COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Stock-taking of the results of judicial training 2021-2024
Date: 2025-11-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU law, EU programme, continuing vocational training, in-service training, independence of the judiciary, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, legal profession, professional qualifications

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.11.2025  SWD(2025) 366 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Stock-taking of the results of judicial training 2021-2024  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2 

2.  Background – the EU judicial training framework ............................................................ 2 

a)  EU judicial training framework ...................................................................................... 2 

b)  Financial support ............................................................................................................ 2 

c) 

Judicial training results from 2021to 2024 ..................................................................... 3 

3.  Has EU-funded training on EU law improved the knowledge of, and had a positive impact 
on the daily practice of justice   professionals? .......................................................................... 5 

a) Participants’ general rates of satisfaction with EU-funded judicial training ...................... 5 

b)  Long-term impacts of EU-funded judicial training ........................................................ 5 

c)  Quality and sustainability of judicial training according to objective indicators ........... 6 

4.  How can the Commission better support judicial training? ............................................... 8 

a)  Coordination and coherence of different funding opportunities .................................... 8 

b)  Monitoring, statistical data collection and dissemination of training material ............ 11 

5.  Training needs related to the digitalisation of justice, including the use of AI ................ 12 

Annex – Methodology .............................................................................................................. 13 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION  
This Commission staff working document reports on the results of a stock-taking of judicial 
training on topics related to EU law during the 2021 to 2024 period. It is based on evidence 
gathered  through  an  external  contractor,  the  European  Commission’s  outreach  activities  to 
stakeholders,  information  gathered  by  the  Commission  and  published  in  its  annual  Judicial 
Training Reports and data gathered from managing EU funding of judicial training activities. 
More information can be found in the interim evaluation of the Justice programme 2021- 2024. 
1 
The stock-taking covers  the duration of the European Judicial Training Strategy 2021-20242 
(the JTS), insofar as outcomes, data and information on judicial training activities have been 
available in 20243. This report focuses on the findings of an assessment centred on three topics: 

the effectiveness of judicial training, 

• 
•  ways  the  European  Commission  can  better  support  the  achievement  of  the  JTS 

objectives, 
training needs related to the digitalisation of judicial systems, including the use of AI.    

• 

Its aim is to identify where there is room for improvement and ‘lessons learnt’, as input into the 
European Judicial Training Strategy for 2025 – 2030.  

2.  BACKGROUND – THE EU JUDICIAL TRAINING FRAMEWORK 

a)  EU judicial training framework  

Training is a national competence, but the EU still has a role to play in training the judiciary 
and judicial staff in civil and criminal matters according to Articles 81(2)(h) and 82(1)(c) of the 
Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union.  The  European  Commission  prepares 
multiannual judicial training strategies aimed at EU and national training providers, Member 
States  and  professional  networks.  The  European  Commission  supports,  coordinates,  partly 
funds, and monitors the implementation of these strategies.  

b)  Financial support  

The European Commission supports Member States and training providers in giving judicial 
training through funding. The EU Justice programme4, with a total budget of EUR 305 million 
for 2021-2027, dedicates the largest proportion (36%, or about EUR 15-16 million a year) of 
funding to judicial training in civil and criminal EU law, the rule of law and the independence 
and  impartiality  of  judges. The  funds  are  fully  spent  as  an  operating  grant  to  the  European 
Judicial Training Network (EJTN), of about EUR 11.2 million a year, as action grants for cross-
border training projects, of about EUR 4 million a year, and, to a lesser extent, for procurement 
activities (below EUR 1 million a year). 

The EJTN receives most of the available funding for judicial training. Its activities are almost 
entirely financed from the EU operating grant awarded annually. The EJTN is the coordinating 

1 COM(2025)267  
2  Communication  from  the  European  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Ensuring justice in the EU — a European 
judicial training strategy for 2021-2024; COM/2020/713 final. 
3 In 2024, many training projects funded through action grants from the European Commission had not yet been 
completed or evaluated. Statistical data on participants in judicial training were only available for 2023.  
4  Regulation  (EU) 2021/693  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28 April  2021  establishing  the 
Justice Programme and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1382/2013; OJ L 156, 5.5.2021, p. 21. 

2 

 
 
 
 
body for judicial training on matters related to EU law. Its members are all EU Member States’ 
judicial training institutes and the Academy of European Law (ERA). The EJTN develops and 
organises annual EU cross-border training, implementing the objectives of the Judicial Training 
Strategies, and, in line with its statute, coordinates national cross-border training activities.  
The following chart from the 2024 Judicial Training Report5 shows the share various EU funds 
contribute to training of justice professionals on key areas of EU policies, which, however, do 
not necessarily overlap with the objectives of the JTS. 

