Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52013SC0098

**COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT on adapting the European police Office's legal framework with the Lisbon Treaty Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ON THE EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION AND TRAINING (EUROPOL) AND REPEALING COUNCIL DECISIONS 2009/371/JHA AND 2005/681/JHA /\* SWD/2013/098 final \*/**

  

Contents

1........... INTRODUCTION.. 3

2........... PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF THIRD PARTIES. 4

3........... PROBLEM DEFINITION.. 7

3.1........ The context 7

3.2........ Description of the problem.. 8

3.2.1..... Member States do not provide Europol with all the necessary
information to fight serious cross-border crime. 9

3.3........ WHO IS AFFECTED, IN WHAT WAYS AND TO WHAT EXTENT. 16

3.4........ THE BASELINE SCENARIO.. 16

3.5........ WHY IS THE EU BETTER PLACED TO TAKE AN ACTION.. 18

4........... POLICY OBJECTIVES. 19

4.1........ Objectives. 19

4.2........ Respect for fundamental rights. 19

5........... POLICY OPTIONS AND TRANSVERSAL ISSUES. 20

5.1........ Policy options. 20

5.1.1..... Option 1: Baseline scenario/"Pure
lisbonisation" 20

5.1.2..... Option 2: Making further legislative amendments
through the Europol regulation. 21

5.2........ Transversal issues. 23

5.2.1..... Parliamentary scrutiny over Europol 24

5.2.2..... Europol's governance. 24

5.2.3..... Europol's external and independent data protection
supervisor 24

5.2.4..... Possibility of merger between Europol and
CEPOL 26

6........... ANALYSIS OF IMPACT. 26

6.1........ Impacts of the Option 1: Baseline Scenario/”pure
lisbonisation”. 27

6.2........ Impacts of the Option 2: Making further legislative
amendments to the Europol regulation. 28

6.2.1..... Impacts of the options addressing the provision of
information from Member States (Policy option A) 28

6.2.1..... Estimated costs and benefits. 30

6.2.2..... Estimated costs and benefits. 32

6.2.3..... Impacts of the option on data management: 32

6.2.4..... New processing environment (policy option D) 33

7........... COMPARISON OF OPTIONS. 35

Summary table of the impacts of the policy options. 38

8........... PREFERRED POLICY OPTION.. 41

9........... MONITORING AND EVALUATION.. 42

I............ OPERATION GOLF. 50

II........... HUMAN TRAFFICKING OPERATION.. 51

III.......... OPERATION PHANTOM... 51

IV......... OPERATION FORECOURT. 52

V........... OPERATION ATHENA II 52

VI......... OPERATION TEX – COSPOL INITIATIVE. 53

VII........ OPERATIONAL AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO ESTONIA   53

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT on adapting the European
police Office's legal framework with the Lisbon Treaty

Accompanying the document

PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE  COUNCIL

ON THE EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION AND TRAINING (EUROPOL) AND REPEALING COUNCIL
DECISIONS 2009/371/JHA AND 2005/681/JHA

1.
INTRODUCTION

This report
assesses the impact of options for the reform of the European Police Office
(Europol) aiming at:

1)
 aligning Europol with the Treaty of Lisbon's
requirements,

2)
 achieving by Europol of goals set forth in the
Stockholm Programme.

This reform is
intended to form a part of a wider package which includes a proposal- for which
a separate impact assessment has been prepared- to merge the European Police
College or 'CEPOL' with Europol and to implement a European Law Enforcement
Training Scheme LETS for law enforcement officials (LETS).

The Treaty of
Lisbon provides for a new legal basis for Europol (regulation) and for the
scrutiny of Europol's activities by the European Parliament together with
national parliaments. Consequently, the Council Decision on Europol[1] (hereinafter "Council
Decision") needs to be replaced. At the same time, following the entry
into force of the Treaty of Lisbon which sets out strict rules on the
representation of the EU at the international scene, Europol will no longer be
able to conclude international agreements with third countries or international
organisations.

In addition, the Stockholm Program[2] has
stressed that organised crime continues to become more globalised, that the
fight against it requires, inter alia, systematic exchange of information and
called for Europol to become a “hub for information exchange between the law
enforcement agencies of the Member States, a service provider and a platform
for law enforcement services”. [3]

Finally, by
reforming Europol the Commission is committed to apply the governance standards
agreed together with the European Parliament and Council in July 2012 in the
Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies:[4]

2.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF THIRD PARTIES

This impact
assessment has been informed by a number of consultations and studies.

A study on the
Implementation of Europol's Council Decision and Europol's Activities was
commissioned by the Management Board of Europol and carried out in 2011 and
2012[5]. The Commission has taken an
active role as a member of the evaluation steering group. The aim of the study
was to assess both the way in which Europol has implemented the Council
Decision on Europol and the impact of the current legislative framework on its
activities. The evaluation (hereinafter "the RAND report") confirmed
that Europol is a well-functioning agency which adds value to the security of
European citizens and has a robust data protection regime. Nevertheless, it
identified a number of areas where improvements are needed. It contains a
substantial amount of data, which has been further enriched with data from
annual and specific reports by Europol as well as those collected through
"ad hoc" consultations with Europol and other stakeholders. An executive
summary of the RAND evaluation is in Annex 1.

Starting in 2010,
the Commission has held dialogues and has consulted all major stakeholder
groups through dedicated multilateral and bilateral meetings, including:

·
Law enforcement experts from Member States and
European agencies: meeting of COSI[6]
on 17 February and 11 April 2012 and of the Law Enforcement Working Party[7] on 12 March 2012. In addition
regular discussions and information exchanges with Member States have taken
place at the Europol Management Board's meetings and in bilateral meetings with
DG HOME. Several Member States also provided written comments to DG HOME's
working document presented at COSI meeting on 11 April[8].

·
Data protection community: meeting with the
Joint Supervisory Body of Europol on 14 March and the European Data Protection
Supervisor (EDPS) on 16 March 2012. On 16 May 2012, the EDPS also submitted a
set of written comments.

·
A number of Members of the European Parliament's
LIBE committee on 28 February 2012.

·
Representatives of the national parliaments
across the EU: a half-day debate session on 20 April 2012.

This has allowed
the Commission to capture different perspectives and expectations from
stakeholders. The summary on the stakeholders' consultations and views is in
Annex 2.

An inter-service
steering group[9]
was convened on 8 March and met subsequently on 2 May and 11 June 2012 to help
define policy options and consider the draft impact assessment.

The Impact Assessment Board of the European Commission
assessed draft versions of the present impact assessment, issuing its final opinion
in 10/10/2012. The IAB made several recommendations and requested to submit a
revised version of the report, which have been addressed as follows.

·
Indicate clearly in the baseline scenario how
the problems and their drivers are expected to develop- Section 3.2.1. Baseline scenario indicates how the core
problems and their drivers are expected to develop, based on evidence from
statistics, the input of Europol or the external stakeholders and the
Commission’s assessment. For the sake of transparency, section 5.2. Transversal
issues and Annex 6presents the problems which were identified in the RAND
report but are not discussed in this impact assessment as they do not have an
impact on the general objective of Europol's reform, or because there is a
general consensus on them, or because an alternative approach is not considered
realistic. Specific aspects of the problems (e.g. “Member States do not comply
with their obligation” or “do not recognize the existence of an obligation”)
have been further analysed in section 3.2.1 so as to enable to define
appropriate options to effectively solve the problem. The baseline scenario in
section 3.2.1 incorporates more explicitly the changes to the legal basis that
are required under the Lisbon Treaty, the CEPOL review and the Common Approach
on EU decentralised agencies.

·
Explain more clearly how the objectives will
address the main problems and define a broader range of options to deliver the
required results- Section 4.1.Objectives have
been revised with clearer specific and operational aims which related directly
to the problems and drivers described. One more option was added on constraints
on data processing (Option B1- merging the two existing AWFs into one), thus
for each problem three alternative solutions are proposed.  The presentation of
the options (section 5.1) has been revised in line with the restructured
problem definition and improved intervention logic. The actual contents of the
options have been explained more in detail to allow for a better assessment of
how effectively and efficiently they will address the problem identified. For
the Option B2 (new processing environment), details on the legal aspects of the
options were analysed in detail. The technical aspects were outlined. The IT
architecture for this option has not been presented in detail as there are
different technological solutions possible that would need to be carefully
examined in a separate dedicated study by Europol once it is ready to achieve a
single data repository. The report gives also a more transparent overview of
the envisaged funding arrangements in the main text for the various options.
Under the analysis of each option in section 6.1 and 6.2 .a short summary table
on costs and benefits has been presented. Costs and benefits have been
quantified whenever possible.

·
Present the assessment of the relevant costs
and benefits of the various policy options in a more transparent way, where
possible in quantitative terms, and supported by evidence- The report has fundamentally restructured its presentation of the
costs and benefits for various options to show the concrete impacts, quantified
whenever possible. This has been done in section 6.1 and 6.2. Costs have been
broken down to present both costs for the EU and the national budgets as well
as different costs categories (staff levels, material costs). Impacts have been
presented in a transparent way relative to the baseline scenario. The
qualitative indicators in the texts have been better explained and supported by
evidence. The arguments with regard to the different options for future data
protection arrangements (i.e. who should be the independent data protection
supervisor of Europol) have not been further elaborated, as they do have
general impact for the objective of Europol’s reform, i.e.  "lisbonisation"
and becoming an information hub for law enforcement authorities in the EU. Anyway,
as there are pros and cons of each of the two options (the Joint Supervisory
Body or the External Data Protection Supervisor), the decision on the preferred
option would be taken at political level.

·
Present the comparison of options more
transparently by explaining how the qualitative indicators in the summary table
relate to the presented evidence- The report
compares the options in section 7 on the basis of a clearly presented overview
of expected costs and benefits for each options and by assessing their
effectiveness and efficiency in achieving the objectives, and their coherence
with related Commission policies. The presentation of the scores for comparison
of options is more clearly linked to concrete evidence. For all factors for
which a quantitative presentation is possible, this has been done in the
summary table at the end of section 7.

·
The report should explain whether or not an
ex-ante evaluation will be required- In accordance with the IA guidelines, this
impact assessment addresses all the points relevant to an ex ante evaluation.

3.
PROBLEM DEFINITION
3.1.
The context

Providing security
is the objective of Member States' police forces. They are confronted not only
with domestic crime, but also with cross-border crime. Activities of criminals are
getting more complex, diverse and international[10]. Large scale criminal and
terrorist networks pose a significant threat to the internal security of the EU
and its citizens[11].
National law enforcement services cannot anymore work in isolation, and instead
need to cooperate with their counterparts in other Member States.

The creation of a
common space of justice, freedom and security without internal borders, the
adoption of a single currency, and the further integration of the European
Union has greatly benefited the free movement of EU citizens; it had to be accompanied
by a reinforcement of security measures to tackle cross-border crime.
Consequently, the establishment of Europol – the EU organisation designed to
help law enforcement authorities of the EU Member States to better cooperate
with one another – is an instrumental step in this regard.

Europol was
created in 1995 as an intergovernmental body by a Convention between Member States[12], which was subsequently
replaced in 2009 by a Council Decision[13].
The Council Decision conferred upon Europol the status of EU agency.

Europol provides
assistance to national police forces in various ways:

·
it enables the sharing of criminal
information among Member States and between them and Europol. On the basis
of information collected it produces operational analyses which help law
enforcement services in starting or further developing transnational
investigations. This constitutes Europol's main mission. Alongside the
production of analyses (criminal intelligence[14]),
Europol also offers operational assistance to Member States by providing
expertise in support of cross-border investigations or coordinating them or
giving financial support for euro-counterfeiting investigations. Europol may
also be the instigator of a Joint Investigation Team and make its own agents
available to assist in intelligence-sharing within such a Team[15] and [16]..

·
it plays a significant role in strategic
analysis. The "Organised Crime Threat Assessment" (OCTA) prepared
by Europol on the basis of information collected forms the basis for the
establishment of the priorities at EU level in the fight against the most
serious phenomena of organised crime affecting Europe.

·
It also offers a platform for specialist
areas, facilitating knowledge sharing and communication between various
expert communities.

Examples on how
Europol adds value to the fight against serious transnational crime in the EU
by supporting Member States' law enforcement authorities are found in Annex 3.

Europol has
neither autonomous investigative capabilities nor coercive powers so it is very distinct from national police forces or from federal
law enforcement agencies such as the FBI.

Europol is also
very different from Interpol in its functions and operation and the latter does
not offer a viable alternative. Interpol is an organization that enables police
authorities of its 190 member countries to assist each other through
communication systems, data bases and capacity building. Unlike Europol,
Interpol does not focus on real-time and on-the-spot analytical support to
on-going investigations, but merely facilitates the bilateral exchange of
information and provides for an alert system on fugitives, dangerous criminals
and missing persons. Interpol is a body that brings together, on a voluntary
basis, countries with very different political traditions from all continents (including,
for instance, Zimbabwe and Somalia). The data protection safeguards are limited
compared to EU standards. By contrast, Europol's focus is on crime affecting
the EU and it provides a more complex data processing service – operational
analysis - within a secure environment with very stringent data protection
rules: it is specialized in the production of intelligence and analysis, in
order to assess criminal threats, identify criminal patterns and networks and
provide tailor-made assistance to the investigative services in the Member
States.

3.2.
Description of the problem

Stakeholders at
Member States' and EU-level increasingly see Europol as operationally relevant,
as has been confirmed in the evaluation by RAND[17]. There was near unanimity
among interviewees and focus group participants that the support provided by
Europol has added value[18].
However, both the RAND report and the consultations of a number of stakeholders
have allowed the Commission to identify several shortcomings preventing Europol
from becoming a hub of information exchanges between law enforcement officers
in the Member States as set forth in the Stockholm Programme.

PROBLEM 1:

3.2.1.
Member States do not provide Europol with all the necessary information to fight
serious cross-border crime

Law enforcement
cooperation within the EU cannot exist without an effective exchange of
information and intelligence on crime between national law enforcement
authorities in the EU. Recognizing that the access to and the sharing of
relevant and up-to-date criminal information is critical for the effective
fight against crime, the EU has placed initiatives to promote information
exchange at the heart of its policies in the area of Home Affairs. These
initiatives are both legislative[19]
and financial.

Council included enhanced information
exchange in order to obtain a better intelligence picture as a shared strategic
goal for the eight EU crime priorities in the Council conclusions on setting
the EU’s priorities for the fight against organised crime between 2011 and 2013
in the framework of the EU Policy Cycle[20];

Europol depends
predominantly on Member States when it comes to collecting data and
intelligence on serious crime[21].
The Council Decision requires Member States to supply Europol with data
that falls within Europol's mandate[22].
For it to be meaningful, this data should be up-to-date, accurate and reliable.

However, according
to the RAND report, there was consensus among interviewees across all
stakeholders groups (including liaison officers and Heads of Europol National
Units that are counterparts of Europol at the national level) that there was a
scope to improve information sharing by Member States[23].

On occasions,
Member States do it but not in a timely manner[24].
Some Member States consulted in COSI on 11 April confirmed these findings.

Insufficient
information sharing by Member States was identified as a risk in the Europol
work programme 2012, and has been noted by academics and commentators[25].

If a Member State
does not share information on a given serious cross-border crime, Europol is
incapable either of identifying patterns and links with crime phenomena in
other countries or of coordinating joint investigative actions at the EU level.

The RAND report
findings and stakeholders' views are supported by statistics:

·
The supply of data into Europol's databases
varies substantially in absolute terms between Member States[26]. The Council noted such a wide
variation in the use made of the Europol Information System when it comes to
providing information to the system[27].
The scale of the discrepancies implies that some of them do not provide all
data they should and that there is room for improvement.

Table 1: Contributions to
AWFs by MS per million of inhabitans in 2009-2011, source: Commission on the
basis of statistics provided by Europol

\*worst- 5 Member States
that have provided the least contributions per million of inhabitants

\*\* best- 5 Member States
that provided the most contributions per million of inhabitants

|| 2009 || 2010 || 2011

|| || ||

best || 145.9582 || 226.6259 || 199.1948

worst || 5.670983 || 13.20036 || 25.24874

Table 2: The number of
objects inserted in the EIS per million of inhabitants in 2009-2011, source:
Commission on the basis of statistics provided by Europol

\*worst- 5 Member States
that have provided the least objects per million of inhabitants

\*\* best- 5 Member States
that provided the least objects per million of inhabitants

|| 2010 || 2011 || 2012

the best || 7126 || 8767 || 10017

the worst || 89 || 174 || 146

·
In less than half (48,2%) of the messages sent
in 2011 through SIENA (a secure information exchange channel that Member
States use for communication with Europol or among themselves or other partners[28]), Member States addressed or
copied Europol. This means that for over a half of all crime-related messages,
Europol was not aware of their content[29]When
information is shared this way, bilaterally, it is not available to feed into
Europol's analyses. Europol has identified this as a serious operational
deficit[30].

