2020 justice programme corresponded to the needs of the justice sector in their country. 
54 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 ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’ (OJ L 257, 3.10.2007, p. 16). 
55 Decision 2007/126/JHA of 12 February 2007 establishing for the period 2007-2013, as part of the General Programme on Fundamental 
Rights and Justice, the Specific Programme ‘Criminal Justice’ (OJ L 58, 24.2.2007, p. 13). 
56 Decision No 1150/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 September 2007 establishing for the period 2007-2013 the 
Specific  Programme  ‘Drug  prevention  and  information’  as  part  of  the  General  Programme  ‘Fundamental  Rights  and  Justice’  (OJ  L  257, 
3.10.2007, p. 23. 
57 See EU Justice Scoreboard 2024/ The EU Justice Scoreboard 2024, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the 
Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2024) 950. 
58 Flash Eurobarometer 540 – Perceived independence of the national justice systems in the EU among the general public, February 2024. For 
this Flash Eurobarometer, a representative sample of EU citizens, aged 15 and over, in each of the 27 EU Member States, Albania, Montenegro, 
North Macedonia and Serbia was interviewed. Between 14 and 27 February 2024, 29 484 interviews were conducted over the telephone. 

15 

 
 
 
improvement59.  Several  challenges  persist  such  as  variations  in  judicial  efficiency,  uneven 
implementation  of  judicial  reforms  and  barriers  in  citizens'  access  to  justice.  Furthermore, 
issues such as cross-border judicial cooperation and consistency in judicial training continue 
to require sustained attention. These current and evolving needs prove the continued relevance 
across  the  EU  of  the  programme’s  objectives  of  promoting  judicial  cooperation,  judicial 
training and access to justice. 

As was the case under the 2014-2020 programme, the evidence collected for this evaluation 
confirmed that the 2021-2027 justice programme is meeting the needs of its key stakeholders, 
i.e. beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries. The programme not only aligns the expectations, 
but  also  plays  a  crucial  role  in  addressing  the  needs  of  the  justice  sector  at  national  level. 
Additionally, beneficiaries confirmed that the outputs of their project correspond to the needs 
of the relevant target groups within the justice sector and the needs of society more broadly. 

All  this underlines  the continued relevance of the justice programme’s  specific objectives60. 
The architecture of the current programme brought significant added value compared with the 
previous  programme  in  this  regard,  particularly  through  its  more  streamlined  and  focused 
design. In fact, the removal of drugs policy from the 2021-2027 justice programme led to a 
sharper  programme  focus  through  the  three  specific  objectives  of  the  2021-2027  justice 
programme,  which  are  key  for  the  field  of  justice,  allowing  for  greater  impact  in  the 
programmes core areas. 

Another key element of the programme’s ability to maintain its relevance to its beneficiaries 
and target groups in recent years has been its capacity to harness digital technologies. This is 
particularly important given the uneven progress and sometimes fragmented approach seen in 
Member States’ efforts to digitalise their national justice systems. Although the digitalisation 
of  national  justice  systems  in  the  EU  is  not  one  of  the  specific  objectives  of  the  justice 
programmes,  digitalisation  of  justice  informs  all  three  specific  objectives  in  a  cross-cutting 
manner and enables more accessible, efficient and interconnected judicial processes across the 
EU. 

The digitalisation of justice systems has the potential to create justice ecosystems that are more 
resilient, adaptable and aligned with the EU’s broader digital transformation goals. This will 
ultimately strengthen public trust in the judicial system and support a more cohesive European 
area of justice. Digitalisation is bringing both new opportunities and challenges in the area of 
justice,  and  needs  in  this  area  are  evolving  due  to  the  digital  transition.  In  particular,  the 
increasing reliance on digital tools necessitates addressing challenges linked to cybersecurity, 
data protection, artificial intelligence applications, and the ethical implications associated with 
digital justice tools. 

Stakeholders and beneficiaries noted that there are already several areas where funding for the 
digitalisation  of  justice  would  be  highly  relevant,  both  in  terms  of  thematic  areas  (artificial 
intelligence  regulation,  copyright  infringement,  combating  cyberbullying  and  ensuring 
transparency in the digital space) and types of activities such as digital skills training for justice 
professionals61. 