The  lion’s  share  of  training  on  EU  law  –  about  80%6  –  is  financed  from  national  budgets. 
Moreover,  organisations  of  justice  professionals,  bar  associations  and  other  stakeholders 
organise  training  courses  on  EU  law  on  their  own  initiative,  including  cross-border  training 
courses, and from their own budgets.  

c)  Judicial training results from 2021to 2024  

While the previous strategy7 targeted mainly judges and prosecutors, the JTS has broadened the 
scope to other legal professionals. It has also set annual quantitative objectives for each target 
group, requiring that every year 65% of all judges and prosecutors in the EU, 15% of court staff, 
15% of private lawyers, 30% of notaries, and 20% of bailiffs, receive training on EU law. None 
of  the  professional  groups,  except  notaries  and  court  staff  in  2022,  reached  these  targets  by 
2023.8 The year 2023 even saw a considerable drop in participation from the year 2022 for most 
professional groups9, except lawyers, whose participation rate remained stable.  

5  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Justice  and  Consumers, European  judicial  training  2024, 
Publications Office of the European Union, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/1653544. 
6  External  study  to  support  the  stock-taking  of  the  Judicial  Training  Strategy  for  2021-  2024,  page  67,  more 
information in the annex. 
7 Communication, ‘Building trust in EU-wide justice, a new dimension to European judicial training’ 13.9.2011, 
COM(2011) 551 final. 
8 Participants’ numbers are not complete, as not all Member States transmit them. Different interpretations of the 
terms ‘training on EU law’ compound underreporting of the relevant data. 
9 This downward trend continued also in the year 2024. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1: Participation in continuous EU law training in the EU (%) 

Source: European Commission annual European Judicial Training Reports. 

Average participation rates over the 2021-2023 period increased across almost all professional 
groups  compared  to  the  baseline  period  of  2018-2020.  Participation  of  court  staff  increased 
from 6% to 11% on average. Participation of prosecutors increased by about 10%, but judges 
dropped by 5%. 

In  absolute  numbers,  a  cumulated  number  of  2  million  justice  professionals  have  received 
training on EU law since 2011 - the year the first Judicial Training Strategy was adopted - with 
a steady annual increase. However, in 2023, the participation rates of most professional groups 
dropped. Significant disparities in training participation rates remain across Member States and 
professional groups. 

Besides setting out quantitative goals, the JTS has expanded legal training on EU law to judge-
craft and digital skills. Training offers in digitalisation are increasing overall, but the proportion 
of digitalisation-related training has remained very low, at only around 2.5% in 2023. IT skills 
training increased from around 18% in 2022 to around 24% in 202410. This suggests that while 
the need for more training on IT-related topics is recognised11, the existing training offers may 
not be sufficiently comprehensive. More training is needed to keep pace with the dynamics of 
the digital transition.  

Between 2021 and 2023, over 11 000 EU-funded exchanges of justice professionals included 
short-term exchanges (one to two weeks) in courts, prosecution services, and judicial training 
institutes, as well as longer-term placements and study visits to the Court of Justice of the EU, 
the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  and  Eurojust.  EJTN  exchanges  have  consistently 
received high satisfaction ratings. 

10 2024 European Judicial Training Report, page 25. 
11 See below also, under point 5. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  HAS  EU-FUNDED  TRAINING  ON  EU  LAW  IMPROVED  THE  KNOWLEDGE  OF,  AND  HAD  A  POSITIVE 

IMPACT ON THE DAILY PRACTICE OF JUSTICE   PROFESSIONALS? 

To measure the effectiveness of training, the JTS requires EU training providers to  evaluate 
each of their training activities. However, especially on long-term impacts, there was little or 
no  information  available,  as  explained  under  Evaluation  of  training  events  in  c).12  The 
following  information  is  therefore  based  on  surveys  and  interviews  done  by  an  external 
contractor to support the stock-taking of judicial training.13 

a) Participants’ general rates of satisfaction with EU-funded judicial training 

The replies to a survey, sent by an external contractor to EU-funded training participants, show 
high or very high satisfaction rates of participants: 4.8 out of 5 for increased awareness of new 
topics, 4.7 out of 5 for increased knowledge, 4.2 out of 5 for better skills, 4.1 out of 5 for closer 
cooperation with peers, and 4.8 out of 5 overall14.   

b)  Long-term impacts15 of EU-funded judicial training 

According to the interviews16, participants in EU-funded judicial training confirmed that the 
training had had a long-term impact. Participants were more confident in dealing with EU law-
related matters, particularly in priority areas such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European  Union,  as  well  as  with  mutual  recognition  and  cross-border  judicial  cooperation 
instruments. Participants could boost their skills, create lasting cross-border contacts, and gain 
knowledge  of  the  use  of  cross-border  cooperation  instruments.  Most  participants  who  were 
interviewed generally said that the training had led to behavioral changes but only provided a 
few examples of where they had applied their new legal knowledge-17   

Surveys  and  interviews  conducted  by  an  external  contractor  with  participants  and  national 
training institutes show that stakeholders value above all the cross-border dimension of EU-
funded training. They appreciate the opportunities for professional exchange, rather than the 
transmission  of  detailed  legal  knowledge.  National  training  institutes  said  that  they  would 
continue to offer training on EU law even without EU funding, but only a minority said they 
would  invest  in  cross-border  professional  exchanges  to  replace  EU-funded  training18.  EU-
funded training is also seen as a model, raising awareness of EU-related topics and encouraging 
their inclusion in national training programmes, which is seen as a positive thing.  