The deficit of
information which affects Europol can be linked to several underlying drivers:

Driver 1: Lack
of precision of the legal provisions leading to contradictory interpretations
motivated politically: The legal provision obliging
Member States to provide data is not formulated in an explicit way, thus
leaving room for speculation and doubt[31].
In these circumstances, some Members States do not even recognize the existence
of an obligation[32].
The reason for non-recognition of an obligation is mainly politics and perception
of sovereignty.  An additional factor which contributes to this is the intergovernmental
past of Europol- for years Member States alone were deciding on all
Europol-related issues and provision of information. In addition, some Member
States claim that they are not sure of the type, level of detail, nature and
extent of information that should be sent to Europol[33].

Driver 2: Sociological
and cultural drivers: Low awareness, lack of knowledge, insufficient training
and a policing culture which encourages law
enforcement officers to be cautious about information sharing[34]. Natural reluctance to share
information is a rooted and widespread phenomenon. This explains why EU
policies have been directed towards encouraging cross border information
sharing between law enforcement authorities[35].
Besides, some Member States are still more accustomed to traditional and
well-known channels for the exchange of information – e.g. bilateral
agreements.

Driver 3: Organisational
drivers: Several organisational impact upon the performance
and effectiveness of the Europol National Units (ENUs), set-up in each Member
State to be the contact point for Europol and its data provider. ENUs are quite
heterogeneous: they vary in size, location, staffing, resources, seniority and
prestige of their Heads and links to other law enforcement authorities within the
Member States.   The attitudes and the good will of individual law enforcement
officials within Member States also play an important role.

Reluctance to
transmit information prevents Europol from creating a complete and up-to-date
criminal intelligence picture throughout the EU. As a result, as Member States do
not see sufficient added value in Europol's findings, they are less motivated
to supply information to Europol. This perpetuates the vicious circle.

3.2.2.
PROBLEM 2

A system of separated and pre-defined
databases which does not allow Europol to fully assist Member States in
preventing and combating crime

Europol has currently three main databases
to store and manage data on criminal networks and their activities; the Europol
Information System (EIS) and two Analysis Work Files (one on Serious and Organised
Crime (AWF SOC), the other one on Terrorism (AWF CT))

In addition it has two '10.4 databases'
which are used to determine whether the data provided are relevant for
Europol's tasks and whether they should be put to the EIS or one of the two
AWFs.

Europol processes data stored therein in
order to assist Member States, i.e. it builds operational analysis concerning
specific investigations and drafts threats assessments and other operational
and strategic analysis products.

The most important for the work of the
analysts are the EIS and the 2 AWFs.

The Europol Information System (EIS) is a reference
database used for cross-checking purposes. It stores personal data about
those suspected of crimes falling within Europol's mandate and about persons
for whom there are serious grounds to believe that they are likely to commit
such crime in the future[36]. These data are for
example: names, date of birth, nationality, sex, driving licences, ID or
passport number, previous convictions, etc.[37]. Input
and access to data are authorised to Europol staff, Europol National Units[38] and
Europol liaison officers.

Analysis Work
Files (AWFs) are databases for analytical operational purposes and for
assisting live investigations. AWFs combine hard data used for identification (personal
data) with intelligence.  Only Europol staff has access to AWFs; there are
additional data protection and data security safeguards.

A Member State (or third party) decides,
upon inputting the data, the purpose for which it is transmitted to Europol
(for simple cross-checking purposes in the EIS, or for specific analysis
purposes in one of AWFs); in addition, it can decide through handling codes[39]
who can access them and what use can be made of them.

The reason why data are stored in different
databases is of a historical/technological nature:

·
In view of protection of personal data, it should be ensured
that data are processed for a specific purpose (purpose limitation), and only
when this is necessary  and proportionate. A limited number of persons should
have access to data on a "need-to-know" basis; data security and
other safeguards have to be ensured.

·
Due to the IT technology possibilities available in the
nineties (when the data management of system for Europol was designed[40]), the
way of implementing these requirements was by establishing several separated
databases. These databases would have different purposes, would be accessed by
different categories of persons and would be ruled by specific data provisions
on collection, storage and types of data stored.

The Europol Council Decision of 2009 simply
codified the status quo of Europol separate information systems without links
between them[41].

On the basis of the evaluation made of
Europol[42] and Europol's
input, the Commission has identified the following drivers of the problem:

Aspect 1 of the problem: Europol's analysts
cannot fully support Member States as long as they could not link and make
analyses of relevant pieces of data spread over different databases

The databases of Europol are technically
separated with specific rules on their purpose and access rights. In practice
this approach works towards creating information silos. This is a serious
operational inhibitor in gaining an overall and broader picture, as the
analysis could be performed only within each AWF. Thanks to a triggering
mechanism (Index Function), it is possible to detect (cross-check) that the
same entities (e.g. name of Mr X) are present in different databases. However,
this mechanism does not provide any information on why the entity is in that
system, who provided it and, more importantly, to what it is linked to
(telephone numbers, associates, contacts, vehicles). Only linking of entities
allows an analyst to give a meaning to information about criminal or terrorist
organisations, e.g. to allow for a hypothesis on the role of the individual
perpetrator in the hierarchy of a criminal group involved e.g.  in both serious
crime and terrorism (e.g. smuggling drugs or weapons to sponsor terrorist
activities). Without linking there is no criminal analysis. At present, in
principle, no analysis can be conducted between serious and organised crime and
terrorism.

As the EIS has its own separate purpose-
that of reference database- it does not permit any analysis of data stored there
in, nor any possibility to establish or store links between information
contained in the EIS and in the AWF. To see a practical example illustrating
the problem identified, see Annex 4.

The only solution for an analyst to
circumvent (partly) this problem is to ask the data provider to agree to
include the data detected in another database (and if possible also the data to
whom they are linked) also in the database to which the analyst has access.
Such an authorisation or sets of authorisations for each individual item of
data takes, according to Europol analysts, from a few weeks to a few months[43].

An additional difficulty is that
cross-matching is possible only in case of a "full-match"- where
there are two identical sets of data in both databases. But analytical work is
about making assumptions, building hypothesis and links between not obvious
cases. If in one database persons A and B linked to X and in another A and B
are linked to Y, it is possible that X and Y know each other or are the same
person. But this could not be detected by the analyst as he could only
cross-check A and B.

As a result, Europol cannot produce
intelligence reports on criminals, terrorists and their links, which can be
necessary for Member States' investigations.

Aspect 2 of the
problem: Multiplied storage of data

Data sent by a
Member State can be intended both for sharing in the EIS and for analysis in
the AWFs. The technical separation implies that the data must be stored at
least twice (actually three times, as information for the AWFs comes in via
SIENA- the operational information channel) with duplicated efforts and
obligations for the data owner as well as for Europol to maintain (update,
delete) the data, and risks of introducing differences
between originally equal data sets. AWFs sometimes receive information
which does not fall completely into their scope or is not relevant for
analysis. In such case, Europol cannot autonomously transfer the data. It has
to request the data provider to insert the information into the EIS instead.
Often this does not take place, resulting in a loss of information.

3.3.
WHO IS AFFECTED, IN WHAT WAYS AND TO WHAT
EXTENT

The following
groups are affected:

·
Law enforcement officers in the Member States
fighting serious cross-border crime fail to get the level and quality of
support they need from Europol for their operational activity.

·
Citizens are affected because incomplete crime
analyses and less than optimal Europol services compromise the effectiveness of
fight against serious cross-border crime. Crime is one of the five main
concerns of EU citizens[44].
Asked about the areas on which the EU institutions should focus their actions,
they mention the fight against crime in fourth place[45].EU citizens are also
potentially affected by breaches to their fundamental rights caused by the
processing of personal data or by police activities carried out on the basis of
information processed by Europol.

3.4.
THE BASELINE SCENARIO

Preserving the “status
quo” is impossible in view of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Therefore, the baseline scenario here presented shows how the core problems and
their drivers are expected to develop if only the pure “lisbonisation” and
aligning Europol's governance with the Common Approach on EU decentralised
agencies take place.

The scrutiny of
Europol’s activities foreseen by the Treaty of Lisbon would allow the European
Parliament and national parliaments to have a better insight into the work and
challenges of the agency. Better informed, they would be able to exercise
better political pressure to make Europol more effective, e.g. by addressing
resolutions, interpellations, written and oral questions to the governments of
Member States. This could have a positive impact, in particular on the
provision of information by Member States to Europol.

The new governance
structure of Europol aligned with the Common Approach is expected to have overall
minimal positive impact on Europol becoming a hub for information exchange
between law enforcement authorities of the Member States. The Commission having
two representatives would have better opportunities to address the problem of
insufficient provision of information by Member States or to propose solutions
on data management.

However, as
regards the possible evolution in the exchange of information with the Member States, there are, according to
Europol, too many variables and dependencies to take into account to make any
forecasting reliable, not least of which are the national priorities within the
Member States. One can however, based on previous year activities, known
enhancements to the systems and new initiatives assume that the positive upward
trend in contributions is likely to continue. By demonstrating its added value,
Europol would gain further trust of the Member States and encourage them to
cooperate with Europol. However, without the EU clarifying the legal provision
on provision of information, some Member States would continue to misinterpret
the legal provision or remain unclear of its nature and extent. The level of
discrepancies on provision of information between the top and the least efficient
providers of data will persist although precise indications cannot be
quantified. Council conclusions on June 2012 noting variations among Member
States and calling for increased use and provision of information to Europol
Information System could improve partially the situation. The Council assesses
that if all Member States would provide the automatic
data uploads systems, by the end of 2014, with a number of data corresponding, for instance, to half of the average
number of data per million inhabitants
provided by those Member States using the Europol Information System most, the effectiveness of the system as an important
tool in cross-border law enforcement investigations all
over Europe could significantly improve. The question
of contributions to AWFs has not been addressed by the Council.

Consequently,
Europol will continue to have a fragmented picture on Union-wide serious
criminality and difficulties with identifying all trends and patterns.  As a
result, it will provide insufficient support to Member States investigations
with, at the end, a negative effect on security in the EU. The precise
implications cannot be quantified though.  Without links between training
delivered by CEPOL and the operational work of Europol, law enforcement
officers risk to receive sub-optimal targeted training on cooperation with
Europol.

The creation of
two new AWFs next to the EIS by merging 23 specific crime-oriented AWFs a few months
ago does not allow yet for statistics showing an evolution in the analysis made
by Europol and an impact on its practical results. Making projections is not
possible.

However, it can be
safely said that whereas Europol’s analysts would to a large extent be able to
swiftly identify trends and patterns across different crime types, they will  still
not be able to do so between organised crime and terrorist networks (stored in
different AWFs). Delays in identifying trends and patters in this context will
persist, resulting in incomplete reports on the links between organised crime
groups and terrorist networks. Storing data in databases technically separated
will continue to limit Europol’s capacity to deliver comprehensive analytical
reports to Member States.  European police forces risk being uninformed about
the scale of links between organised crime groups and terrorists, although
precise quantification is impossible. The question of linking data coming from the
EIS and the AWF would remain a problem. A possibility of multiple storage of
personal data in two or three places would continue, duplicating the efforts of
the data owner and Europol to maintain (update, delete) the data. This would
adversely impact efficiency and human resources involved, while raising risks
of data protection violations.

3.5.
WHY IS THE EU BETTER PLACED TO TAKE AN ACTION

1.
Legal basis for an EU
action

Article 88 of the
TFEU prescribes a new legal basis for Europol to be adopted by co-decision[46]. It requires that the new
regulation introduce procedures for the scrutiny of Europol’s activities by the
European Parliament together with national parliaments.

2.
Why is the EU action
needed, subsidiarity and proportionality

In the light of
Article 88 of the TFEU, EU action is necessary. There is also a need to align
Europol with the common approach on governance of decentralised agencies[47].

The problem
analysis section (3.2) suggests that the current legislative set-up prevents
Europol from being fully effective.

As Europol is an
EU agency, its legislative reform has to be made at EU level by the
co-legislator. It cannot be carried out at national, regional or local level or
addressed by Europol itself through internal action. There is also a need to
align Europol with the common approach on governance of decentralised agencies.

Effective
prevention and fight against cross-border crime cannot be successfully
conducted by national police forces alone. It requires a coordinated and
collaborative approach together with public and private stakeholders. This is
an area where Europol can add value[48].

The cross-border
nature of today's serious criminality, compounded by less than optimal
law enforcement cooperation, justifies the necessity of action at EU level.

The EU is both
entitled to act and better placed to do so than the Member States. The problem
analysis and the views of stakeholders demonstrate that the reform should not
substantially change Europol's mission and should not go beyond what is
necessary to achieve better efficiency and effectiveness of the agency, thus
respecting the principle of proportionality.

4.
POLICY OBJECTIVES
4.1.
Objectives

The general
objective of Europol's reform is:

Increasing security
of the EU by making Europol a hub for information exchange between law
enforcement authorities in the Member States so as to better support Member
States in preventing and combating serious cross-border crime and terrorism

This general
objective can be translated into the following specific and operational policy
objectives:

Specific objective
1: To increase provision of information to Europol by Member States

a.
To increase volume and quality of
information provided to Europol by Member States

b.
To reduce discrepancies in level of
information provision by Member States

Specific objective
2: To establish a data processing environment that will allow Europol's
analysts to fully assist Member States in preventing and combating serious
cross-border crime and terrorism

Operational
objectives:

a)
To ensure that Europol’s analysts could link
and make analyses of all relevant pieces of data

b)
To reduce delays in identifying trends
and patterns

c)
To reduce multiple storage of data

4.2.
Respect for fundamental rights

The impact on
fundamental rights has been examined in line with the Fundamental Rights “Check
List”[49].

Europol collects,
exchanges and may analyze personal data of individuals to assist Member States
in the prevention and fight serious cross-border crime and terrorism. As such,
this processing has an impact on the fundamental rights to the protection of private
life and to the protection of personal data[50]

The right to
private life and to the protection of personal data are not absolute. Interferences
are permitted in so far as necessary and if they genuinely meet the
objectives of general interest recognized by the Union or the need to protect
the rights and freedoms of others. As long as proportionate and “necessary in
democratic society”, the proposed measures on Europol would certainly comply
with these requirements, since such measures are intended for the purpose of
effective prevention and fight against serious cross-border crime and
terrorism, and would be laid down in a legislative act. Important
safeguards, such as the internal Data Protection Office function and the
external supervisory authority, are embedded within Europol's legal framework
and working practice and are an essential feature in guaranteeing the respect
of fundamental rights. Europol's data protection regime will be aligned on the
principles of proposed Draft Directive on data protection whilst taking into
account the specificities of the agency's mission and operation.

It should be
noted  that in the performance of its mission, the operational successes
achieved and the expertise that Europol has built constitute and important
landmark in the EU's continued efforts to ensure the protection of the
fundamental rights to human dignity, to life, physical integrity and the
protection of victims, in particular children.

5.
POLICY OPTIONS AND TRANSVERSAL ISSUES
5.1.
Policy options

In order to achieve
the policy objectives mentioned above, the Commission considers that there are
two policy options.

The option “Status
quo sensu stricto”- leaving the Europol Council Decision untouched - is
discarded in the light of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty

5.1.1.
Option 1: Baseline scenario/"Pure
lisbonisation"

This option
involves no action being taken at the EU level beyond what is required by the
Lisbon treaty and, in particular, its article 88.

Insufficient
provision of information from Member States

Europol in
cooperation with CEPOL and the Commission will continue to apply "soft
measures" - awareness raising in the form of road shows, training
promotion of good practices of ENUs, - to garner more contributions from Member
States. Several Member States consulted by the Commission have acknowledged
that Member States should provide more information to Europol. Some other Member
States are not expected to recognize the obligation of MS to provide data to
Europol. This option will address only Driver 2 (socio-cultural aspects- lack
of awareness, lack of knowledge, police culture which is careful to share
information) and Driver 3 (organisation  and effectiveness of ENUs)

Constraints on
data processing

With regard to
data management, the shortcomings in linking and analysing data scattered
around different databases will persist, especially with regard to linking the
data concerning serious organised crime and terrorism.

5.1.2.
Option 2: Making further legislative amendments
through the Europol regulation

A.
Options addressing the insufficient provision
of information from MS

A.1 Strengthening obligations and introducing incentives

This option has
several different components addressing in a comprehensive manner all drivers
to the problem:

·
Continuation of "soft measures" as in
the baseline scenario:

-  training and awareness activities
by Europol in close cooperation with CEPOL, advertising Europol's goals and
added value (this addresses Driver 2: socio-cultural (lack of knowledge, lack
of awareness, insufficient training, police culture which is careful about
information sharing),

- promoting good practices of ENUs (this
will address Driver 3: organisational driver).

In this context, it is worth underlying that a merger with CEPOL
aiming to exploit synergies between training and operational work, would allow
providing a higher number of targeted training on cooperation with Europol to
law enforcement officers across the EU.

·
Legal clarification that Member States are obliged to provide data to Europol, clarifying
the extent of such an obligation (this addresses Driver 1: Lack of clarity of
the legal provision)

- The regulation will make explicit that each Member State is indeed
obliged to share information with Europol, and in particular to send Europol a
copy of all information on crime falling within Europol’s mandate actually
exchanged with another Member State[51].