59  Possible  improvements include:  (i)  the need to  reduce the burden  of court  fees;  (ii)  the availability of  legal  aid;  (iii)  the promotion of 
voluntary use of alternative dispute resolution methods (ADRs); (iv) support for the participation of persons with disabilities as professionals 
in the justice system; and (v) facilitating access to justice by electronic means, as the uptake of digitalisation in national justice systems across 
EU  Member  States  remains  uneven.  In  addition,  cross-border  crimes  have  continued  to  rise  since  2020,  suggesting  cross-border  judicial 
cooperation will only become more important. 
60 Regulation (EU) No 2021/693, Article 3(2). 
61 This includes: (i) developing digital tools (e.g. for improving communication, access to information, and comparable data collection); (ii) 
supporting the practical implementation of digital tools; (iii) improving interoperability; and (iv) raising awareness of the opportunities and 
benefits of digitalisation in the justice sector. 

16 

 
 
 
There  remains  scope  to  ensure  a  more  strategic  and  focused  approach  to  address:  (i)  the 
challenges  of  an  uneven  level  of  digitalisation  of  justice  in  the  Member  States,  and  (ii)  all 
opportunities presented by the rapidly evolving digital landscape. 

3. Conclusions and lessons learnt 

Overall,  the  2014-2020  justice  programme  achieved  its  objectives.  Based  on  the  combined 
findings  of  this  evaluation,  the  2021-2027  programme  is  also  progressing  well  towards  its 
objectives. 

Both  programmes  have  successfully  contributed  so  far  to  supporting  the  mutual 
recognition  of  judicial  decisions  across  Member  States  and  improving  cross-border 
cooperation. The programmes’ contribution has helped to create long-term impact in further 
developing a cohesive European area of justice built on mutual trust and cooperation between 
Member  States.  The  programmes’  joint  focus  on  judicial  training  creates  synergies.  The 
2014-2020  programme  fostered  a  shared  legal  culture  across  Member  States  by  training 
thousands  of  judges,  lawyers,  and  court  staff  in  both  national  and  EU  law. The  2021-2027 
programme  builds  on  these  achievements  to  further  develop  and  unify  the  legal  landscape 
across the EU. Ensuring access to justice, particularly for vulnerable groups, has been a 
fundamental objective of both programmes. In the 2014-2020 funding period, substantial 
efforts were made to reduce barriers to access to justice, resulting in improved frameworks and 
increased protections for marginalised individuals. This progress informs the approach of the 
2021-2027 programme, ensuring that lessons learnt continue to drive forward a fairer and more 
inclusive EU legal system. The digitalisation of justice systems is also an area in which the 
two  programmes  are  mutually  complementary.  The  2014-2020  period  saw  the  further 
improvement of digital tools like the European e-justice portal, which continues in the 2021-
2027  programme.  This  facilitates  easier  access  to  legal  information  and  cross-border 
cooperation. The 2021-2027 programme builds on this foundation, continuing to expand digital 
initiatives  and  modernising  judicial-cooperation  mechanisms.  This  continuity  supports  the 
EU’s  broader  digital  transformation  goals,  making  the  justice  system  more  efficient  and 
accessible. 

Both  programmes  have  contributed  to  achieve  the  correct,  coherent  and  consistent 
application of EU law. By facilitating exchanges of best practices, the 2014-2020 programme 
fostered collaboration among Member States, resulting in the more uniform application of EU 
law by judicial practitioners. This ongoing synergy increases the integrity of EU legislation and 
promotes  legal  coherence  across  borders,  an  approach  furthered  in  the  current  programme. 
Finally,  the  support  for  European  networks  and  civil  society  in  the  field  of  justice 
continues across both programmes. The provision of funding for networks such as the EJTN 
allows  for  sustained  collaboration  and  capacity  building  across  the  EU.  This  ensures  that 
projects  have  long-term  impact  and  strengthens  cooperation  between  Member  States.  This 
ongoing  support  helps  ensure  that  legal  professionals  and  organisations  can  engage  in 
sustained, high-quality collaboration on justice matters across the EU. 

Based on an assessment of its efficiency, the programmes’ benefits outweighed their costs. 
Direct funding to beneficiaries led to immediate and tangible benefits to the target groups of 
the projects’ activities. 