To improve effectiveness, detailed training courses on EU law in national training programmes 
should  therefore  be  aligned  with  EU-funded  training  courses  and  coordination  between 
different funding opportunities improved. 

12 Many projects funded by action grants span multiple years and were still ongoing at the time this staff working 
document  was  drafted.  Despite  contractual  obligations  to  evaluate  long-term  impacts,  grant  beneficiaries, 
including the EJTN, do not consistently evaluate the long-term effectiveness of training.  
13 The  external contractor conducted surveys and  interviews  with participants in EU-funded training  to fill the 
information gap. The number of interviews gives a broader picture. There is little information on the impacts of 
judicial training funded from EU programmes, other than the  EU Justice Programme, and of nationally funded 
training on EU law. 
14 External study to support the stock-taking of the Judicial Training Strategy for 2021 - 2024,  page 23. 
15 The evaluation of long-term impacts typically focuses on whether the acquired knowledge and skills have been 
applied  in  practice,  whether  the  training  has  affected  professional  behaviour  or  decision-making,  and  if  it  has 
contributed to more cross-border cooperation and the accurate and unified application of EU law. 
16  External study to support the stock-taking of the Judicial Training Strategy for  2021-2024, page 22-25. 
17 External study to support the stock-taking of the Judicial Training Strategy for 2021-2024, pages 23-27. 
18 External study to support the stock-taking of the Judicial Training Strategy for 2021-2024, page 62. 

5 

 
 
 
 
c)  Quality  and  sustainability  of  judicial  training  according  to  objective 

indicators  

Little  information  on  the  impacts  of  judicial  training  can  be  gleaned  from  evaluations  by 
participants, but the quality, relevance and therefore sustainability of training events can also 
be measured using objective indicators such as the use of needs assessments, modern training 
methods,  the  effective  evaluation  of  training  events  and  the  broad  dissemination  of  training 
material These components  required by the JTS are used  as award criteria for any grant for 
judicial  training  funded  from  the  Justice  programme  and  as  contractual  obligations  in  grant 
agreements between the Commission and beneficiaries. 

Needs assessments 

Needs  assessments  underpinning  the  content  of  the  annual  EJTN  training  catalogue  and  the 
training  offers  funded  through  action  grants  are  in  place.  They  are  evidence-based  on 
consultations of and conferences with the targeted professional groups, their organisations and 
networks,  training  providers,  national  ministries  and  national  judicial  training  schools.  The 
methods are effective, with an emphasis on structured dialogue and personal exchanges.  

Training methods 

A broad mix of training methods is applied across EU-funded training projects. The number of 
online training courses and webinars has increased post-COVID, complementing traditional, 
in-person  sessions.  Participants  appreciate  interactive  workshops  and  hands-on  formats, 
applying advanced education for adults, particularly formats that lend themselves to networking 
and mutual learning. The EJTN supports traditional, in-person training as the gold standard, 
while  recognising  the  benefits  of  blended  and  online  approaches.  Contributions  during  a 
meeting of the Commission expert group on European judicial training confirmed that while 
online  training  reaches  larger  audiences,  it  remains  crucial  to  continue  organising  exchange 
programmes where colleagues from different countries meet in person, to support the creation 
of  lasting  professional  networks  and  raise  awareness  of  the  European  dimension  of  judicial 
work. 

Participants who were interviewed said they appreciated the practical nature of the training they 
had received (especially when given by their peers), and the opportunity to discuss cases with 
peers from other countries. They considered the duration of the training to have been adequate, 
making it possible for them to fit it in alongside their professional obligations. However, some 
participants who were interviewed expressed concerns that the typical 1.5-day training sessions 
risked being too short to allow for a deep understanding of complex legal topics or to create 
lasting learning and networking opportunities. They suggested that follow-up events, as part of 
the overall training programme, could  make training more sustainable and increase its long-
term  impact.  Members  of  the  Commission  expert  group  on  European  judicial  training  also 
suggested placing  more  emphasis on  projects  with follow-up modules  for a greater learning 
impact.19 

Feedback  from  a  conference  involving  training  providers  and  representatives  of  legal 
professionals  suggests  that  training  methods  should  keep  up  with  modern  technology,  by 

19 Such as the exchange of professional experience, refresher webinars, or the updating of tools, documentation 
and  other  project  outputs.  Applicants  could  be  encouraged  to  integrate  these  into  the  initial  project  design. 
According to the expert group, already in calls for proposals to receive action grants, it could be determined which 
projects should include a follow-up component. Another possibility could be to actively encourage applicants to 
propose follow-up activities. 

6 

 
 
 
 
including AI-supported  learning,  virtual  reality  scenarios  and  individualised,  step-by-step  e-
learning solutions in all official EU languages20. 