- The regulation would prioritise the EU fight against serious
cross-border crime, by focusing the Member States' obligation to provide data
to Europol on the priorities established in the EU Policy Cycle for
organised and serious international crime.[52]

- To ensure better enforcement of the obligation, it will lay down a
monitoring     mechanism, mandating Europol to submit a detailed annual
report to the European Parliament and the Council on information provision by
individual Member States and performance of ENUs (this will address also Diver
3- organisational driver).

·
To encourage Member States to share more
information and to increase awareness, the regulation would extend the
possibility for Member States to receive via Europol targeted financial
assistance to support investigations in crime areas other than Euro
counterfeiting[53].
This will encourage MS to share more information and to involve Europol in its
investigations, addressing in the longer run Driver 2 (socio-cultural driver-
police culture).

A.2. Giving Europol access to law enforcement databases of Member
States

This option would
grant access to law enforcement databases of Member States on a "hit-no-hit"
basis[54].

In this way
Europol will be able to detect that a Member State is in possession of
information which is relevant to its mandate[55].
Then, following a "hit", Europol could request this information from
the Member State concerned[56].
Member States would keep full control of their data as Europol can only use
data (including the hit) after the explicit approval and authorisation of the
transfer.

This system will
require a new IT architecture: 1) a forwarding system for Europol which would
send queries to Member State databases and assemble the replies on hits, 2)
investments of Member States to reorganise their databases to separate data
falling within Europol's mandate (only this data would be then accessed) and
others or setting up a forwarding database, as well as to provide appropriate
IT connections.

B.
Option on data management:

B1: Merging the
existing two AWFs into one

Under this option,
the two existing AWFs are merged into one and the EIS remains separated.

B.2. New
processing environment

This option
foresees that future Europol regulation, contrary to the current Council
Decision, does not define individual Europol's databases in an exhaustive
manner.

Instead, there
will be procedural safeguards aiming at due implementation of recognized data
protection principles with particular emphasis on
‘privacy by design’ and full transparency towards the Data Protection Officer
of Europol and supervisory authorities. "Privacy by design" means
that Europol would take all the data protection requirements
into account from the outset when designing specifications and architecture of
communication systems and technologies.

In particular:

·
The Regulation would not concern systems, but
spell out strong data protection and data security rules that apply to any
future system depending on the specific type of information.

·
Purpose limitation would be ensured by referring
to a specific processing operation: the data supplier would determine from the
outset the processing purpose for which data are shared with Europol
(cross-checking, operational analysis, general analysis);

·
The degree of access rights would be
differentiated, in particular, when  providing information to Europol,
Europol's partners agree that Europol's analysts have access to data needed to
perform the tasks on the "need to know basis" and capacity to see the
links between data entities.

·
By respect of the principle of ownership of
data, Europol's partner providing the data  would still be entitled to impose
restrictions to access and use - by other Member States or third partners - of
specific items of information.

Consequently,
Europol would have some flexibility on setting up gradually an IT architecture
that would adapt to upcoming business needs requiring the establishment of
innovative data processing solutions. As the new processing rules do not
prescribe the specific technical or IT implementation, the current databases of
Europol do not need to be immediately replaced. There could be a gradual
transition to a single data repository.

5.2.
Transversal issues

There
are a number of issues which arise from the consultations with stakeholders that
are not presented in this report either because they do not have an impact on
the general objective of Europol's reform, or because there is a general
consensus on them, or because an alternative approach is not considered
realistic. However, for the sake of transparency, an overview of these issues
is presented below.

5.2.1.
Parliamentary scrutiny over Europol

Art. 88 par.3 of
the TFEU requires the introduction of procedures for the scrutiny of Europol's
activities by the European Parliament together with national parliaments. This
issue has been carefully debated in other fora, beginning with the
Commission Communication of 17 December[57]. 
This will be a very important mechanism to Europol's accountability.

The reform of
Europol will have to implement Art. 88 par. 3 of the Lisbon Treaty.

5.2.2.
Europol's governance

Europol's
governance will be adapted to the Common Approach on EU decentralized agencies[58] whenever relevant. The
approach includes provisions on the role and position of agencies in the EU's
institutional landscape, including their structure and governance, programming
of activities and resources, accountability, controls, transparency and
relations with stakeholders. The merger with CEPOL could achieve the effect of
synergies between training and operational work of law enforcement. This issue
is subject to a detailed examination in the impact assessment on the merger of
the two agencies.

5.2.3.
Europol's external and independent data
protection supervisor

As regards options
on the external data protection supervision, they range from strengthening the
existing Joint Supervisory Body (JSB) to entrusting the European Data
Protection Supervisor with this task[59].

As Europol handles
a large amount of personal data it is necessary to ensure that its external supervisory
data protection authority is independent and effective[60]. This is one of the
fundamental principles stipulated in Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights and Article 16 of the TFEU.

Article 88 of the
TFEU does not require any specific change with regard to the external data
protection supervision over Europol. However, the recent case-law of the
European Court of Justice[61]
has developed stringent criteria on the independence of data supervisors which
the JSB fulfils only partly[62],
such as its budgetary independence: the JSB budget is a part of the budget of
Europol. Moreover, there are concerns over the JSB lack of enforcement powers[63]. If the JSB considers that a
decision by Europol on the processing of data is not compatible with the
Council Decision, it can only complain to the Director of Europol and, in case
of escalation, refer the matter to the Management Board. Along the same lines,
the JSB does not have the power to order rectification, blocking, erasure or
destruction of data or to impose a temporary or definitive ban on processing.
The JSB cannot refer the matter to the Court of Justice either.

Some stakeholders
have also raised an argument of a more institutional nature, pointing out that
the JSB comprises two members of each of the independent supervisory bodies
appointed by each Member State[64].
This would mean that an EU agency is supervised by national data protection
authorities.

At the same time,
the supervision of other EU institutions, bodies and large-scale IT systems
related to home affairs is carried out by the European Data Protection
Supervisor (EDPS)[65]
including the Commission, the Commission, OLAF, VIS and SIS. However, until now
the EDPS has not yet supervised any agency or body dealing with police and
judicial cooperation, whereas the JSB has a well-established record in
supervising the protection of personal data[66]
in areas which require a knowledge of law enforcement specificities[67].

The consultation
process has demonstrated that Europol and the Member States highly regard the
JSB, in view of its experience, thoroughness and expertise both in the field of
data protection and law enforcement. They claim that the specific nature and
sensitivity of data processing in the area of police cooperation require a
tailor-made supervision for Europol. It is worth noting also that Declaration
21 attached to the Lisbon Treaty recognizes that police cooperation might
require specific data protection arrangements. On the other hand, as
highlighted by the European Data Protection Supervisor, streamlined and
consistent data protection supervision over all EU agencies by an EU data
protection body could also be seen as advantageous.

Therefore, it
seems that there are equally strong arguments for either JSB or EDPS. The final
decision would be then of a political choice.

With regard to the
costs, it is estimated that the EDPS would be slightly more efficient.

The supervision by
a more independent and effective JSB is estimated at an average of 500 000 EUR
per year[68].
The cost of the supervision by the EDPS is estimated at an average of 250 000
EUR[69]
per year.

There would not be
any new costs for Member States compared to the status quo.

5.2.4.
Possibility of merger between Europol and CEPOL

As mentioned in section 1, this issue is analysed in details in the
impact assessment on CEPOL.

6.
ANALYSIS OF IMPACT

Likely positive
and negative, direct and indirect impact of these options is described with
reference to three criteria:

1.
Increasing security in the EU and cooperation of
law enforcement authorities of Member States

2.
Protection of personal data

3.
Costs for the EU and national authorities
budgets, including total direct costs of implementing the policy option and
administrative burden and indirect costs for law enforcement authorities.

Table of symbols (using (-) for negative and (+) for positive impacts) ||

Small impact || -/+

Medium impact || --/++

Significant impact || ---/+++

No impact || 0

6.1.
Impacts of the Option 1: Baseline
Scenario/”pure lisbonisation”

This policy option entails only the necessary changes
required by the Lisbon Treaty. These are the parliamentary scrutiny over
Europol and the suppression of Europol's competence to conclude international
agreements with third countries concerning exchanges of data. Europol's
legal basis would also align the agency with the common approach required by
the Joint Statement on regulatory agencies and ensure that the agency's data
processing is supervised by a fully independent external data protection
authority.

Increasing security in the EU (0[70] ):  A "no action" policy will
impede the full ability of the EU to fight serious cross-border crime and hence
have a negative effect on security. This would mean that full advantages
offered by Europol as a hub for information exchanges for the law enforcement
authorities in the EU would not be attained. As the differences between Member
States in provision of information would persist, Europol would not be able to
build a full picture on activities of criminals in Europe. Data management
restrictions would prevent Europol's analysts from exploiting information
already in possession of Europol. Consequently, Europol would not be able to
identify all trend, patterns and links between criminal activities that could
assist Member States in their law enforcement efforts.

Protection of personal data (0): "Pure
lisbonisation" of Europol would have no impact on protection of personal
data compared to the status quo, nor a positive
indirect impact on the right to life.

Costs for the EU and national authorities’ budgets (0): 
This option will not entail new costs compared to
the status quo either for the EU or national authorities’ budget.

6.2.
Impacts of the Option 2: Making further
legislative amendments to the Europol regulation
6.2.1.
Impacts of the options addressing the provision
of information from Member States (Policy option A)
6.2.1.1.
Strengthening obligations and introducing
additional incentives (option A1)

Increasing security in the EU (+++): This option would positively impact on identified shortcomings by better
meeting the operational objectives. It would increase both the volume and the
quality of information sent by Member States.

It is anticipated that Member States would send
additional and more relevant information to Europol. Focusing on the goals of
the EU Policy Cycle and sharing with Europol information that they exchange
bilaterally would result in a higher in-flow of data to Europol on the most
important threats.

Monitoring the performance of ENUs and the provision of
information by each Member State, would create peer pressure on the worst
performing. This would encourage good practices, including on efficient
organisation of ENUs, awareness raising and strengthening cooperation between
ENUs and national law enforcement.

If Member States cross-border investigations received
financial support, this would constitute an incentive for Member States to
involve Europol more and share more information. Experience with financial
support for Euro-counterfeiting investigations has been very positive. It
amounts to 200.000 € (budget 2012) per annum and is used for targeted
assistance.

These funds assign
small amounts (on average 5000 € per investigation) to individual
investigations, in order to pay informants, or to provide so-called "flash
money" or to make a fictitious purchase. Several recent operational
successes (see annex 8) suggest that the added value of such targeted aid is
quite significant. Several Member States indicated that this assistance
encourages them to initiate an investigation which they would otherwise not be
willing to undertake[71]. This has helped to create a practice of "using"
Europol's high-quality products[72].

Ultimately, the option would contribute substantially to the increase
of security in the EU.

Protection of personal data (0): This
option would have no impact on the protection of personal data compared to the
baseline. The safeguards are the same.

Costs for the EU and national budgets (--)

Costs for the EU budget

Costs for the EU budget are considered as moderate. Direct costs for
the Europol’s budget are estimated at EUR 1.77 m over the period from 2015 to
2020. This would reflect the costs of 6 staff (FTE) needed for processing
higher volume of data sent to Europol by Member States, of which 3 FTE will
come from internal redeployment and another 3 FTE will be recruited between
2015 and 2020. However, approximately two thirds of
these costs will be offset by the savings resulting from the merger of CEPOL: two
(2) FTE will be secured as a result of the merger and can be redeployed for the
purposes outlined above.[73]
The Commission based on the input of Europol estimates that up to 5%
increases in the amount of information provided to Europol could be processed
by existing 23 data handlers (verifying relevance of information,
cross-checking) and 74 analysts thanks to a prioritisation of work so as to
focus on the crime areas selected through the EU Policy Cycle. However, this
policy option is estimated to increase the volume of data by 50% in 3 years at
the earliest. Given the upward trend observed in the recent past, a rise
between 15 and 20% could take place each year over 3 consecutive years.
According to Europol’s estimation this would require 6 additional staff (FTE) –
3 data handlers (verifying relevance of information, cross-checking) and 3
analysts. Europol will not incur any material costs, i.e. buying new equipment,
adapting the existing IT structures, etc.

Replicating the
scheme of financial support for Member States’ investigations beyond
Euro-counterfeiting would require, in order to reach a critical mass of
funding, a total of 800.000 € per annum.

This additional
cost could be offset by the savings generated from reducing certain
administrative costs, i.e. without affecting operational expenditure. It is
recommended that the Management Board consider cuts in the following sectors,
which do not seem to concern priority areas:

- certain sports
activities

- non-core
business training activities

- using
videoconferences to replace some of the Management Board and working group
meetings, reducing the number of Management Board meetings from 4 to 3 and
holding them only in The Hague

- discontinuing
the practice of simultaneous interpretation in all 23 official languages as
well as the interpretation in 5 languages of the working groups (which amounted
to 600.000 in 2012).

Finally the levels
assigned to "current administrative expenditure" should also be
re-examined by the Management Board. In any event, the Commission will make
sure that in the course of the forthcoming budgetary procedures such reductions
are achieved.

Costs for the national authorities' budgets

The material costs to be incurred by national budgets are considered
minimal. ENUs are already obliged to have access to all relevant databases. The
burden of sending a greater amount of information is considered minimal, given
that the transmission is electronic, often aided by IT tools (e.g. data
loaders)  and that SIENA, a secure channel of information sharing, is in place.

However, in order to fulfil its obligation to provide data, Member
States might need to undertake some further steps. The catalogue of such
actions would vary on a case-by-case basis. This could entail reorganisation of
ENUs in line with good practices or the national system of information flow.
This could be also training of   those who are responsible for information
sharing at the basic level: managers or officers having leading positions in
investigations or other law enforcement activities in this area where sharing
information with Europol would be relevant. There is no available statistics on
how many out of 1.7 million of police officers in the EU[74] have such positions.
Therefore, the Commission has made an educated, reasonable guess informed by
discussions held with experts in the law enforcement field, coming with three
scenarios: they are 1, 5 or 10% of the overall population of police officers.

According to the
estimates of the Commission on costs of training in two Member States selected
on the basis of variety in GDP[75],
the average costs of a one day training of a law enforcement officer would be
36 EUR per day of training. Thus, taking into account the three scenarios in
question, the average costs for “training the trainers” are assessed at EUR
600K, EUR3 M or EUR 6M for the national budgets. These costs could be reduced
by aligning this training with training under the European Law Enforcement
Training Scheme LETS for law enforcement officers (LETS). The LETS will include
awareness and knowledge on Europol on different levels. Basic awareness of and
knowledge on Europol will be part of strand 1 and will apply for all law
enforcement officers. More in depth knowledge on information sharing with
Europol will be covered by stand 2 and information sharing with Europol within
specific policing themes should be part of training under strand 3[76].

Nevertheless, the benefits of this option for Member States would
prevail and amount to millions of EUR in the period 2015-2020 by reducing crime
in the EU thanks to the better cooperation of national law enforcement and
Europol. Specific quantifications are not possible though.

6.2.1.
Estimated costs and benefits

Table 3: Costs
and benefits Option 1

Measure || Costs || Benefits

Strengthening obligation of MS to provide data and financial incentives || Costs of Europol: - 3 new FTE to handle a higher inflow of data from MS -EUR 800 K for financial incentives (offset by cutting activities of the Management Board) Costs to Member States for one-time training of law enforcement officers dealing with serious cross-border crime: EUR 600K, EUR 3M or EUR 6M. || Increase in effectiveness of the fight against serious cross-border crime-millions of EUR in 2015-2020 Direct benefits for Member States-financial support for their investigations (EUR 800K)

6.2.1.1.
Giving Europol access to law enforcement
databases of Member States (option A2)

Increasing security in the EU (+++): This option would partially overcome the lack of knowledge, ineffective ENUs or low awareness of
Member States’ law enforcement agents. Europol would be able to pro-actively
search for complementary information which are in the hands of Member States.
Member States will retain control over data as they would authorise the
transfer of this data to Europol. They would be in a position to object
information sharing which could hamper an on-going investigation at national
level.

A greater amount of more relevant information will reach
Europol in comparison to the baseline. In return Europol would be able to offer
better quality products to Member States.

Stakeholder consultations suggest that some Member
States would be very reluctant to grant Europol such an access before they
themselves obtain access to other Member States’ databases. Member States’
reluctance could result in practical implementation problems and failure.

Impacts on the protection of personal data (0): This option would not entail negative impacts. The access to
national law enforcement databases would be done on a hit-no-hit basis. This means
that Europol would only receive a confirmation that there is information on a
person or item searched. To receive the content of the information it would
need to address a request to the Member State. The Member State before transmission
would ensure all safeguards and they would be subject to national data
protection supervisors.