Streamlining  administrative  processes  with  the  introduction  of  the  EU  Funding  &  Tenders 
portal and the e-Grants system for the 2014-2020 justice programme made the application and 
grant-management process easier for applicants. The new simplification measures applied to 
the 2021-2027 justice programme show promising results, even though it is too early to assess 
their full impact and margins for improvement remain. It is important that the Commission 

17 

 
 
maintains the current level of support and guidance and increases the visibility of existing 
training  materials  before  developing  new  ones.  Providing  additional  targeted  support  might 
also be considered. 

The  COVID-19  pandemic  promoted  the  uptake  of  digital  technologies  for  project 
implementation. The increased use of digital tools helped the programmes reach a wider 
audience through their  funded activities. It thus  led to  economies of scale  allowing funded 
actions to better reach their target groups at a lower cost. 

The programme’s objectives were coherent with EU policies and priorities over the 2014-
2020  programming  period,  and  these  objectives  continue  to  be  coherent  today,  with  an 
increased  focus  on  digitalisation.  The  actions  funded  are  also  coherent  with  policies  at 
national  level  and  with  other  EU  international  commitments  and  objectives,  such  as  the 
Sustainable Development Goals. 

The justice programme ensures a high level of coherence among the different available 
EU funding instruments. Greater coherence is also due to the current programme’s focus on 
three specific objectives. In hindsight, and based on feedback from stakeholders, moving the 
specific objective related to drugs policy from the justice programme to the internal security 
fund was an appropriate measure. 

The  2021-2027  programme  is  playing  an  important  role  in  helping  Member  States  to 
develop  national  tools  to  create  the  interfaces  required  between  EU-wide  systems  and 
national  systems.  In  this  regard,  the  most  extended  synergies  identified  were  between  the 
justice  programme  on  the  one  hand  and  the  digital  Europe  programme  and  Recovery  and 
Resilience  Fund  investments  in  the  field  of  digitalisation  on  the  other.  Funding  for  digital 
projects could benefit from a clear identification of needs at EU, national and local level in 
terms of IT infrastructure and training to ensure that the full potential of existing and future 
investments is reached. 

Only a small percentage of beneficiaries believe they could secure alternative EU funding if 
the justice programme was unavailable.  CSOs would be very unlikely  to find alternative 
sources of funding if the programme were to be discontinued. 

The 2014-2020 justice programme provided funding for activities that yielded an impact which 
Member States would not have achieved on their own. Under the current programming period, 
and by addressing EU-level issues and needs, the justice programme provides unique added 
value that would be difficult to replicate at national level. 

The 2014-2020 justice programme’s EU added value was evident in the activities’ geographic 
scope, content and size. Without the programme’s funding, stakeholders would have required 
much more time and effort to build and develop their capacities. The programme succeeded 
in  contributing  to  a  more  level  playing  field  in  the  areas  of  judicial  training, 
interoperability  of  IT  systems  and  digitalisation.  Judicial  staff  and  national  judiciaries 
largely benefited from training and investments in digital capacities. 

Today,  the  2021-2027  programme  plays  an  important  role  in  accelerating  processes  and 
facilitating cross-border projects. According to some beneficiaries, these cross-border projects 
would be limited in scope and scale without the programme’s support, and in some cases might 
even not exist. The justice programme is also particularly valued for helping to build EU-level 
networks  –  and  raising  awareness  of  these  networks  –  and  enabling  smaller  Member 
States to undertake projects they otherwise could not. 

Stopping the programme would likely result in a significant reduction in the scope of justice-
related  activities  in  the  EU,  particularly  those  involving  cross-border  initiatives,  as  the 

18 

 
 
programme  is  filling  a  crucial  funding  gap.  The  added  value  of  the  2021-2027  justice 
programme lies also in its more targeted approach, greater focus on digitalisation, and 
improved  monitoring  system.  These  improvements  enable  the  current  programme  to  be 
effective in meeting the evolving justice needs of the EU and its citizens. 

In  part  thanks  to  its  more  streamlined  and  focused  design,  the  2021-2027  justice 
programme  is  maintaining  a  high  degree  of  relevance,  a  conclusion  in  keeping  with  the 
findings from the interim evaluation and the ex post evaluation of the previous programme. 
The  programme’s  specific  objectives  are  still  highly  relevant  to  the  needs  of  its 
beneficiaries and target groups in the wider justice sector. 

The programme could play a key role in bridging the gaps that still exist in the next funding 
period by further increasing its EU added value. 

19