Evaluation of training events 

The existing evaluation obligations of beneficiaries of EU grants have not generated sufficient 
information on the long-term impact of judicial training. Short- and long-term evaluations are 
a contractual requirement of EU grant agreements, but they have not been done systematically. 
Surveys  and  questionnaires  based  on  the  Kirkpatrick  model21  have  been  the  beneficiaries’ 
preferred evaluation method22. They have usually been distributed to participants immediately 
after a training event and again six months later. However, response rates for immediate post-
training surveys are often low, not exceeding 50%. Measures taken by beneficiaries to improve 
feedback  rates  (reminders,  personal  contacts)  –  often  at  the  request  of  the  Commission  in 
monitoring the progress  of training projects  – demand considerable effort without achieving 
significantly better outcomes. Questionnaires to measure long-term impacts have often not been 
sent at all or have only been sent to a small number of participants. 

As a result, there is a lack of systematic information on the actual impact of judicial training 
across the EU, particularly the effectiveness of promoting the consistent and correct application 
of EU law. So more must be done to improve evaluation. The effective measuring of the long-
term impacts of a training project requires clarity about what the project aims to achieve. Poorly 
thought-out questions about behavioural changes, for example, will not produce good results, 
unless  there  is  a  realistic  definition  of  training  objectives.  However,  to  evaluate  long-term 
impacts, an evaluation method based solely on personal answers to questionnaires from training 
participants may be inadequate  and just putting  more pressure on them to answer might not 
produce  reliable  results.  Additional  approaches  should  also  be  considered  to  improve, 
complement or replace questionnaires. Possible alternative evaluation methods, especially for 
long-term impacts, could be follow-up focus groups/structured interviews where participants 
reflect on behavioural and organisational changes, workplace integration and contextual factors, 
sample  success  stories  or  peer  review,  that  could  be  integrated  into  judicial  exchange 
programmes.  The  EJTN  Guidelines  for  Evaluation  of  Judicial  Training  Practices,  which 
beneficiaries are obliged to take into account, allow for such flexibility. To measure the broader 
systemic effect of judicial training, the Commission could more systematically use EU Justice 
Scoreboard data to assess progress in this area.   

Dissemination of training material 

The sustainability of EU-funded judicial training activities is linked to the dissemination and 
continued accessibility of training materials  to  people other than the original participants. A 
good dissemination strategy is part of the selection and evaluation criteria. Beneficiaries often 
make training materials available on project websites, professional networks, social media, and 
LinkedIn, but dissemination remains fragmented and inconsistent. Project websites are often 
not updated and are deactivated after a while, resulting in the loss of content that could be of 
value to a broader audience. 

Training materials are shared on the EJTN website and the websites of training providers such 
as the ERA, but there is no systemic approach to centralising such content. Training participants 

20 25-26 April 2024: ‘Judicial Training – Supporting the Digitalisation of Justice’. 
21 The Kirkpatrick Four-Level Evaluation Model (Reaction – Learning – Behaviour – Results). Evaluations on 
level 3 typically focus on how the acquired knowledge and skills have been applied in practice, whether the training 
has  influenced  professional  behaviour  or  decision-making,  and  if  it  has  contributed  to  closer  cross-border 
cooperation or improved the understanding of EU law.  
22 External study to support the stock-taking of the Judicial Training Strategy for 2021-2024, page 23. 

7 

 
 
 
 
often  share  training  content  with  peers  on  their  own  initiative.  However,  this  practice  lacks 
structured support and recognition and is not part of broader dissemination strategies. Nor does 
the Commission systematically monitor whether training content remains accessible, relevant 
or up to date after a project has ended. 

4.  HOW CAN THE COMMISSION BETTER SUPPORT JUDICIAL TRAINING?  
The Commission defines priority training topics in its Judicial Training Strategy, based on an 
extensive  needs  assessment23. The  Commission  supports  effective  judicial  training  on  these 
topics mainly through funding as well as monitoring and dissemination of training material.  

a)  Coordination and coherence of different funding opportunities 

The Commission has, in particular through the direct management of funding schemes, a role 
to play in coordinating judicial training on EU law.   

Action grants and operating grants from the EU Justice programme 

The Commission, in the work programmes of the EU Justice programme and call documents, 
explicitly  states  that  projects  funded  by  action  grants  must  complement  and  not  duplicate 
activities implemented by the EJTN receiving an operating grant. However, the exact interplay 
of the two funding strands is  not further determined, for example regarding  the coverage  of 
individual Member States24 or professional groups not represented by the EJTN.25 There is also 
no mechanism ensuring that training activities under the different funding strands complement 
each other thematically: the EJTN typically offers one training course per year per topic, but 
action grant funded training offers often cover similar themes without a clear connection to the 
EJTN’s training schedule or existing content. 