Impact on costs (---): This
option would require investments both from Member States and Europol with
regard to IT connections and applications of the “hit-no-hit” system. The costs
for the EU budget of a semi-central model relying on a central forwarding
system to which all relevant Member States' databases would be connected and
through which Europol would query Member States databases would amount to a EUR
1,78M one off investment and EUR 1,46M of yearly recurring investments. Each
Member State would on average cover EUR 660,000 one-time investments for the
adaptation of their IT systems and connection to the forwarding system. In
addition, they would need to bear the costs for recurring investments of EUR
1,2M annually. Costs on staff are reduced as it would be partly automated
process. It is estimated that ENUs staff would be able to process Europol’s
requests following the hit, subject to an increase of 1-2 staff.

6.2.2.
Estimated costs and benefits

Table: Costs
and benefits Option A2

Measure || Costs ||  Benefits

Grant Europol access to national law enforcement databases (semi-central model) || Costs for the EU budget: EUR 1,78M one off investment and EUR 1,46M of yearly recurring investments. Costs for the MS budgets: - EUR 660,000 one-time investments for the adaptation of their IT systems and connection to the forwarding system, - Recurring investments of EUR 1,2M annually - Costs of additional 1-2 staff (the amount vary depending on a MS) || Increase in effectiveness of the fight against serious cross-border crime-millions of EUR in 2015-2020

6.2.3.
Impacts of the option on data management:

Merging
of two AWFs into one

Increasing
security in the EU (++): This option would
potentially entail a faster identification of trends and patterns as well as
links between criminal groups involved also in terrorism.

Thanks
to broadening of scope of an AWF to cover both serious organised crime and
terrorism, Europol’s analysts would be able to visualise all links between
information provided to the merged AWF.

Nevertheless,
linking the data from EIS system with those in the AWF will still not be
possible, as EIS does not allow for such an operation (due to its purpose
limitation). Europol analysts would therefore have a possibility only to have
data from his AWF cross-checked with EIS data without seeing the data linked to
the data cross-checked.

Impact
on protection of personal data (0): There will be
no impact on protection of personal data compared to the baseline. Information
provided to Europol by its partners would end up in EIS where it will be used
for cross-checking purposes or in AWF used for criminal analysis.  Within the
one AWF, like nowadays in AWF SOC and AWF CT, there will be Focal Points and
Target Groups as means to specify further purpose limitation on specific
analysis projects. A Focal Point would be an area within the AWF which focuses 
on a certain phenomenon from a commodity based, thematic or regional angle
(e.g. child exploitation, drug trafficking through the Western Balkans, etc.).
It would allow providing analysis, to prioritise resources, to ensure purpose
limitation and to maintain focus on expertise. A Target Group would be an
operational project with a dedicated team to support an international criminal
investigations or criminal intelligence operation against a specific target (an
identified individual criminal group, e.g. a criminal organisation from
Kosovo). However, this option would only partly reduce the problem of the multiple
storage of data as data intended by the data provider to serve both the
purposes of cross-checking and for analysis would need to be stored twice- in
the AWF, in the EIS, and sometimes also in SIENA. Multiple storage raises data
protection concerns.

Costs
for the EU budget (0): Merging the two AWFs would
entail minimal costs as the two AWFs to be merged are supported by the same
technological solutions. It can be assumed that they could be borne by
Europol’s IT budget as the recent merger of 23 small AWFs into 2 big ones. The
necessary investments and consultancy work[77]
were done by preparing the recent merger, therefore its results could be
reused.

Costs
for the national budgets (0): As this is a question
of internal organisation of Europol’s databases, costs borne by Member States
would be minimal, as the transmission channels are already established.

Measure || Costs ||  Benefits

Merging two AWFs into one || Costs for the EU budget: 0; Costs for the MS budgets: minimal || Better services for Member States to support their fight against criminality: building better informed and higher quality analytical reports on cases where serious criminality and terrorism interlink

6.2.4.
New processing environment (policy option D)

Increasing
security in the EU (+++): This option would allow
Europol in a longer perspective to build a bridge between all aspects of the
fight against organized crime and terrorism; within a single processing
environment Europol would be able to better identify, analyse and define the
structures linking organized crime groups and terrorist networks, for instance
through financial trails.

The Europol
analyst would get access to all data provided by Europol’s partners for
cross-checking, operational analysis or strategic analysis to the extent that is
necessary. There are several technical solutions to achieve this aim. Anyway, the
single processing environment would allow linking information whenever links
are identified. It would have a positive impact on identifying trends and
patterns across all criminal areas falling under Europol’s mandate. This would
also result in increase in early warnings on new detected threats. The fact
that Europol’s analysts would be able to see this information does not mean
that they would distribute it widely. Information leaving Europol will only be
sent with the authorisation of the data provider (so as to respect “ownership
of data”). If an operational analysis report is written by Europol and based on
information from country A, B and C, it will be sent only with the permission
of all these three countries. If e.g. country B is against dissemination of the
report, its part will be taken out of the report.

Its benefit, in
other words, is increased visibility and accessibility, for Europol analysts
and experts, over the data actually stored at Europol which is a prerequisite
for Europol to perform its criminal analysis efficiently.

Impacts on the
protection of personal data (0):

At least the same level of data protection as in the baseline
scenario would apply. Data protection and data security safeguards would no longer
be linked to individual pre-defined systems but would be attached to the
purpose for which the piece of information was provided. The physical location
of a piece of data would not matter as it would not change the conditions
attached to it, such as, for instance, owner principle, purpose limitation or  storage
times.

‘Privacy by
design’ principle would fully apply, thus Europol would be obliged to take data
protection requirements into account ahead of any processing operation. The
Data Protection Officer and the external supervisory authority will be closely
involved in the definition and opening of Focal points or Target groups and in
every aspect of data processing.

Such an approach
has received a positive opinion of the Data Protection Officer at Europol who
recognized that procedural safeguards aiming at implementation of recognized
data protection principles are an alternative way to the status quo[78] (creating separate databases
with different purposes, access rights and limiting processing operation) and
guarantee high level of personal data protection.

The advantage is
also that data would not need to be stored in several places - physically it is
not important where the data is, what counts is who has access to it and for
which purpose.

Impact on Costs
(0): This option would not entail any immediate additional
expenditure compared to the baseline, as the Regulation does not prescribe any
specific technical implementation.  Several technical proposals could be put in
place. Having said that, it can be assumed that such a solution of an
integrated system would replace all the current databases (AWFs, EIS, 10.4
databases) and therefore the costs of those systems would be deducted.

In this case, too,
no immediate expenditure should be incurred by Member States. Any adaptation to
data loaders (automated uploading of data in the EIS) would be limited to the
routing inside Europol and in terms of resources it would be minor and
virtually cost-free.

Measure || Costs ||  Benefits

New processing environment || No immediate costs for the EU budget; No costs foreseen for MS budgets || Gradual transition towards a single data repository that would allow Europol analysts to fully equip the MS law enforcement for the fight against crime by delivering high quality analytical reports, detecting all necessary links between the criminal phenomena; reducing delays in detecting trends and patterns,

7.
COMPARISON OF OPTIONS

This section
compares and ranks the options using the criteria of impact relative the
objective (effectiveness), economic impact (efficiency) and consistency with
other initiatives in the field of internal security (coherence).

Policy option 1 on
“pure lisbonisation” would present very limited advantages on increasing the
security of the EU but otherwise would implement the Treaty requirements on
parliamentary scrutiny and would align Europol's governance with that in the
Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies. These changes would bring about
transparency and accountability but would have marginal impact on the
operational objectives. Regarding coherence with other Commission policies,
Policy Option 1 does not offer much progress in terms of enhancing the internal
security of the EU and does not allow Europol to make a qualitative step
forward in becoming the hub for information exchange as required by the
Stockholm Programme.

The sub-options
under Policy Option 2 address problems which cannot be tackled without a
legislative intervention that goes beyond what is required by the Lisbon
Treaty. Whatever combination of sub-options is chosen, taking legislative
action is preferable to refraining from any action because it presents a clear
advantage of significantly increasing Europol’s capacity to support Member
States’ law enforcement authorities in preventing and combating crime.

Both options under
Policy Options A on increasing provision of information by Member States are
effective and would result in a significant increase in flow of data to Europol.
Giving Europol access to national law enforcement databases (Option A2) would present
advantages of more targeted and relevant information than Option A1 (strengthening
of obligation, incentives and monitoring). However, this could be regarded as too
strong a change to Europol's mission and tasks. Option A1 could appropriately
address the problem of insufficient provision of information from Member States
and discrepancies in such provision between Member States through a mix of
compulsion, incentives and monitoring. It would generate costs of 6 FTE (3 of
which would be new staff, while 3 would be redeployed) at Europol to handle an
increased flow of information to Europol. There would be also some costs to be
borne by Member States on the case-by-case basis; the costs of training,
possible reorganisation of ENUs and system of information flow. These costs
would however be counterbalanced by benefits. Increased provision of
information and reducing discrepancies in contributions by Member States would
allow Europol to deliver better informed and well-grounded products to add
value to Member States efforts in tackling serious criminality.

The security
advantages for Option A.2 would be outweighed by the disadvantages in terms of
costs, not only one –time costs to set up a system to grant Europol access to
national databases but also annual investments to keep the system running. These
costs add up to the costs of staff (3 new FTE) that would need to be employed
at Europol and Member States to process requests for data and increased
information flow at Europol. Comparing the costs to the objectives suggests
that Option A2 would be disproportionately costly, thus inefficient.

Both Options A1
and A2 are consistent with this strategic objective and fall within the scope
of the Internal Security Strategy's objective to disrupt international criminal
networks[79].
They are complementary to the policy aimed at improving bilateral exchanges
between law enforcement authorities across Member States. This policy also
recommends the use of the Europol channel as the preferred way of communicating
data.

Option A.1 could
have synergy effects with the CEPOL reform and the future European Law
Enforcement Training Scheme designed to offer training on areas of EU
cooperation.

As to data
management, option B2 whereby the legal provision would pave a way for a
gradual establishment of a single data repository presents in a longer run some
advantages for the security and support for law enforcement cooperation in the
EU compared to Option B1 (merging two AWFs). Although Option B1 would alleviate
some problems by allowing for identifying links and making analysis between
data stored in one AWF, it would prevent linking these data with data from the
EIS.

Instead, Option B1
has a potential of removing all remaining barriers to the possibility of making
links and analysis between data. There are different IT ways to achieve this
technically. A single data repository would allow Europol to have an accurate
overview of all the information stored. This option would increase the
information "de facto" available to Europol without jeopardising the
sense of security given to Member States by the "ownership" principle
of data. A secondary impact of this option is likely to be an increased
customer satisfaction and therefore an incentive, on the part of Member States,
to intensify their flow of information to "get back" even better
analytical services.

As to the costs,
Option B1 results in no costs, as the merger of the two AWFs into 1 would
follow the pattern of the last year merger of 23 AWFs into 2. Necessary
investments have already been done. Option B2 does not generate any immediate
costs.

Both options under
B are in line with the data protection package and preserve the principles of
purpose limitation, proportionality and accuracy into the proposed processing
environment.

The presentation of
the scores for comparison of the options should still be more clearly linked to
concrete evidence. For all factors for which a quantitative presentation is
possible, this should be done in the summary table.

Summary table of the impacts of the policy options

Impacts of policy options || Option 1 Baseline/ Pure lisbonisation || ||

Options A addressing the provision of information from MS || Options B Addressing the problem of constraints on data processing ||

Option A1 Strengthening obligations and introducing incentives || Option A2 Giving Europol access to MSs' law enforcement databases || Option B1 Merging two AWFs into one || Option B2 New processing environment allowing for gradual implementation of the single data repository ||

Increasing security in the EU (effectiveness) || 0 || +++ || +++ || ++ || +++ ||

Impact on the protection of personal data || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 ||

Costs (efficiency) || 0 || -- Estimated costs for the EU budget: -3 new FTE needed - EUR 800K for financial incentives to support MS investigations (offset by administrative savings) =0 Estimated costs for the national budgets: Between EUR 600 K   and EUR 3 M, to be partially reduced by implementation of LETS || --- Estimated costs for the EU budget: -3 new FTE - EUR 1,78M one off investment, EUR 1,46M of yearly recurring investments Estimated costs for national budgets: EUR 660,000 one-time investments for the adaptation of their IT systems and connection to the forwarding system, - Recurring investments of EUR 1,2M annually Costs of additional 1-2 staff (the amount vary depending on a MS) || 0 No costs || 0 No immediate costs ||

Coherence with other Commission policies || 0 || + || + || + || + ||

Preferred policy option || || √ || || || √ ||

8.
PREFERRED POLICY OPTION

The preferred
policy option is further legislative changes than those required by the Treaty
of Lisbon (Option 2).

It responds more
adequately to the operational objectives we have set:

- To increase the
flow of information from Member States

- to allow Europol
to gradually implement the single data repository that would visualize the
information in its possession and establish links between data so as to carry
out analyses,

The preferred
Option 2 will consist of the combination of the policy options A.1, and B.2,
since it would provide better means of increasing security in the EU, while
ensuring that interference with the protection of personal data is kept to a
minimum and that costs are kept at an acceptable level.

Thanks to
incentives and the strengthening of the obligation to provide information,
Member States would have more clarity and would become more motivated to send
data.

The new rules on
data management, would allow Europol’s analysts to determine links between
information in Europol’s possession and to identify trends and patterns in
criminal activities. Europol would offer more relevant and up-to-date products
and services to Member States.

Contrary to status
quo, the preferred policy option introduces "variable geometry" on
the basis of Protocols 21 and 22 TFEU establishing the "opt out"
regime for Denmark and the "opt in" regime for Ireland and UK.

The impact on
costs of the preferred policy option compared to the baseline would be as
follows:

Extending
financial support offered by Europol to Member States’ investigations other
than euro-counterfeiting would require 800.000 € per annum, to reach a critical
mass of funding. These funds will be borne by Europol and will be found by
means of reprioritisation of Europol’s budget.

The total staff
that Europol needs to implement this reform is 6 FTE who are needed to handle a
higher inflow of information from Member States. However, since Europol loses
its capacity to conclude international agreements, 3 staff could be redeployed
from the unit that has been preparing the international negotiations.
Therefore, it will be necessary to employ only 3 new staff (FTE). The total
staff costs would then reach EUR 1.77 m assuming that they will all be
temporary agents and will be recruited mid-year in the following way 2015: +1,
2016: +1; 2017: +1. However, approximately two thirds
of these costs will be offset by the savings resulting from the merger of
CEPOL: two (2) FTE will be secured as a result of the merger and can be
redeployed for the purposes outlined above.

Regarding the
burden on Member States of sending a greater amount of information, given that
the transmission is electronic, often aided by IT tools (e.g. data loaders),
additional costs can be considered minimal. The costs of training for law
enforcement officers for the national budgets would vary between EUR 600 K and
EUR 3 M but could be substantially reduced once the European Law Enforcement
Training Scheme is designed and implemented. Any administrative burden is likely
to be counterbalanced by the benefits they would gain from the improved services
that Europol can offer to police officers in Member States.

9.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION

To regularly
monitor provision of information by Member States, the new regulation would
oblige Europol to report annually to the Parliament and the Council on the
performance of each individual Member State. Such reports will contain specific
quantitative and qualitative indicators and demonstrate trends.

The new regulation
would also lay down the rules on the parliamentary scrutiny by the European
Parliament and national parliaments, i.e. ultimately on the implementation of
Europol's work programme and execution of the budget.

In accordance with
the Common Approach on decentralised agencies, EUROPOL will also:

•           accompany
its activities included in its working programme by key performance indicators.
This allows for monitoring based on the Annual Report. This is foreseen by the
Financial Regulation. The Annual Activity Report illustrates progress towards
targets through key performance indicators e.g. proportion of the SIENA
messages sent by MS involving Europol, number of investigations initiated or
actively supported by Europol, number of EIS searches by Member States, number
of objects in EIS),

•           provide
for a periodic overall evaluation, to be commissioned by the Commission[80].

The Management
Board of Europol is responsible for supervision of the administrative
operational and budgetary effective and efficient management of the Agency. The
Council and the Parliament, in particular as budgetary authority of the Agency,
will be in a position to monitor effectiveness and efficiency of Europol.

Annex 1

Executive summary of the RAND report

Europol is the
European Police Office – an international police organisation formed to promote
and strengthen cooperation among law enforcement agencies in the European Union
(EU). Europol’s mandate includes terrorism and serious and organised
transnational crimes affecting two or more Member States, including drug
trafficking, terrorism, illegal immigration, human trafficking, cybercrime,
financial crime and counterfeiting.

As a result of the
Europol Council Decision (ECD), from 1 January 2010 Europol has been
transformed from an intergovernmental organisation, established by a Convention[81], to an EU entity funded from
the general budget of the EU. Although the ECD is a fairly recent instrument,
Europol will be given a further new legal basis within the next two years in a
Europol Regulation.

This report sets
out the findings from an evaluation of Europol. The objective of this
evaluation was to conduct an independent and external assessment of the way in
which Europol has implemented the ECD, and of the programmes and activities
carried out by Europol. In addition, the evaluation assesses the impact of the
ECD and the legislative framework on Europol’s performance, and identifies the
strengths and weaknesses of the ECD in order to inform decision making about
the content of a future Europol Regulation. The evaluation looked at 40
research questions, specified by the Europol Management Board (MB). This short
summary presents an overview of the evaluation and its main findings and
conclusions.