Applicants for action grants are asked to set out in their proposals how their project builds on 
or complements previously funded projects. As a result, projects often cover content similar to 
previously awarded projects. However, they do not systematically create synergies or address 
geographical,  thematic  or  other  gaps  that  would  require  targeted  complementing  training 
initiatives.  As  a  remedy,  the  Commission  could  launch  more  calls  to  address  specific 
shortcomings that are hampering that objectives are fully achieved. The Commission could also 
define in their calls sub-aspects of a training topic that allow for coordinated and integrated 
training offers of several applicants.  Through action grants, the Commission could also more 
systematically support professional associations or networks of target groups that do not fall 
under the mandate of the EJTN.26 

Judicial training under other EU funds 

23 The Commission organised conferences with representatives of all professional groups and training providers in 
Brussels in April 2023 (European Judicial Training: the right skills to embrace the digitalisation of justice) and 
April 2024 (European Judicial Training: Supporting the Digitalisation of Justice). In addition, the Commission 
collected training needs from contacts with all stakeholders. 
24 On the split per geographical area, see the external study  to support the stock-taking of the Judicial Training 
Strategy  for  2021-2024,  pages  19  and  20:  Southern  and  Eastern/Central  European  Member  States  are  most 
represented in EU-funded training activities.  
25 Groups of legal professionals not represented by the EJTN are lawyers in private office, notaries, and prison and 
probation staff. An action grant more systematically providing a professional network of these professional groups 
with funding over several years and enabling them to develop training offers for underrepresented groups was 
awarded to the EPTA II (Tackling Gaps in Cross-Border Cooperation for Penitentiary Training Academies) project, 
which led to lasting cooperation, and ultimately to the merging of the EuroPris and EPTA networks. 
26 A good example of this is the action grant to the EPTA I and II projects, to support training activities for prison 
and probation staff through their respective networks.  

8 

 
 
 
 
Other  EU  funds  also  cover  judicial  training  to  support  their  policy  area. The  Single  Market 
programme (SMP)27 and LIFE programme for the environment and climate action28 can be used 
to fund related training for judges, e.g. on consumer protection or EU environmental law. The 
Internal Security Fund (ISF)29 can cover public prosecutors’ training in, for example, migration 
law, criminal law on terrorism, the trafficking of human beings, or e-evidence. The European 
Union Anti-Fraud programme (EUAF)30 may fund judicial training of judges and prosecutors 
and, possibly, other judicial staff dealing with the protection of the EU’s monetary interests. 
Similarly,  training  under  the  Citizens,  Equality,  Rights  and  Values  programme  (CERV)31, 
though  not  primarily  targeting  training  of  the  judiciary,  could  be  of  interest  to  justice 
professionals. The European Social Fund Plus (ESF+)32 provides funding in, among others, the 
areas of employment, digital justice and social rights. It can support judicial training related to 
these areas for judges, prosecutors, and court- and prosecution staff. Unlike the other EU funds, 
the ESF+ contributes to nationally funded training.   

Erasmus+  funds professional exchanges, including for lawyers and  court  staff, and gives  an 
operating grant to the EU judicial training institutes the Academy of European Law (ERA) and 
the  European  Institute  for  Public  Administrations  (EIPA).  Other  programmes  support  the 
training of legal professionals from non-EU countries, with a focus on fundamental rights and 
the rule of law. One such programme is the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)33 III 
for the Western Balkans. The ESF+ accounts for the largest share of funding of judicial training 
after the EU Justice programme, funding, among others, training on the digitalisation of justice 
for legal professionals.   
Erasmus+34 creates synergies with the EU Justice programme, by giving ERA and the EIPA an 
operating grant to secure the long-term financial stability of these major EU judicial training 
providers,  who  also  receive  action  grants  from  the  EU  Justice  programme  for  individual 
projects. This enabled ERA to create the European Forum of the Judicial and Legal Professions 
in  2022,  a  network  that  supports  more  structured  dialogue  among  EU  judicial  practitioners 
about the training needs of and challenges for different professions, in particular with regard to 
General Data Protection Regulation requirements. 

However,  coordination  and  exchanges  between  the  Commission  departments  managing  the 
various funding instruments, in addition to the inter-service consultation mechanism, could be 

27    Regulation  (EU)  2021/690  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28 April  2021  establishing  a 
programme for the internal market, competitiveness of enterprises, including small and medium-sized enterprises, 
the  area  of  plants,  animals,  food  and  feed,  and  European  statistics  (Single  Market  Programme)  and  repealing 
Regulations (EU) No 99/2013, (EU) No 1287/2013, (EU) No 254/2014 and (EU), OJ L 153, 3.5.2021, p. 1. 
28  Regulation  (EU)  2021/783  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  29 April  2021  establishing  a 
programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE), and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013, OJ L 
172, 17.5.2021, p. 53. 
29 Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the 
European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013, OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 21. 
30 Regulation (EU) 2021/785 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 establishing the 
Union Anti-Fraud programme and repealing Regulation (EU) No 250/2014, OJ L 172, 17.5.2021, p. 110. 
31 Regulation (EU) 2021/692 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing the 
Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1381/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EU) No 390/2014, OJ L 156, 5.5.2021, p. 1. 
32 Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the 
European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013, OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 159. 
33 Regulation (EU) 2021/1529 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 September 2021 establishing 
the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA III), OJ L 330, 20.9.2021, p. 1.  
34  Regulation  (EU)  2021/817  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20 May  2021  establishing 
Erasmus+:  the  Union  programme  for  education  and  training,  youth  and  sport  and  repealing  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1288/2013, OJ L 189, 28.5.2021, p. 1.  

9 

 
 
 
 
improved. For instance, the study supporting the stock-taking of the results of judicial training 
suggests that the training delivered under the ESF+, as the EU fund that provides the highest 
proportion  of  funding  for  judicial  training  after  the  EU  Justice  programme,  could  be  better 
aligned with the objectives of the Judicial Training Strategies.35 An appropriate choice, as well 
as better bundling and coordination of projects using existing internal coordination mechanisms 
or new structured exchanges on the management of various funding instruments, could ensure 
the best use of available budgets and produce more synergies. Topics to be better coordinated 
could be training content, target groups, training types and the timing of calls. In coordinated 
call documents, grant applications could be given better guidance on geographical, or thematic 
gaps, where more training offers are needed, and how to optimise the use of existing parallel 
funding opportunities. 

Judicial training on EU law funded from national budgets  

As 80% of training on EU law is funded nationally36, national training providers are pivotal to 
ensure  the  correct  application  of  EU-acquis  across  the  EU.  Judicial  training  is  a  national 
competence, so the Commission has limited influence on how and whether the objectives of the 
Judicial Training Strategies are implemented.   

The 2024 Judicial Training Report shows that in 2023, only 37% of the responding Member 
States  offered  initial  judicial  training  on  EU  law,  and  only  28%  of  the  offered  continuous 
judicial training on EU law37. This seems to indicate that training on EU law is not sufficiently 
covered across all Member States and professional groups.38 

According to a survey sent by the external contractor to national training institutes, most of the 
national training institutes that responded to it said that they incorporate EU law content into 
their  national  training  programmes39. While,  according  to  the  survey,  most  national  training 
institutes that responded to it said that the objectives of the JTS had an impact on increasing 
knowledge of EU law, only 29% of respondents felt that the JTS had helped increase the training 
budget  for  judges  and  prosecutors  in  their  countries,  and  only  38%  of  respondents  felt  that 
content from EU-funded training activities had been integrated into national training offers40. 
The Expert Group on Judicial Training41 has suggested that more direct communication with 
national judicial training providers may be necessary to raise their awareness of the JTS and its 
objectives  and  of  their  responsibilities  to  implement  them  through  national  training.  Direct 
communication could help clarify the JTS objectives and deliverables expected from national 
training. According  to  the  Expert  Group  on  Judicial  Training,  the  exchange  of  experience 
among  national  training schools and the sharing of national  training programmes could  also 
contribute to improving EU-wide coherence in judicial training curricula on EU law.  
The EJTN, tasked with coordinating national training on EU law42,  is not making full use of 
its  coordination  capacity,  with  the  resulting  lack  of  synergies  between  EU-  and  nationally 
funded training making judicial training less effective.  

35 See also above under the heading ‘Judicial Training and other EU funds.’ 
36 External study to support the stock-taking of the Judicial Training Strategy for 2021-2024, page 67.  
37 Page 23. 
38 This is also reflected in the major differences in participation in training on EU law across professional groups 
and Member States, see 2024 Judicial Training Report, pages 11 - 13 
39 External study to support the stock-taking of the Judicial Training Strategy for 2021-2024, page 62.  
40 External study to support the stock-taking of the Judicial Training Strategy for 2021-2024, page 60. 
41 At its meeting in April 2025. 
42  Article 4 of the Articles of Association of the European Judicial Training Network. 

10 

 
 
 
 
Existing  mechanisms  and  platforms  for  coordinating  different  sources  of  funding  for 
judicial training 

The  Commission  regularly  organises  conferences  with  national  and  EU  training  providers, 
professional networks and -associations that provide a platform for structured dialogue. These 
conferences  are  mainly  held  to  identify  training  needs.  Representatives  of EU  professional 
networks interviewed by the external contractor for this stock-taking felt that this format does 
not fully use its potential. Additional focused events to exchange experience on selected topics 
could serve to streamline and improve the quality of national training on the EU-acquis across 
the EU.43 During Commission outreach activities, training providers also said they wanted to 
hold conferences on specific topics.  

The demand  for more concentrated efforts in the use of EU funding and knowledge sharing 
needs to be addressed.44 The conferences could further serve as a forum to make the common 
training priorities, as set out in a Judicial Training Strategy better known and to raise awareness 
of  the  European  dimension  of  judicial  training  (see  also  under  a)  above).  Such  a  further 
developed forum could also help to better integrate into the implementation of an EU Judicial 
Training Strategy the expertise and commitment of EU professional networks. 

b)  Monitoring,  statistical  data  collection  and  dissemination  of  training 

material 

Besides  funding  and  conferencing,  the  Commission  supports  the  implementation  of  judicial 
training through numerous information, coordination, networking and outreach activities to all 
stakeholders,  bilaterally  or  through  conferences.  In  2021,  the  Commission  launched  the 
European  Training  Platform  (ETP)  on  its  e-justice  portal  to  support  and  centralise  the 
dissemination of judicial training material. The ETP is intended as a one-stop shop, to provide 
links to available EU-funded training material and handbooks. With only a few hundred visits 
every month45, the ETP has still not gained enough visibility and does not yet refer to enough 
quality training material. National training providers interviewed46 said that there would be no 
link  to  the  ETP  from  their  websites  or  platforms.  The  Commission  is  in  the  process  of 
simplifying and refocusing the platform and adding material to it.   