Data collection
and approach to the evaluation

Four data
collection activities were employed in this evaluation: a document review;
focus groups; interviews and a web-based survey. The research approach ensured
that information was gathered from a wide range of stakeholders, strengthening
the balance and breadth of perspectives, including stakeholders in Europol,
other EU agencies, Member States and third States.

The limitations of
the research approach stem from the scarcity of data such as statistical,
financial and administrative reports, legal analysis and case histories which
test, challenge and validate the expert judgements and stakeholder opinions
collected through focus groups, interviews and the web-based survey. In most
cases where validation was sought but not obtained, it appears that such
information does not exist in a readily available form and could not be
generated within the scope of this research.

Another limitation
stems from inviting evaluation participants to select which of the 40 questions
to discuss or respond to in the time available. In part this provided an
opportunity for participants to select those questions on which they were most
knowledgeable. However, this approach also means that some questions were more
popular than others, and more data has been collected on some issues than on
others. The evaluation team has drawn conclusions and recommendations on the
basis of the data collected or otherwise available. Inevitably, therefore, some
of the conclusions articulate the need for further, in-depth investigation and
other conclusions are tentative or include some caveats.

The evaluation
found very positive views among stakeholders: Europol is perceived to be
fulfilling its mandate.

Overall, the
findings of this evaluation suggest that Europol’s stakeholders at Member State
and EU-level increasingly see Europol as operationally relevant. The question
‘To what extent has Europol fulfilled its objective under the ECD … to enhance
law enforcement cooperation at EU level?’ received the most positive response
among respondents to the web-based survey administered as part of this
evaluation, and there was near unanimity among interviewees and focus group participants
that the support provided by Europol has added value to Member State law
enforcement.

Europol’s network
of liaison officers, the platforms that Europol provides for information
exchange with and between Member States, and Europol’s speciality criminal
intelligence analysis, are some of the services which are perceived to add
value to Member States and make the support offered by Europol unique. The ECD
has not had a significant impact on these factors or the day-to-day support
that Europol provides to Member States. Rather, the ECD grants Europol a new
legal basis which can be amended more easily in the future, without
ratification by 27 Member States, in preparation for a Europol Regulation.

Many of the
issues raised in the evaluation demonstrate an underlying tension stemming from
the fundamental design principle of Europol.

The tension is
between, on the one hand, the desire for Europol to be more operationally
supportive to Member States and improve its operational focus, but on the other
hand, an insistence on the primacy of Member States. As stated in the Treaty on
Functioning of the EU (TFEU), Europol’s raison d’être is to support Member
States’ law enforcement authorities and it has no coercive powers. Whether
Europol is effective and has an impact is determined largely by the policies
and actions of Member States which provide Europol with information and decide
whether to use Europol’s outputs and expertise in domestic law enforcement.
Although some interviewees saw the advantages of a proactive Europol with
executive powers, the consensus was that the current design principles would be
maintained: Europol would not be granted executive powers and would continue to
operate through its relationships with Member States.

The gatekeepers to
this relationship are the Europol National Units (ENUs). Given the variation
between ENUs in different Member States, this report recommends taking action
to increase homogeneity in the operation of ENUs through the possible inclusion
in a future Regulation of a system for reviewing the activities of ENUs and
arrangements for identifying and sharing good practice in their regard.

The evaluation
has identified a number of key issues for further, in-depth analysis. As is expected from an evaluation which addressed such a large
number of research questions covering such a wide range of research topics,
some of the conclusions and recommendations call for further, in-depth analysis
of issues which have been identified as important, but where focused work is
needed to arrive at a precise definition of the problem or to understand
practical and legal implications. For example:

·
evaluating whether and how the requirement
contained in Article 8(4) of the ECD (for Member States to share information
with Europol) is implemented, and therefore identifying opportunities for
enforcing the Article 8(4) call for information supply more effectively;

·
understanding the scope for further involvement
by Europol in Joint Investigation Teams (JITs);

·
collecting information about the impact of the
Staff Regulations on Europol’s operations; and

·
identifying any possible ways in which the
current process of negotiating operational agreements could be streamlined in
preparation for a new Regulation.

Opportunities,
risks and challenges for Europol.

This evaluation
has taken place at a time of significant changes in the area of Justice and
Home Affairs (JHA), a number of which are described here:

·
Reform to the legal basis for the European
Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of
the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) has been recently completed
and is now in the process of implementation, and amendments to Eurojust’s legal
basis and competency are likely. Reforms to Frontex, Eurojust and Europol introduce
risks of duplication, overlap and lack of coordination. Cooperation between the
European External Action Service (EEAS) and Europol is at an early stage of
development, but there are many opportunities for future partnership.

·
Supervision of JHA agencies is increasingly
under discussion and the role of the European Parliament in this respect is
likely to be developed in the coming years. Many benefits could flow from
parliamentary supervision, but at the same time there are concerns about the
supervision of operational matters.

·
The climate of austerity means restrictions on
Europol’s budget and the possibility of severe cuts to the budgets of national
law enforcement agencies. However, at the same time Member States’ demands for
support from Europol are growing, and Europol’s status as an entity of the EU
has led to increased requests for analysis and other forms of support from the
European Commission and Council working groups.

Given this
environment, some of the conclusions of this evaluation relate to the way in
which Europol monitors its environment in order to have the best possible
information about the risks, opportunities and demands coming its way. For
example:

·
Europol should continue to monitor closely the
demands placed upon it by EU and Member State stakeholders;

·
the risk of overlap, duplication and even
contradiction with other JHA agencies should be monitored, as should proposed
changes to other agencies;

·
consideration should be given to developing a
strategy which anticipates future changes to how Europol is held to account,
and in particular, possible changes to the role of the European Parliament.

The evaluation
draws up a short list of possible changes to Europol’s legal basis to
facilitate information sharing and improved data management. While the
evaluation does not support the proposition, advocated by some participants in
the research, of imposing information-sharing obligations on Member States,
some changes are recommended. These are listed briefly below, with important
limitations and caveats explained elsewhere in the report.

·
Consideration should be given to removing
statutory definitions of separate data processing systems in a future Europol
Regulation, in order to introduce flexibility regarding the design of
processing environments.

·
Consideration should be given to amending the
provisions in Article 25(4) of the ECD to possibly allow Europol to share
personal data gathered from publicly available sources with third parties where
there is no operational agreement, provided that certain safeguards and
conditions are met.

·
Consideration should be given to amending
Article 10(3) of the ECD in order to allow new systems for processing personal
data to include sensitive, personal data, with the necessary data protection
safeguards.

·
Consideration should be given to the possibility
of permitting direct information exchange with private entities in some
prescribed circumstances.

Of all the
evaluation questions, issues regarding Staff Regulations at Europol received
the most negative response.

There was a strong
consensus that the EU Staff Regulations are not fit for purpose and that they
impede the ability of Europol staff to support 24/7 operational policing in
Member States. As well as a need for better quantification of the impact of the
Staff Regulations, the following recommendations were made by the evaluation
team relating to staffing at Europol.

·
Europol should consider whether it is making
best use of law enforcement officials who have worked in Europol and have now
returned to their Member States – such individuals could play a role in
awareness-raising.

·
An analysis of the incompatibilities in career
progression structures between Europol and national law enforcement authorities
should be conducted to allow Europol to work with Member States to ensure that
there are incentives for the most highly skilled law enforcement officers to
spend time at Europol.

The evaluation
identifies some areas in which Europol’s competency could be expanded.

The evaluation
expresses caution regarding potential extensions of Europol’s mandate.

Article 88 TFEU
states that Europol should support Member States, and the principle of
subsidiarity is important in evaluating potential changes to Europol’s mandate.
Further, there is a risk that any evidence collected by Europol would not
comply with Member State-level procedural rules governing the admissibility of
evidence, which would diminish the value of such information for operational
law enforcement within Member States.

With these caveats
in mind, the report includes the following two recommendations:

·
the future Europol Regulation should provide
greater powers for Europol to support investigations and operational
activities, possibly with a capability to provide funding;

·
the decision to host the European Cyber Crime
Centre (EC3) at Europol will create new demands upon the organisation. The
European Commission should evaluate whether Europol’s current legal framework
enables an EC3 to fulfil its objectives and carry out planned activities.

More information about
each of these recommendations and conclusions can be found in the report
summary, and in each of the substantive sections of the report. The evaluation
has focused on the implementation of the ECD and the activities carried out by
Europol. It has engaged with a range of stakeholders in relation to topics
spanning Europol’s function, legal basis and activities. This report is
complemented by recent debates in the Standing Committee on Operational
Cooperation on Internal Security (COSI) on the future requirements of Europol
in the context of the European Internal Security Strategy. These debates seek
to develop a ‘visionary approach on Europol’s future role and tasks’. Many of
the issues identified and explored in this evaluation are articulated in those
debates.

Annex 2

Summary of the stakeholders' consultations

Summary
of the stakeholders' consultations

External
stakeholders:

Law enforcement
representatives from the Member States' were consulted on 17 February and on 11
April in the Standing Committee on Internal Security (COSI) and on 12 March in
the context of a meeting of experts. Whilst the first meeting was a pure
orientation discussion on the requirements of the "users" of Europol,
the second and third meeting focused on a number of preliminary ideas put
forward by the Commission services in the context of its internal reflections.
Document 8261/12 JAI of 29 March 2012 was issued to members of the COSI with
the purpose of guiding a brainstorming on the objectives that a future Europol
should achieve. It was part of the systematic exchanges between DG HOME and one
of its main interlocutors in the Council.

These
consultations produced the following responses:

- No MS requested
a widening in Europol's mandate

- Several MSs
acknowledged that MSs should provide more information to Europol and that the
latter is not exploiting its full potential in the area of data processing

- Most MSs favour
the notion of financial incentives targeted towards investigations, rather than
mandatory provisions, however concentrating the efforts on priority crime areas
was welcomed by some.

- Most MSs wished
to ensure that if Europol's access to private sector-held information is
facilitated, the ENUs should not be bypassed.

- For most MSs,
data management should be technically open for Europol to arrange, provided
data protection safeguards are ensured.

- For most MSs, it
is essential that Europol can continue to exchange data with 3rd countries.

- the EDPS
indicated that it should be entrusted with the external supervision of
Europol's data processing activities

- the JSB
indicated that it has contributed over the years to strengthening the
application of Europol's data protection regime on a day-to-day basis. It
underlined its own specific expertise of the field of data processing for law
enforcement purposes.

- Representatives
of the LIBE Committee agreed to the need to stimulate more information sharing
with Europol; cooperation with third countries should be ensured and follow a
more simple mechanism. High data protection standards should be guaranteed and
Europol should be subject to greater parliamentary controls.

Representatives of
national Parliaments recognized the need to improve information sharing with
Europol; incentives of a financial nature were considered more desirable than
mandatory provisions. Direct exchanges with the private sector were considered
valuable to fight, notably, cybercrime. Europol's cooperation with 3rd
countries should not replace bilateral agreements.

Internal
stakeholders:

Apart from SG, SJ
and BUDG, DG JUST, DGHR, OLAF, DG TAXUD and EEAS were members of the
interservice group for the steering of the Impact Assessment. A first
discussion on policy options took place on 8 March. This allowed to better
identify the problems that need addressing through Europol's reform and to
begin formulating objectives. A preliminary draft impact assessment was
submitted to the group ahead of the meeting on 2 May. In the meantime, members
had received the second interim report by RAND. On 11 June, a discussion on a
new version of the draft impact assessment took place and following on from
written comments provided by JUST, EEAS and SJ, the text was further amended.

Annex 3

Examples on how Europol supports the Member States' law enforcement
authorities

          I.          OPERATION
GOLF

Twenty eight children
were rescued as part of a major joint operation led by the UK Metropolitan
Police and Europol. The operation, finalised in October 2010, was part of a
wider investigation called Operation Golf, which consisted of a Joint
Investigation Team (JIT) between the Metropolitan Police and the Romanian
National Police. The aim of the JIT was to tackle a specific Romanian organised
crime network that was trafficking and exploiting children from the Roma
community. To date, the investigation has led to the arrest of 126 individuals.
The offences include: trafficking human beings (including internal trafficking
in the UK), money laundering, benefit fraud, child neglect, perverting the
course of justice, theft and handling of stolen goods. Court cases are ongoing.
The operation's primary aim was to safeguard the potential child victims and
involved 16 addresses being searched in Ilford, Essex. The children found were
taken to a dedicated centre staffed by child protection experts from the
police, the local authority and local health trust, where individual
assessments were made on each child. The assessment process examined the
welfare of the children and sought to identify if they had been subject to
exploitation and/or neglect. Europol was an active member of the Joint
Investigation Team (JIT) and provided assistance to the competent authorities
by:

Giving expert advice on setting up the JIT and the
planning of strategic and operational activities.
Ensuring
analytical support throughout the whole investigation. One of the key
outcomes from this analysis was the identification and prioritisation of
the main targets of the organised crime group, both in Romania and the UK.
Providing
on-the-spot assistance through the deployment of its mobile office, in the
UK and Romania on four occasions. Each time, real-time checks were carried
out on the database to support intelligence gathering operations and
coercive British and Romanian police actions (searches and arrests).
Drafting
and disseminating 67 analysis reports.
Identifying
key links to other EU countries, especially Belgium and Spain.
The quality and quantity of analysis provided by
Europol was crucial to the progress of the case. Europol is expected to
provide further support in the near future.

II.      HUMAN
TRAFFICKING OPERATION

In November 2010,
Europol supported Austrian and Hungarian police in rescuing victims of sex
trafficking and arresting the organisers of the human trafficking network. Five
young women, from Hungary and Romania, were being kept as sex slaves in a house
in southern Hungary and intimidated with sexual, physical and psychological
abuse. The women were then moved to Austria, where they were forced into
prostitution and again locked-up without any contact with friends and family.
They were forced to have sex with 15-20 clients a day and were routinely abused
by their captors. These women came from impoverished backgrounds and were
'recruited' with false promises of domestic work. As a result of the operation,
Hungarian police arrested the main suspect, a 54-year-old Hungarian and his
36-year-old female Hungarian accomplice. During house searches, police seized
guns, a considerable amount of cash, jewellery, and other assets worth several
thousand euros. In addition, IT and communication equipment was seized, along
with a large amount of evidence relating to criminal activities over the last
10 years.

Europol sent its expert
to the field to coordinate simultaneous operations in both the country of
origin and destination. Moreover, dedicated operational analysis was provided
by Europol which helped to detect international links through cross-checks on
victims with data already held in the Europol databases, as well as
establishing links with other reported cases. Europol also analysed data from
itemised bills and financial transactions gathered during the day of action
which resulted in more charges being brought against the suspects.

III.    OPERATION
PHANTOM

In February 2010 Europol
assisted German Police in arresting five facilitators of illegal immigration,
including three main suspects. During the operation, investigators searched 18
premises in Berlin, Brandenburg and Sachsen. Besides evidential material, more
than 55 000 euros in cash, several computers, a hand weapon and cocaine were
seized. Nine illegal immigrants from Vietnam were found during the house
searches.

The investigations,
supported by Europol, focused on more than 20 suspects who smuggled illegal
immigrants with a 'guarantee' that the immigrants would reach their final
destination, even when previous smuggling attempts had failed. The price
charged for the entire journey was around 10 000 euros and would take from a
few days up to many weeks. The families of the illegal immigrants often would
have sold their property or assets to fund the journey.

In some cases the
immigrants illegally sold commodities such as cigarettes to finance their
onward journey to Western Europe - mainly France and the United Kingdom.
According to reports from some of the smuggled immigrants, the UK is considered
a dream destination by the Vietnamese as they can readily earn money as
gardeners tending and protecting illegal cannabis plantations.

This investigation
targeted a criminal network operating across Europe. The Czech Republic, France,
Hungary, Slovakia and United Kingdom ran parallel investigations. More than 250
investigators from the German Federal Police and Berlin Police took part in
this extensive operation.

Europol experts were
present at the operational coordination centre to provide technical expertise
and operational analysis support, due to the large quantity of house searches
carried out. During the investigation phase, Europol prepared several
intelligence reports and facilitated the exchange of intelligence, which also
resulted in the discovery of new criminal links.

IV.     OPERATION
FORECOURT

Intelligence indicated
that an organised crime group was using drivers, working for a legitimate
transport company, to smuggle illicit tobacco products into the UK. The drivers
stopped in Luxembourg en route to the UK to load up with hand-rolling tobacco.
They were using the cover of their company vehicles and frequent trips to the
UK to facilitate the imports.

Europol analysed key
intelligence contributions which pinpointed the criminals' modus operandi and
helped to identify the source of the tobacco supply, people and vehicles
involved.

The operation concluded
with two arrests and the seizure of nearly two tonnes of hand-rolling tobacco
by the UK authorities. This prevented duty and tax losses of around €277 000.