The  Commission  annually  publishes  the  European  Judicial  Training  Report,  a  monitoring 
instrument  based  on  statistical  data  transmitted  by  stakeholders  on  rates  of  participation  in 
various training activities across Member States and professional groups. The report contains 
aggregated data broken down according to several parameters. The Commission collects the 
statistical information about judicial training on EU law from various sources under different 
funding mechanisms, including national funding. Transparency and benchmarking as facilitated 
by the Judicial Training Report can help Member States close gaps in their training programmes 
and improve their training offers. 

However, several limitations affect the accuracy, comparability, and completeness of the data. 
For instance, total participants data from action grants-funded projects spanning over several 
years are accumulated with annual participants data in EJTN training. Inconsistencies also arise, 
because the concept of training on EU law used in the survey is not interpreted uniformly by 
the various national contact points. Finally, the data on total participation used for the Judicial 

43 External study to support the stock-taking of the Judicial Training Strategy for 2021-2024, page 56. 
44  External study to support the stock-taking of the Judicial Training Strategy for 2021-2024, page 54.  
45 Between 279 and 529 monthly visits from March 2024 to March 2025. 
46 External study to support the stock-taking of the Judicial Training Strategy for 2021-2024 pages 51 and 70. 

11 

 
 
 
 
Training Report is incomplete, as every year there are Member States that do not provide input, 
especially when multiple national training institutes are involved.  

5.  TRAINING NEEDS RELATED TO THE DIGITALISATION OF JUSTICE, INCLUDING THE USE OF AI 
The training needs addressed in the JTS remain relevant also in the future, but all groups of 
legal professional groups agree that digital training will become more urgent in the future, as 
the  digital  transition  of  justice  system  is  progressing.  Conferences  with  the  judicial  training 
community47, stakeholder outreach activities48 and interviews with legal professionals confirm 
that there is a growing demand for more systematic and comprehensive training to support the 
digital transition of judicial systems, including the use of AI and digital tools. Training needs 
most  frequently  mentioned  in  interviews49  and  various  outreach  activities  conducted  by  the 
Commission  include  the  handling  of  electronic  evidence,  critical  issues  related  to  data 
protection,  cybersecurity,  data  storage  and  sharing,  effective  use  of  case  law  and  legislation 
databases and digital company registers, the use of AI in justice and awareness of potential bias, 
e-filing  systems,  the  use  of  cross-border  cooperation  tools,  videoconference  hearings, 
cybersecurity, cybercrime, privacy and data protection. Training on digitalisation/AI topics has 
also seen the largest increase in EU-funded judicial training projects50. 

National training institutes responding to a survey done for the purposes of this stock-taking 
confirmed that they are planning to increase training for legal professionals, focused on digital 
tools and the skills required to use them51. Training providers pointed out the need to involve 
IT  professionals  in  both  designing  and  giving  training,  on,  for  example,  e-CODEX  (a 
decentralised  IT  system  for  the  cross-border  exchange  of  judicial  data)52  and  cross-border 
cooperation tools. National training institutes have reported that they expect  the judiciary to 
recruit more IT specialists to put IT solutions into practice for daily work purposes and to design 
related and IT training courses.  IT experts should in turn be trained on how to work with legal 
professionals to design and implement IT tools and IT training courses, ensuring they are user-
friendly, practical and intuitive. The same applies to project managers responsible for setting 
up  and  managing  new  IT  system  Organisation  leaders  also  need  training  to  manage  their 
organisations’ digital transition and address possible staff resistance to change.  

Judicial training stakeholders and professionals confirmed that there was demand for training 
on  the  rule  of  law,  fundamental  rights  and  EU  law  on  cross-border  judicial  cooperation53. 
Training  must  remain  flexible  and  responsive  to  needs  that  arise  from  the  adoption  of  legal 
instruments. 