V.      OPERATION
ATHENA II

Two Europol officers and
the mobile office supported the Spanish General Customs Directorate with
Operation Athena II in April 2010. Operation Athena II was a joint customs
operation targeting the cross-border movement of cash and other monetary
instruments used by criminal organisations for financing of their criminal
activities and laundering of criminal proceeds. Customs authorities from 19 EU
and non-EU countries (namely Algeria, Morocco, Norway, Tunisia and the USA)
participated, along with international agencies like Europol, Interpol and the
World Customs Organization. This operation led to:

The issuing of warning
messages (reports on people who declared they were travelling with over €10
000, as well as alerts on suspicious cash movements)

The issuing of seizure
messages (used to report detections and seizures of cash or other monetary
instruments exceeding €10 000)

Cash seizures totalling
€5.5 million and cash warnings which came to €26.5 million

Europol dealing with 110
warning messages and 128 seizure messages and performing searches in Europol
systems which resulted in various links

The generation of four
links by Europol that proved a staggering amount of cash was being moved across
two EU countries.

VI.     OPERATION
TEX – COSPOL INITIATIVE

Since 2005, Europol has
supported the Synthetic Drugs Group of COSPOL (Comprehensive Operational
Strategic Planning for the Police). In February 2010, based on Europol analysis
and ongoing inquiries in several Member States, COSPOL selected one specific
'high-value target' (HVT) for joint investigation. Together with Belgium,
Germany and the Netherlands, Europol initiated a joint operation focusing on
the organised crime group that was led by the selected HVT involved in the
large-scale production of synthetic drugs. In May 2010, it became clear that
the suspects were ready to start up their synthetic drug production process in
Belgium. Europol's operational and technical support was requested by the
Belgian Federal Police of Hasselt, to potentially dismantle the illegal
production site. Europol sent 'on-the-spot' support and provided detailed
technical investigation and expertise. As a result, the Hasselt Federal Police,
in close cooperation with Europol, dismantled a large sophisticated illicit
drug laboratory, which had the potential to produce hundreds of kilograms of
synthetic drugs. The European street value of such production was estimated to
be several million euros. Six main suspects were arrested in Belgium and large
quantities of chemicals were seized. At the same time, the Dutch judicial
authorities carried out house searches and seized more synthetic drugs,
cocaine, large amounts of money and chemicals. Links to other illegal synthetic
drug production sites (e.g. in Germany and the Netherlands) have been already
identified via the Europol Illicit Laboratory Comparison System. Europol was
involved in this successful operation from the very start, in February 2010, in
terms of initiating the joint targeting of the HVT. During the operation,
Europol provided 13 analytical reports and one specialist report to
investigators. Two operational in-house meetings and on-the-spot technical
support were also provided. As a result of these joint activities, the main
targets were sentenced to six years in prison.

VII.   OPERATIONAL
AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO ESTONIA

On 22 September 2010, an
air freight cargo consignment containing 217.3 kilos of coffee powder arrived
in Estonia from Venezuela via Germany. German Customs had already found that
the consignment tested positive for cocaine and in cooperation with the
investigation department of the Estonian Tax and Customs Board, a controlled
delivery was organised. Europol promptly provided two very comprehensive
reports on cocaine conversion laboratories, cocaine extraction and conversion
procedures, chemicals and equipment used, and details on the risks involved
during the cocaine extraction and conversion process. In addition to daily
contact, additional information was also provided on laboratories discovered in
other EU countries where similar consignments had been processed. Based on
these reports and associated advice, and during subsequent house searches,
investigators found and identified a list of chemicals used for the conversion
and purification of cocaine. In total, 48 kilos of cocaine were seized, while
two Estonian citizens and two others are suspected of drug-related crimes.
Three further suspects have been in custody at the prosecutor's request.

Annex
4

An
example illustrating the problem with linking and analysing data spread over
different databases

Presented here is the current situation, following the transfer to the new AWF Concept (NAC). Present are the two AWFs Counter Terrorism and Serious and Organized Crime, as well as the Europol Information System. From an analytical point of view the current legal framework allows analysis only within the scope of an individual AWF. This limits the analysis to the borders defined by the scope of the AWF itself. At present this means therefore that no analysis can be conducted between Serious and Organized Crime and Terrorism.

In this example, Bart has been identified as being present, in both AWF SOC and CT, as well as in the EIS.

Further, Bart in AWF SOC has been linked to his wife called Maria, a mobile phone, and a car belonging to an unknown person. In the EIS, he is associated with a different mobile phone, and in AWF CT he is linked to a woman called Linda, a VISA card, and an unknown associate.

In the current present framework Europol is not aware of these different links and the analyst of e.g. the AWF CT, knows nothing of the mobile phone or contact or car his colleague working in AWF SOC has identified. Consequently, we cannot see that as per this example, the unknown owner of the car linked to Bart in AWF SOC is the same unknown associate linked to Bart in AWF CT. Further, we also do not know that the mobile phone linked to Bart in the EIS in fact stems from Maria, Bart’s wife as identified in AWF SOC.

Annex
5

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of the Europol's
Work Programme  relating to information exchange since the entry into force of
the Europol Council Decision

Multi-annual KPIs set out in ‘Implementing the Europol Strategy’ || Baseline (2009) || Target for 2010 || 2010 data || Was target met?

Number of objects in the Information System || 135,489 objects || 169,361 (increase of 25 per cent) || 174,459 objects ||  Increase of 28 per cent

EIS searches by Member States || 131,576 searches || 164,470 (increase of 25 per cent) || 121,774 searches ||  Decrease of approximately 7 per cent

RAND
report, p.48

Annex 6

Overview of issues raised by RAND (in
addition to Transversal issues described under section.5.2) which will not be
tackled in this impact assessment

1.
Some issues could not
be addressed at the EU level: the national rules regarding employment at
Europol which are  inconsistent between countries.

2.
A possibility of overlap with other Justice and
Home Affairs' agencies has been identified as a future risk by the RAND report[82]. The question of the merger
with CEPOL and exploiting synergies between training and operational work is
subject to an impact assessment with CEPOL. The possible risks of overlap with
other agencies will need to be monitored when initiatives on other JHA agencies
are taken. To enhance inter-agency cooperation with Eurojust, the future
EUROPOL regulation will further specify the existing obligation of Europol to
inform Eurojust in case Europol asks a Member State to initiate an
investigation. Such improved cooperation will bring benefits to the EU fight
against the crime. Whilst Europol will address its request to Member States'
law enforcement authorities, Eurojust, based on the information supplied by
Europol, should address the prosecution authorities, if appropriate. The future
draft EUROJUST Regulation will have to take these aspects into account.

3.
The implications of the decision to host the
Cybercrime Centre by Europol, in particular on the budget and resources, will
be subject to a dedicated ex-ante analysis. The question of the Cybercrime
Centre does not fall within the core of the Europol's reform which is assessed
here (although the reform of Europol increasing
its effectiveness, in particular exchanges of data with private parties will
allow the Cybercrime Centre to fulfil its function).

4.
This impact assessment will not analyse the
possibility of merging with CEPOL which is subject to a detailed impact
assessment of the future regulation on CEPOL. From the point of view of
Europol, it has never been a problem and the current division of competence on
trainings between CEPOL and Europol work well. This has been confirmed by the
RAND report.

Annex 7

2010 Main operational outcomes in euro
counterfeiting

Money transferred 2010: 158.054euro

The investigations supported financially by Europol resulted with
the dismantling of five illegal print shops (Colombia, Italy, Bulgaria).

During the financially supported operations 83 persons were jailed.
Counterfeit euro banknotes with the denomination of 20, 50 and 100, in the face
value of more than 6.2 million euro, were seized. Furthermore, counterfeit US
dollar, Colombian peso and all kinds of raw materials and equipments used for
producing counterfeit currency, were confiscated in the frame of the supported
investigations.

On 27 January 2010, in Bogota (Colombia), an illegal print shop was
dismantled by the Colombian National Police (DIJIN) supported by the Spanish
BIBE and Europol.

Counterfeit 50 euro notes to the value of more than 1.2 million euro
were seized, along with 312.000 counterfeit Colombian peso, an offset machine,
printing plates, a computer and other materials to be used for the production
of counterfeit currency.

The counterfeit banknotes were intended for distribution in Europe.
The investigation started in 2009 and was concluded with the arrest of a person
responsible for the production and logistical distribution of the forged notes.
The smuggling of counterfeit euro banknotes by airmail was also disrupted.

On the 17 April 2010, in Bogota (Colombia) the Colombian National
Police with the Spanish BIBE and Europol dismantled another print shop and
seized 297.200 counterfeit 100 euro banknotes (finalized or still in the
printing process), 300.000 counterfeit 100 US dollar notes and counterfeit
Colombian pesos. In frame of the house searches police found two full set of
equipments (inks, stamps, three printing machines, guillotines, two PCs etc.)
used for counterfeiting activities.

On 22 April 2010, 13 people suspected of distributing counterfeit
euro banknotes in the EU have been arrested in Poland, with the support of
Europol. The raid on several addresses in the area of Lublin involved around
120 Polish police officers.

The operation was part of a 3–year investigation which has focused
on tracking down the criminals behind one of the largest distribution networks
of counterfeit 20, 50 and 100 euro banknotes. In total more than 80 members of
the criminal group, with branches in several countries, have been arrested
during the whole investigation.

On 11 August 2010 in Naples (Italy), the Anti Currency
Counterfeiting Unit of the Carabinieri dismantled an illegal print shop and
seized 4.5 million counterfeit euro in 50 euro denomination. The targeted OCG is
responsible for the production of the most numerous counterfeit euro classes
distributed in Europe.

On 21 October 2010, the German authorities arrested eight people
involved in the procurement and distribution of counterfeit 20, 50 and 100 euro
banknotes from Italy to Germany. The German police also seized 108.250 euro in
counterfeit banknotes.

On 17 December 2010, the French Gendarmerie seized 11.004 pieces of
counterfeit 20 euro banknotes and arrested five suspects. The investigation is
still ongoing in order to dismantle the print shop producing the most dangerous
euro counterfeit in France and the third in Europe.

2011 Main
operational outcome

Money
transferred 2011: 159,558 (+EUR 5,000\*)

Nr of supported police measures: 48

Arrested people: more than 50

Print shops dismantled: 6 (+1 mint shop)

Counterfeits seized: EUR 2.3 M

\*Please note that the money transfer (EUR 5,000) in the last case of
2011 could only be initiated in January 2012 due to our Christmas break,
however the payment was authorised and the budget commitment made on 22
December 2011. Therefore, the 2012 budget was charged with the above amount.

The figures presented above are "not official" yet as the
FS annual report is still being drafted. Thus adjustments are still possible.

Annex 8

The assessed costs of a one-day training of law enforcement officers
in two Member States selected by the Commission on the basis of different GDP

Latvia:

Number of police
officers:         6.450\*

Number of border
guards:         2.453\*

Total :                                       8.903

1% = 89 officers

Costs 1 training
day = € 7,-

Total costs 1-day
training on Europol:   89 x €7 = € 623,-

Sweden:

Number of police
officers 20.666\*

1% = 206 police
officers

Costs 1 training
day = € 66,7

Total costs 1-day
training on Europol:   206 x € 66,7 = € 13.740,20

\*Based on recent
Schengen evaluation reports.

[1]              Council Decision
(2009/371/JHA)of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office
(Europol)

[2]              The Stockholm
Programme: An Open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting Citizens, OJ C 115,
4.5.2010, p. 1–38

[3]              The European
Council also invited the Commission to "examine how it could be ensured
that Europol receives information from Member States law enforcement
authorities so that the Member States can make full use of Europol
capacities".

[4] http://europa.eu/agencies/documents/joint\_statement\_and\_common\_approach\_2012\_en.pdf

[5]              Evaluation of
the implementation of the Europol Council Decision and if Europol's activities,
RAND Europe. The report has been  published on the Europol's website: https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/rand\_evaluation\_report.pdf

[6]              COSI consists of
high level representatives of Member States, Europol and Eurojust.

[7]              Representatives
of law enforcement authorities within Member States, of Europol, Europol
National Units and Eurojust.

[8]              The Member
States that have provided written comments were: France, Poland, the
Netherlands, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Finland, Sweden, Germany and
Italy.

[9]              Comprising of
HOME, JUST, SG, LS, IAS, BUDG, HR, TAXUD (observer), OLAF and EEAS

[10]             Europol Review,
general report on Europol Activities, 2012, p.4

[11]             Europol Review, general Report
on Europol Activities, 2011, p.7

[12]             Convention based
on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of a
European Police Office (Europol Convention), OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 2–32

[13]             The Council
Decision entered into force on 1.1.2010.

[14]             Criminal
intelligence is information compiled, analyzed, and/or disseminated in an
effort to anticipate, prevent, or monitor criminal activity.

[15]             Last year Europol supported
this way 694 Member States' investigations noting 48,8% increase of directly
supported or initiated investigations compared to 2010.

[16]             In 2011, Europol used its
information capabilities and operational expertise to support competent
authorities in EU Member States in 13,697 cases initiated; an increase of 17%
over 2010. Europol initiated or actively supported a total of 694 (619 of which
were ongoing) MS investigations (compared to
a total of 416 in 2010). In order to support Member States’ investigations
Europol produced 716 hit notifications, 984 cross match reports, 376 knowledge
products and 340 operational analysis reports.  See:
Annual Activity Report, Europol 2011, p. 7.

[17]             RAND report, p. XVI

[18]             RAND report, p. XVI

[19]             The overview of such
initiatives could be found in the Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament and the Council "Overview of information management in
the area of freedom security and justice", COM (2010) 385 final.

[20]  Council conclusions of 9 and 10 June
2011.

[21]             Wills A.,
Vermeulen M., Born H., Scheinin M. and Wiebusch M. (2011), Parliamentary
Oversight of Security and Intelligence agencies in the European Union.
Brussels, European Parliament, p.47

[22]             Artilce 8 of the Council
Decision.

[23]             RAND report, p.47. Also the representatives of the Member States, including liaison
officers and Heads of Europol's National Units shared this view. RAND report,
p. 47 RAND
asked its interviewees "What is the extent if Member States' commitment to
share information with Europol?". The most common replies were "to a
very limited extend" (34%) or "to some extent" (33%). Compared
to other questions in the survey, a very small proportion of respondents
answered "don't know". See: RAND report, p. 48.

[24]             Ibidem.

[25]             De Moor and
Vermeulen, 2010a, p. 1099; Fägersten, 2010; Wills et al., 2011, p. 47.

[26]             The five Member States which
have provided the most information to the Europol Information System (EIS)
so far have on average uploaded data on 1753 objects [information on e.g.
persons, type of offences committed, registration plates] per million
inhabitants. At the same time the five Member States which have so far supplied
the fewest data have on average uploaded data on only 35 objects per million
inhabitants.

                Moreover,
in 2011, the five Member States that conducted the highest number of searches
in the EIS made on average 1096 searches per million inhabitants. The five
Member States that conducted the lowest number of searches made in average 12
searches per million inhabitants (See: EIS report 2011).

                Similarly,
the levels of contribution by Member States to the Analysis Work Files
(AWFs), the most important of Europol's current databases combining data
with intelligence, show a considerable discrepancy. Five Member States provide
more than half of all information that is fed to AWFs by Member States, third
countries and European agencies. Contributions by 11 Member States account for
almost 80% of information fed into AWFs (Source: Statistics provided by
Europol).

                To
further corroborate concerns about information sharing by Member States, Table
1 presents two of the multi-annual key performance indicators (KPIs) used by
Europol to monitor the implementation of its Multiannual Strategy. This shows
that in 2010, targets were met for indicators on the number of objects in the
EIS, but the target for searches by Member States was not reached (see detailed
data in Annex 4).

[27] Council Conclusions on the increased and
more effective  use of the Europol Information System,  in the fight against
cross-border crime, 7-8 June 2012

[28]             SIENA could be
used to send data which falls within or outside of Europol’s mandate. If data
concern crimes which are not covered by Europol’s mandate, then the transfer
does not involve Europol. It is estimated though that number of such cases is
overall marginal comparing to whole volume of data sent via SIENA, as the
mandate of Europol is very broad.

[29]             In other words this means that Europol's databases
have not been checked nor its operational units consulted, and that Europol was
not informed about bilateral exchanges of information between Member States.

[30]             Europol's Annual
Report 2011

[31]             Article 8 of the
Europol's Council Decision contains several provisions in this respect which
should be read jointly, e.g. Article 8 point "Member States shall take the
necessary measures to ensure that their national unites are able to fulfil the
tasks…", Article 8 point 4 "The national units shall supply Europol
on their own initiative with the information and intelligence necessary for it
to carry its tasks". The words “on their own initiative” are a synonymous
with “spontaneous” provision of information. RAND report also
implies that there is no obligation upon Member States. The Commission does not
share this view.

[32]             Some Member
States (minority) do not share the Commission's and other Member States'
interpretation of Article 8 of the Council Decision which is described in the
footnote above.

[33]             COSI meeting on 11 April and
written contributions of some Member States.

[34]             RAND report, p. 50

[35]             Examples of initiatives
(legislative and non) in the field:

- Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA on
Joint Investigation Teams – one of its most notable advantages is the direct
sharing of information between members

-Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA on
simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law
enforcement authorities of the EU;

- Council Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border
cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross border crime –this
instrument aims to introduce
procedures for promoting fast and efficient means of data exchange on automated
DNA analysis files, automated fingerprint identification systems and vehicle
registration data.

-
Within the "General Programme on Security and Safeguarding Liberties"
(2007-2013), the specific financial programme "Prevention and fight
against Crime" has systematically included its annual work programmes
priorities linked to enhancing information exchange. Calls for proposals
encourage the submission of projects geared towards improving Member States'
exchange of data between each other and also with Europol.

[36] Article 12 par. 1 ECD

[37]                    Article 12 par.2
contains the whole and exhaustive list of personal data that could be stored in
the EIS.

[38]                    The Europol
Council Decision has come up with a possibility for national competent
authorities to access indirectly EIS.

[39]                    Handling codes
are means of protecting information source. The codes ensure security of the
information and its safe and adequate processing, in accordance with the wishes
of the owner of the information, and with full respect to the national legal
rules of the Member States. The handling codes indicate what can be done with
given information and who has access to in the future.

[40] The data management system for Europol was established in 1999 on
the basis of the Europol's Convention.

[41] RAND report,    p. 83

[42]  RAND p. 81-83

[43] Interview with an analyst at Europol.

[44]                   See : Eurobarometer 75, Spring 2011, p. 13

[45]                   See: Eurobarometer 75, Spring 2011, p. 58.

[46]                   Art.88 par.2 of the Treaty states: The European Parliament and the
Council, by means of regulations adopted in accordance with the ordinary
legislative procedure, shall determine Europol’s structure, operation, field of
action and tasks. These tasks may include:            
(a) the collection, storage, processing,
analysis and exchange of information, in particular that forwarded by the
authorities of the Member States or third countries or bodies;

(b) the coordination, organisation and
implementation of investigative and operational action carried out jointly with
the Member States’ competent authorities or in the context of joint investigative
teams, where appropriate in liaison with Eurojust.

These regulations shall also lay down the procedures for scrutiny of
Europol’s activities by the European Parliament, together with national
Parliaments.

[47]                   Parliamentary scrutiny and governance are not dealt with in this
impact assessment. For parliamentary scrutiny, see footnote 2. As to governance
Europol will need to comply with the common approach on decentralised agencies
reached by the three EU institutions on 12 June 2012.

[48]                   See: section 4.3.1 of the Stockholm Programme. In the same section of
the document the European Council invited for example the Commission to
"examine how it could be ensured that Europol receives information from
Member States law enforcement authorities so that the Member States can make
full use of Europol capacities".

[49]             COM (2010) 573 of 19 October
2010.

[50]             See Article 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention of Human
Rights, as well as Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union.

[51]             The RAND report also seems to
go as well in the direction of exploiting the possibilities offered by the
Swedish Initiative and other information sharing instruments. See: RAND report,
Recommendation 4, p. XXV.

[52]                   The EU policy cycle for organised and serious international crime is
a tool to streamline the EU response to crime. This policy cycle identifies the
Organised Crime Threat Assessment made by Europol as the basis for the
identification of EU crime priorities. Thereafter, a coherent EU response is
elaborated by the Member States , EU institutions and agencies in order to
address those priorities. Council conclusions on the creation and
implementation of a EU policy cycle for organised and serious international
crime, 3043rd JUSTICE and HOME AFFAIRS Council Meeting, Brussels, 8 and 9
November 2010

[53]                   The financial support for euro-counterfeiting area suggests that
small amount of money to pay e.g. informers, fictitious purchases, to offer
flash money strengthen the will of Member States to share information with
Europol. This in turn has proven to both convince Member States on the quality
of Europol’s products and services and created a practice of close cooperation.

[54]                   This concept is based upon the concept used for the access of Europol
to the Schengen Information System.

[55]                   The "hit-no-hit" system informs only if and which Member
State has data. It does not deliver data itself. A follow-up request is
necessary to receive the content of data. This request has to have an
appropriate legal basis.

[56]                   Under Article 8 par.4 b of the Europol Council Decision provides
already a possibility for Europol to request Member States for information.
This provision would be replicated in the new regulation.

[57]             the Commission
Communication of 17 December 2010 COM (2010) 776 final.

[58]             Endorsed 2012 by the three
institutions in July 2012

[59]             One could also imagine another
option- that JSB in view of its expertise supervises processing of operational
data by Europol, whereas EDPS supervises processing of staff data. EDPS
supervises protection of data of staff of other agencies, and the rules applied
to Europol's staff are the same like those applied to the other agencies.

[60]                   Obviously other data protection issues are also important and will be
also covered in the Regulation, i.a. the rights of the data subject (e.g. the
right for access, correction, deletion, and appeal to the independent data
protection supervisor, redress and compensation), data security, logging,
documentation, etc. However, as Europol enjoys already a robust data protection
regime, they would build upon the existing regime. Therefore, their impact
assessment is redundant. The future Regulation will also specify that the Court
of Justice has jurisdiction to hear all disputed which relate to the provisions
of this Regulation, including claims for damages, as this is required by
Article 10 par.2 of the Protocol 36 on transitional provisions attached to the
Treaty of Lisbon. As Europol will be aligned with other institutions and
agencies, a natural or legal person will have judicial remedies against
Europol’s acts under Article 263 par.4 of TFEU (a right to institute
proceedings in front of the Court of Justice against an act addressed to that
person or which is of direct and individual concern to him). Any person who has
suffered damage because unlawful processing operation or any action
incompatible with the Regulation on Europol will have a right to have the
damage made good in accordance with Art. 340 of the Treaty.

[61]             See: Case 518/07
Commission v. Germany

[62]             The ECJ stated that
"independence precludes not only any influence exercised by the supervised
bodies, but also any directions or any other external influence, whether direct
or indirect, which could call into question the performance by those
[supervisory] authorities of their task consisting of establishing a fair
balance between the protection of the right to private life and the free
movement of personal data". See: Case 518/07 Commission v. Germany, point.
1

[63]                   It is interesting to note that the Joint Supervisory Body of
Eurojust, contrary to the Europol’s one, has the effective enforcement powers-
Art. 23 par.7 stipulates that “if the JSB considers that a decision taken by
Eurojust or the processing of data by it is not compatible with this Decision,
the matter shall be referred to Eurojust, which shall accept the decision of
the JSB”. Par.8 adds that “Decisions of the JSB shall be final and binding on
Eurojust”.

[64]                   Article 34 par.1 of the Europol Council Decision

[65]                   The European Data Protection Supervisor is established on the basis
of the Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the
processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the
free movement of such data

[66]                   Art.34.par.1, sentence 1 and 2: “The independent Joint Supervisory
Body shall be set up to review the activities of Europol in order to ensure
that the rights of the individual are not violated by storage, processing and
use of the data held by Europol. In addition, the Joint Supervisory Body shall
monitor” the permissibility of the transmission of data originating from
Europol”.

[67]                   These are in particular: examining and commenting on the opening of
specific analysis work files; monitoring the permissibility of the transmission
of data originating from Europol; examining questions relating to
implementation and interpretation in connection with Europol's activities as
regards the processing and use of personal data; monitoring the transmission of
personal data to third partners; and drawing up harmonised proposals for common
solutions to existing problems.

[68]             The budget of JSB foreseen for
2013 amounts to 460 000 EUR. This covers all activities of members of the JSB.
In addition, we need to add the costs of the two administrative staff which are
currently paid by the Council..

[69]             This is based on the
assumption that the EDPS would need to employ additional staff at the equivalent
of 1 FTE.

[70]             To make the further comparison
of different options ratings of different impacts of the baseline is '0'
although in comparison with the status quo baseline option would have different
ratings.

[71]             At the meeting with law
enforcement experts of 12 March with law enforcement experts and at dedicated
meetings with Europol experts between September 2011 and April 2012 this aspect
was highlighted.

[72]             Almost all Member States and
national Parliaments consulted welcomed unconditionally the idea of financial
incentives and a monitoring mechanism, as long as the latter does not imply
costs. The idea of strengthening the obligation divides them.

[73] For details see the Impact assessment on
merging the European Police College (Cepol) and the European Police Office
(Europol) and implementing a European police training scheme for law
enforcement officials, accompanying this proposal.

[74] Data for 2009, http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=crim\_plce&lang=en

[75] See Annex 8.

[76] Communication on European Law Enforcement
Training Scheme, to be adopted together with the proposal for the regulation on
Europol.

[77] The consultancy budget was 57 140 EUR.

[78] RAND report, p. 83-84.

[79]             COM (2012) 673 final of 22.11.2010

[80]                   The 1st evaluation would take place 5 years after the agency has
started its operational phase. Subsequent evaluations will then be conducted
every 5 years and on the occasion of every second evaluation, the sunset/review
clause should be applied.

[81]             Europol Convention O.J 1995, C 316/2

[82]             The RAND report, p. XXXIII

Contents

1.     Introduction. 3

2.     Evaluation,
procedural issues and consultation. 4

2.1                 Evaluation
and preparatory studies. 4

2.2                 Data
gathering and expertise. 5

2.3                 Consultation
of stakeholders. 6

2.4                 The
relationship between EU-supported training and the standard of policing. 6

2.5                 Scrutiny
by the Commission Impact Assessment Board. 7

3.     Problem
definition. 9

3.1                 Context
and external drivers. 9

3.1.1           Overview
of the existing police training system in the EU and internationally and added
value of CEPOL  9

3.1.2           Driver
1: Increased political awareness of EU priorities for tackling cross-border
crime. 10

3.1.3           Driver
2: Legal and political developments in police cooperation and police learning. 11

3.2.                Defining
the problem.. 11

3.2.1           Problem
1: Knowledge deficit in the EU dimension of policing. 11

3.2.2           Problem
2: CEPOL's current governance and structure reduce effectiveness of training  13

3.3                 Who
is affected by these problems and in what way. 15

3.4                 Baseline
scenario. 15

3.5.                The
EU's right to act and subsidiarity. 16

4.     Policy
objectives. 17

4.1                 General
objective. 17

4.2                 Specific
and operational objectives. 17

5.     Description
of policy options. 18

5.1                 European
Law enforcement Training Scheme. 18

5.2                 Option
1 (Status quo): Promote European Law enforcement Training Scheme without
amendment to CEPOL's legal basis. 19

5.3                 Option
2: Member State-based training as part of an EU network. 19

5.4                 Option
3: Discontinue all EU financial support for training. 19

CEPOL would be
disbanded and EU would cease to allocate any funding for police training,
except sector-specific training by other agencies. Commission and Europol may
identify training needs which would fall to Member States to address. 19

5.5                 Option
4a: Partial transfer of CEPOL functions to Europol; CEPOL to implement LETS  20

5.6                 Option
4b: Functions of Europol and CEPOL merged in single agency; merged agency
(Europol) to implement LETS  20

In line with
exploratory discussions at service and political level, this option would
include the following: 21

5.7                 Option
5: Strengthening and streamlining CEPOL. 22

6.     Analysis
of likely impact of the policy options. 26

6.1                 Assessment
criteria. 26

6.2                 Methodology
and assumptions for estimating costs and benefits. 26

General remarks. 26

Key assumptions. 26

6.3                 Option
1: Status quo implement training scheme, no change to legal basis. 27

Security, crime and
police cooperation. 27

EU and national
authorities budgets. 27

Estimated costs and
benefits. 28

6.4                 Option
2: Member State-based training as part of an EU network. 28

Security, crime and
police cooperation. 28

EU and national
authorities' budgets. 29

Estimated costs and
benefits. 29

6.5                 Option
3: Member State based training. 29

Crime, police
cooperation and security. 29

EU and national
authorities' budgets. 29

Estimated costs and
benefits. 30

6.6                 Option
4a: Partial transfer of CEPOL functions to Europol 30

Crime, police
cooperation and security. 30

EU and national
authorities' budgets. 30

Estimated costs and
benefits. 30

6.7                 Option
4b: Full merger of CEPOL with Europol 31

Crime, police
cooperation and security. 31

EU and national
authorities' budgets. 32

Estimated costs and
benefits. 33

6.8                 Option
5 Strengthening and streamlining CEPOL and changing its legal basis. 33

Impact on quality,
delivery and effectiveness of police training. 33

EU and national
authorities' budgets. 33

Estimated costs and
benefits. 34

7.     Comparison
of policy options. 34

7.1                 Effectiveness
in meeting policy objectives. 34

Specific objective
1: Establish a clear framework for training police in accordance with EU
training needs, in line with the common approach to EU agencies. 34

Specific objective
2: Ensure better quality, more joined-up and more consistent training for law
enforcement officers in cross-border crime issues consistent with the proposed
reform of Europol 34

7.2                 Efficiency. 35

7.3                 Coherence
with other measures. 36

Implementation of
internal security strategy. 36

Reform of Europol 36

Common approach to
agencies. 36

7.4                 Summary
comparison table. 37

7.5                 Legislative
considerations. 37

7.6                 Identification
of the preferred policy option. 37

8.     Monitoring
and evaluation. 38

Annex A: Overview of
CEPOL

Annex B: 'Problem
tree' illustrating drivers and problems

Annex C: Detailed
cost calculations

Annex D: Explanation
of the approach to quantification of impacts

Annex E: Summary of
stakeholders views

Commission staff working document

Impact assessment on merging the European Police
College (Cepol) and the European Police Office (Europol) and implementing a
European police training scheme for law enforcement officials

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
and COUNCIL REGULATION

ON THE EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION AND TRAINING (EUROPOL) AND REPEALING COUNCIL
DECISIONS 2009/371/JHA AND 2005/681/JHA

1.       Introduction

This impact assessment accompanies the Commission
proposal to merge the European Police College or 'CEPOL'[1]
with the European Police Office (Europol),[2] and to
implement a European training scheme for law enforcement officials. This
proposal is intended to form part of a wider package with the reform of the
functions and governance of Europol by transforming it into the European Law
Enforcement Agency, for which a separate impact assessment has been prepared.

CEPOL is a decentralised agency of the EU, established
in 2005, in charge of operational activities related to the training of law
enforcement officers. It aims to facilitate cooperation between national police
forces by organising courses with a European policing dimension, defines common
curricula on specific topics requiring a more harmonised approach, disseminates
relevant research and best practice, coordinates an exchange programme for
senior police officers and trainers to acquire better understanding of legal
systems and working methods in other Member States, and may act as a partner in
EU grants for specific projects.

In the light of recent political and legal
developments at EU as well as national level, this document assesses options
for ensuring efficient and effective training for law enforcement officers to
help achieve the EU's objectives for police cooperation in the fight against
crime. In terms of the wider economic context at a time when national and EU
resources are scarce, the Commission is seeking to take all available
opportunities to rationalise efforts at EU level and to achieve efficiency gains,
notably in the framework of the current negotiations on the next multi-annual
financial framework. Although CEPOL is one of the smaller EU agencies, this is
one such opportunity. The Commission is seeking to follow the Common Approach
on EU decentralised agencies (hereafter referred to as 'the common approach')
endorsed by the European Parliament, Council and Commission in July 2012,
according to which "merging agencies should be considered in cases
where their respective tasks are overlapping, where synergies can be
contemplated or when agencies would be more efficient if inserted in a bigger
structure". The European Parliament has raised the issue of a
potential merger between CEPOL and Europol in its last three annual discharges,
in which it noted synergies and complementarities between both agencies, and
explicitly asked the Commission to investigate the costs and benefits of
merger. In the framework of MFF negotiations, the European Parliament also
addressed the issue of cost savings and possibility of pooling resources in
relation to EU decentralised agencies.

This impact assessment represents also an
ex-ante evaluation.

An overview of the evolution, structure and legal
basis of CEPOL is at Annex A.

2.       Evaluation, procedural issues
and consultation

This section
outlines how the Commission has sought to gather as much evidence as possible
of the current situation through consultation and external studies. It also
shows exactly which issues and recommendations of the evaluation results have
been taken over and which have been implemented without needing modifications
to the legal framework

2.1     Evaluation and preparatory
studies

An external five-year evaluation of CEPOL was carried
out in 2010-2011 and the final report submitted to the CEPOL Governing Board in
January 2011.[3] The Commission endorsed
the results of the evaluation and intends through its proposal to address the
recommendations which have not been fully implemented. The table below shows
exactly the evaluation's recommendations and issues and which ones have been
taken over.

Table 1:
Evaluation recommendations

Recommendation || Status

Clarify the CEPOL intervention logic through better definition of objectives and tasks and stronger alignment of capacity building in areas with a clear European cross-border dimension (i.e. priorities of the Internal Security Strategy[4]) || Partially implemented.

Streamline governance and rationalise structures and grant Commission full voting rights || Partially implemented. The Governing Board has decided to disband certain committees, and has amended the rules of procedure to reduce number of Governing Board meetings to two per year, increasing use of written procedures. The Commission does not have full voting rights as this requires amendment to the CEPOL Decision.