Training must be tailored to the needs of the various groups of judicial professionals and take 
varying levels of digital skills and maturity into account. Different learning styles should also 
be acknowledged and addressed through training methods. On-the-job learning was considered 

47 The  conferences  in April  2023  (European  Judicial Training:  the  right  skills  to  embrace  the  digitalisation  of 
justice) and April 2024 (European Judicial Training: Supporting the Digitalisation of Justice). 
48 On future judicial training priorities between August and October 2024 with European stakeholders (professional 
networks, training providers, academia and court representatives). 
49 External study to support the stock-taking of the Judicial Training Strategy for 2021-2024, page 71. 
50 Actin grant funded projects, with a 153% increase between the baseline 2018-2020 period and 2021-2023, on 
which see page 68 of the external study to support the stock-taking of the Judicial Training Strategy for  2021-
2024.   
51 External study to support the stock-taking of the Judicial Training Strategy for 2021-2024, page 70. 
52  For  instance,  experts  from  the  European  Union Agency  for  the  Operational  Management  of  Large-Scale  IT 
Systems  in  the Area  of  Freedom,  Security  and  Justice  in  charge  of  e-CODEX  could  help  with  the  design  and 
content of related training courses. 
53 High-level EU Conference, European Judicial Training: Supporting the Digitalisation of Justice, 25-26 April 
2024. 

12 

 
 
 
 
an effective way of ensuring people get hands-on experience. This should be combined with 
continuous  opportunities  for  peer  learning,  cross-border  exchanges,  and  training  focused  on 
shared digital challenges across the EU. 

ANNEX – METHODOLOGY 

The stock-taking was carried out by the Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers in 2024. 
It was supported by an external contractor who produced a study on the findings54, with a focus 
on the effectiveness of EU-funded training, the relevance and coherence of EU-wide training 
on  EU  law  under  various  funding  opportunities,  and  the  effectiveness  of  the  Commission’s 
supporting measures. 

It  draws  mainly  on  a  combination  of  desk  research  using  quantitative  and  qualitative  data 
sources,  the  European  Commission’s  monitoring  data,  surveys  and  interviews,  conference 
reports and Commission out-reach activities.   

Desk research included  project information and documents from the European Commission’s 
internal tools for monitoring grant procedures and project implementation, interim and progress 
reports  from  grant  beneficiaries,  final  evaluation  reports  on  the  completion  of  projects 
implemented with  Commission support, needs assessments and annual reports of EU training 
providers including the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN), the Academy of European 
Law (ERA) and the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA), as well as the European 
Commission’s  annual  judicial  training  reports  providing  detailed  data  on  participation  in 
training  disaggregated  by  profession,  training  format  and  thematic  focus.  Additional 
information  comes  from  the  European  Commission’s  Justice  Scoreboard  and  the  evaluation 
report on the preceding Judicial Training Strategy for 2011-2020, in particular in the form of 
data  on  participation  for  comparison. A  review  of  political  and  policy  papers  supported  the 
assessment of programmes’ coherence with and complementarity of the programmes with EU 
policies or other funding programmes with similar objectives. The review also helped identify 
links between the programmes and their broader policy context. 

66 semi-structured interviews  were conducted with a broad range of  training  participants in 
various training events (judges, prosecutors, court staff, trainers, bailiffs, prison and probation 
staff). Training participants interviewed had taken part in judicial training funded through action 
grants from the EU Justice Programme. They  were identified by the external contractor with 
the help of the training providers and had agreed to be interviewed.  

The external contractor collected the views of national training institutes in a survey. Further 
evidence on the impact of judicial training comes from EU surveys of training participants and 
feedback surveys of beneficiaries on individual projects immediately after a training  course. 
These interviews and surveys helped in particular to gather evidence on the impacts of judicial 
training funded by the EU.  

A call for evidence published on the European Commission’s ‘Have your Say’  website on 2 
April 2024 had yielded 18 replies by the deadline of 30 April. Additional replies received after 
the  deadline  were  taken  into  account.  Respondents  –  EU  citizens,  training  providers,  NGO, 
professional networks and organisations, - largely acknowledge the positive impacts of the EU 
Judicial Training Strategy on the quality and coherence of judicial training on the EU-acquis 
across the EU. They, however, also point out room for improvement, in particular with regard 

54 External study to support the stock-taking of the Judicial Training Strategy for 2021-2024, ISBN 978-92-68-
31053-3. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
to the evaluation and monitoring of judicial training, as well as regards a need for more direct 
communication of the Commission with stakeholders.  Several respondents stressed the need 
for more training on the digitalisation of justice including cross-border cooperation tools and 
AI.  Other training needs mentioned concern restorative justice, environmental crime, and non-
contentionary civil proceedings. 

Conferences, bilateral stakeholder contacts, and Commission outreach activities during 2021-
2024  also  contributed  to  the  evidence  base.  These  include  two  European  Judicial  Training 
Conferences in April 2023 (Judicial Training: the right skills to embrace the digitalisation of 
justice) and April 2024 (Judicial Training: Supporting the Digitalisation of Justice). 

Limitations  include  variable  data  quality,  especially  in  national  reporting,  and  training 
participants’ availability for interviews. The stock-taking was done in 2024, with most action 
grant-funded judicial training activities under the EU Justice programme still ongoing, so there 
is limited data on long-term impacts. The limitations were mitigated through cross-checks and 
cautious interpretation. Throughout the process, data triangulation was used to ensure that the 
findings were strong and consistent. 

This  comprehensive  methodology  supports  a  nuanced  and  evidence-based  assessment  of 
progress under the European JTS and provides a solid foundation for future policy development. 

14