Strengthen the CEPOL Secretariat if appropriate through merging certain functions with Europol || Not implemented

Integrate justice and home affairs agencies’ activities aimed at capacity building for law enforcement in line with internal security strategy || Partially implemented as a result of Commission's recommendations to Governing Body to include courses on certain internal security priorities.

Assess Member States involvement with CEPOL in order to identify best practice and in particular whether CEPOL’s activities reach the police officers who need EU training || Ways of implementing this are being considered by the Governing Body

Place greater emphasis on quality by concentrate training on fewer themes and identify centres of EU training excellence where trainees can obtain accreditations || Under consideration.

Ensure that CEPOL’s objectives in annual work programme are measureable with objectively verifiable indicators, baselines for each activity and targets, supported by regular customer satisfaction surveys, following the example of EUROPOL. || CEPOL secretariat are considering appropriate metrics.

2.2     Data gathering and expertise

DG Home Affairs commissioned an external
study to support the preparation of this impact assessment which concluded in April
2012 and which addressed the recommendations in the evaluation through
interviews with and surveys of experts in police cooperation and training and
clients of CEPOL's services activities.[5] This study ran alongside
CEPOL's 2011 European Law enforcement Training Scheme 'mapping exercise', which
produced a comprehensive picture of who was doing what on law enforcement
training in the EU to identify gaps and overlaps, in order to inform the
development of a European Law enforcement Training Scheme for law enforcement
officials.[6]

An inter-service steering group involving
SG, SJ, DG HR, BUDG, JUST, IAS, OLAF and EEAS met to consider the draft impact
assessment on 15 March, 21 May, and 5 June 2012. Since the summer, discussions at
service and at political level have taken place, including on the possibility
of a merger between Europol and CEPOL, and on the detailed conditions and
provisions which would be necessary to ensure the viability of such a merger.

2.3     Consultation of stakeholders

DG Home consulted extensively with
practitioners, public authorities and other stakeholders in assessing the functioning of the CEPOL
Decision and its possible revision. The DG hosted on 7 February 2012 a workshop
with 20 experts, including representatives from UK, FR, DE, ES, DK, BE, SK, PL
and CEPOL, to consider the emerging findings and recommendations of the
external study and options for reform. On 3 May 2012, the DG hosted a
conference involving 60 participants from all Member States. Views were also
gathered during several workshops held in 2011 and 2012 on developing the European
Law enforcement Training Scheme for law enforcement officers.[7]
Several MEPs from different political groups were invited to attend the May
2012 conference, including the rapporteur. Options for reforming EU police
training, including the possibility of a merger of Europol and CEPOL, were
discussed at a meeting of the LIBE Committee on 6 November, and of a Council
working group (Comité de l'Article 36).

It was not considered necessary to launch a
public consultation due to the specialist, technical nature of this subject.

A summary of stakeholders views are at
Annex E.

2.4     The relationship between
EU-supported training and the standard of policing

This report does not argue that there are
any ‘fundamental problems in police performance and preparedness’, nor does it
attempt to gather evidence that policing across the EU is somehow ‘exacerbated’
by lack of EU-supported training or by inefficiencies in the structure or
governance of CEPOL. The report does however summon all the evidence which is
currently available, including the views of numerous law enforcement
professionals, which suggests that the EU could and should be doing
considerably more to address knowledge gaps, on the basis that better knowledge
of common challenges and the EU tools has a beneficial impact on cross-border
cooperation.

As the evaluation states, there is a lack
of quantitative data in the area of police performance, but both Member States
and participants’ feedback ‘indicates strong impact in terms of CEPOL activity
leading to stronger police cooperation between Member States, and stronger
engagement with other actors e.g. Europol.’ The results of capacity building
activities are intangible (e.g. enhanced awareness) and cannot be measured with
precision, and there may be no direct causal relationship between a specific
CEPOL activity and a result on an operational level. There are no comprehensive
statistics on international police cooperation. The difficulty of establishing
quantitative indicators with regard to effectiveness is compounded by the fact
that CEPOL’s activities may only target senior police officers, while most
practical police cooperation, such as effective exploitation of EU databases,
is performed by less senior officers).

These observations are in line with the
general evaluation of decentralised EU agencies (including CEPOL and Europol),
which suggested qualitative indicators for agencies’ work. These indicators
would focus on ‘soft cooperation between Member States and European
Institutions as to better achieve EU objectives’, and the effectiveness,
efficiency and impact of such a focus could usefully be measured by
‘participation of Member States’, ʻMember States’ commitment to take
actionʼ and ʻactual changes in Member Statesʼ agendaʼ[8]ʼ.[9]

Subject to these provisos, the overall
working assumption in this report is that, all other factors being equal, there
is a generally positive relationship between the level of investment in good
quality police training in EU matters and police performance in tackling EU
priorities.

2.5     Scrutiny by the Commission Impact
Assessment Board

The Impact Assessment Board of the European
Commission assessed draft versions of the present impact assessment, issuing
its first opinion on 20.7.2012 and the second on 10.10.2012. The IAB made
several recommendations and requested to submit a revised version of the
report, which have been addressed as follows.

i.
Provide greater
clarity and evidence on the concrete problems to be addressed with clear
reference to stakeholders' views and evaluation results, showing which issues
and recommendations have been taken over without needing modification to the
legal framework. Drivers
and problems (sections 3.1 and 3.2) have been simplified, with the governance
and training quality or operational issues clearly distinguished. Further
references to stakeholder views and evaluation results have been added, in
addition to further information on the evaluation (see section 2.1). A 'problem
tree' summarising this section has been developed at Annex B.

ii.
Expand the overview
of existing police training system with comprehensive and exact data in an
annex, clearly explain CEPOL's role and added value in the system, with more
comprehensive and exact data in an Annex. See section 3.1.1 and Annex A.

iii.
Explain
how fundamental problems in police performance and preparedness are exacerbated
by insufficient provision of adequate training, and how these in turn may
derive from the Agency's structure and governance. This remark is addressed
in section 2.4.

iv.
Considerably
strengthen the baseline scenario and make it more forward-looking by explaining
how training provision would be expected to develop under the current
governance structure, and how it may inhibit the European police forces'
preparedness for new challenges. See section 3.4.

v.
Strengthen
the intervention logic including more detailed objectives and options which
specifically address the identified substantive problems and in relation to
broader policy strategies and not only governance. Clearly link the
objectives and the policy options to all the identified problems. E.g. the
problem of insufficient training for intermediate level police officers and an
objective on broadening the target audience, and elements in the policy options
that ensure that this can be realised. Define more specific and operational
objectives beyond improving CEPOL's training and structure to address broader
objectives, such as improving policing throughout Europe, and explain in more detail
how they address related EU policy issues, including the reform of Europol and
the recently agreed 'Common approach on the EU's decentralised agencies'.
Clarify the links between problems identified at Member States level (like
administrative procedures, lack of language skills) and the measures proposed
in the options. Concretely address through the presented options the identified
and clearly describe the changes they would entail in practice. Alternative
options to reforming CEPOL, such as a no EU training option, Member States
based trainings, and the option of merger with Europol should be given serious
consideration. Operational (or ‘concrete’) problems have been given greater
emphasis. Objectives (section 4) have been revised with clearer specific and
operational aims which related directly to the problems described. The policy
options (section 5) have been reviewed, reorganised and described in more
detail, with a table which juxtaposes how the various components of each
options is intended to address the specific problems and policy objectives
(Table 2), particularly with regard to operational issues. Further options,
namely those of no EU police training and Member State-based training, have
been added. Explicit cross-reference is made throughout the report to the
reform of Europol and the common approach. The option of merger with Europol is
now considered to be the preferred option.

vi.
Present a more
transparent and comprehensive assessment of impact, including analysing the impact on the quality, delivery,
and effectiveness of the training provided in the light of the established
priorities for EU policing. Explain, in the main text, how the different
impacts have been quantified (especially the quoted benefits), and how the cost
figures have been calculated. Acknowledge upfront that these are merely
'educated guesses' and replace endpoint estimates by ranges. Costs
and benefits of each option (section 6) are assessed transparently and
comprehensively in relation to two criteria – (i) security, crime and police
cooperation resulting from changes to the quality and delivery and
effectiveness of police training and (ii) cost to EU and national authorities'
budgets. A table itemising estimated potential costs has been added for each
option, accompanied by a section (6.2) explaining how these costs have been
calculated.

vii.
Presenting a more
transparent comparison of options on the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and
coherence including a comprehensive summary comparison table. Provide a clear
link to detailed calculations underlying the reported 'Present Value of
Benefits'. Strengthen assessment of cost-effectiveness of each option by
explaining the incremental cost of additional coverage and effectiveness of
training activities under each of them. The revised options are compared to the baseline
scenario (section 7) according to criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and
coherence, including explanation of the incremental cost of additional coverage
and effectiveness of police training.

viii.
Making clear reference
to stakeholders' different positions: stakeholder positions are referred to in descriptions
of the policy options (section 5).

All other detailed comments from the board
contained in the opinion and the further technical comments have also been carefully
reflected in this impact assessment. The Impact Assessment Board delivered an
opinion on 15.1.2013 on a revised draft; the recommendations in that opinion
have also been reflected in this impact assessment.

3.       Problem definition
3.1     Context
and external drivers

There are two principal drivers behind the
problems which have been identified with the current framework for EU training
and the role of CEPOL: one relates to structure and governance, the second to
operational aspects of training and law enforcement capabilities.

3.1.1    Overview of the existing police
training system in the EU and internationally and added value of CEPOL

EU support for training is a tangible sign of the
solidarity and responsibility-sharing which are indispensable in responding to
the common challenges set out in the Internal Security Strategy. Such support
helps promote efficiencies through the pooling of resources and reinforcing
transnational practical cooperation between police in Member States, and
between Member States and third countries, in the fight against terrorism and
international criminal networks, trafficking in human beings and the smuggling
of weapons and drugs. CEPOL has built capacity and enabled the retention and
development of relevant skills. CEPOL also contributes to a coherent European
response to crises through training in crisis management and strengthening
cooperation with EU neighbourhood policy counties. A joint approach to training
and the delivery of courses to police from across the EU are a uniquely
powerful way to generate trust, understanding and the exchange of scientific
knowledge among law practitioners, and so to drive up standards of policing. CEPOL's
efforts to raise awareness of police cooperation and cross-border crime has
enabled new Member States to adapt to the EU, especially in terms of organised
crime and respect for human rights. Overall satisfaction with CEPOL's
activities among participants was 93%.[10]

CEPOL organises courses and develops common curricula
on the European dimension of policing, both in the national academies and at
CEPOL itself, and disseminates best practice and research findings. CEPOL
training is delivered by Member States experts, rather than CEPOL staff
themselves. In 2011 CEPOL implemented 106 training activities including 18-web
based seminars. E-learning is increasing, with 9 283 registered users of CEPOLs
electronic learning network, a 50% increase on 2010, and 2 163 practitioners
participated in e-learning activities. For on-site training the average number
of participants per year in CEPOL training activities is around 2 000 per year.
In addition, there are about 100 to 200 participants per year in exchange
programmes, plus (since 2011) those involved in eLearning activities. Courses
included counter-terrorism and airport security training at Schiphol airport
and planning and command in crisis management missions. Its e-learning modules
include the role of Europol, community policing preventing radicalisation and
terrorism, policing aspects of the Schengen agreement, gender-based violence
and cybercrime, and webinars in 2011 included training on bioterrorism and
tracing criminal assets.

CEPOL is one of the smallest EU agencies in terms of
budget: €8.3 million in 2011, and forecast according to the Commission's
proposal for Internal Security Fund in the multiannual financial framework at
€70 million in the period 2014-2020. The budget is consumed over three main
budget lines: Title 1 covers staffing (2.1m); Title 2 covers other
administrative expenditure; and Title 3 covers operational expenditure (5m).
The budget may also be broken down according to CEPOL’s five principle
activities or deliverables:

i.
Courses and seminars (excluding e-learning)
corresponds to 77% of the CEPOL budget;

ii.
E-learning and electronic networks - 8%

iii.
Common curricula and learning methods - 6%

iv.
Research and developing good practice - 5%

v.
Exchanges - 4%

It currently has 43 staff, 14 of whom are assigned to support
or administrative tasks in relation to training and research.

At national level, law enforcement authorities in the
EU are broadly comparable in terms of structure. Twenty-one Member States have
a single police agency and the remaining six (FR, DE, IT, PT, ES, UK) more than one. (For example, the UK law enforcement consists of 56 territorial and specialised
law enforcement agencies and Germany includes 16 state and two federal police
agencies). In 18 Member States, the police are responsible for border
management while nine Member States have dedicated border agencies (BU, FI, LV, LT, NE, PL, PT, SE and UK). Twenty-six Member States have a dedicated customs agency
and in one (PT) a police agency is responsible for customs investigations.
Relevant knowledge on EU cross-border police cooperation may sometimes be
included in the curricula of initial and promotion-related training for police
and border guards in most Member States; the EU and other international
organisations do not have a widespread role. Within the Mapping exercise
survey, twelve EU agencies and international organisations, including CEPOL,
Europol and Frontex,[11] reported some involvement in basic law
enforcement training in terms of, for example, development and delivery, and
contributing expertise or funding. Details of law enforcement education and
training budgets as a share of law enforcement budgets were available only for
the Netherlands and Northern Ireland, equivalent to around 2%. Extrapolating
from this very limited sample, it might be estimated that overall in the EU
Member States assign €2.6 billion per year to police training.

3.1.2    Driver 1: Increased political
awareness of EU priorities for tackling cross-border crime

The EU with the Internal Security Strategy identified
the challenges, principles and guidelines for dealing with security issues
within the EU, including 41 specific actions which are now being implemented,
underpinned by appropriate training. For example, in order to investigate
effectively criminal financial transactions, the strategy underlined the need
for law enforcement authorities to be equipped and trained to collect, analyse
and share information making full use of national centres of excellence for
criminal financial investigation and the CEPOL training programmes. From an
operational point of view, Member States are implementing three of the
strategic objectives (which concern combating organised crime, terrorism and
cybercrime) with a new mechanism, known as the 'Harmony Policy Cycle on organised
crime' for 2011-13,
whereby the Council endorsed eight priorities in June 2011. These priorities
address serious and organised crime and cybercrime, as well the strengthening
of border management. Expert groups have defined strategic objectives for each
priority, which are now being translated into operational action plans.[12]
These concerted initiatives draw from up-to-date analyses of the most serious
cross-border criminal phenomena, in particular Europol's twice-yearly Organised
Crime Threat Assessment.[13]

3.1.3    Driver 2: Legal and political
developments in police cooperation and police learning

The Lisbon Treaty (Title V) envisages the
promotion and strengthening of operational cooperation on internal security,
with a particular focus on specific forms of serious and organised crime. The
EU has put in place a system for setting priorities through the Internal
Security Strategy in 2010, to be supported by mutual trust and capacity
building. The European Council in 2009 stated its aim to create a genuine
European law enforcement culture through setting up European Law enforcement
Training Schemes and exchange programmes for all relevant law enforcement
professionals at national and EU level by 2015, and that CEPOL should play a
key role in ensuring the European dimension.[14] The European
Parliament also called in 2009 for a coherent approach to the delivery of
training for law enforcement officers across the EU.[15]

A parallel but closely related initiative
is the reform of Europol, which aims to ensure that necessary information for
combating crime can be exchanged more quickly and efficiently through Europol.
Alongside better training of law enforcement officers in relevant EU matters,
swift access to relevant information is crucial to achievement of the EU's
internal security objectives. CEPOL reinforces the work of Europol by seeking
to ensure law enforcement officers are aware of Europol's role and the
importance of information sharing.

In a joint statement, the European
Parliament, the Council and the Commission set out a common approach on EU
agencies,[16] including their
management structure and governance, operations and funding and budget-setting.[17]
There is a need for EU-supported police training to be brought into line with
this approach as CEPOL's current Governing Board, the role of the Director and
secretariat and the decentralised network-based structure continue to reflect
its intergovernmental origins with the European interest insufficiently
represented.

3.2.    Defining the problem
3.2.1    Problem 1: Knowledge deficit in
the EU dimension of policing

Many law enforcement officers in the EU
lack sufficient knowledge to cooperate fully effectively against cross-border
crime priorities. This includes awareness of the role of Europol and other EU
instruments such as the European arrest warrant, and the Prüm Decision which
aims to facilitate sharing of DNA profiles, fingerprint and vehicle
registration data. Apart from training provided for a minority as part of the
CEPOL training programme, there are few - if any - awareness raising activities
directed at law enforcement officers at a national level about EU issues.[18]

The developments in the EU policy and legal
framework as well as the changes in national policies have created new training
and knowledge needs. Moreover, some training needs have been generated by
contextual developments. For example, after the terrorist attacks in Madrid in 2004, new training needs emerged such as the prevention and the fight against
terrorism. New technological developments and the globalisation of crime have
led to the need for training of police officers in IT systems. Cybercrime has
greatly developed over the past few years, since the adoption of the CEPOL
decision in 2005.

Problem 1.a    European
training does not reach all the law enforcement officers who need it

CEPOL's training is targeted, in accordance
with the CEPOL Decision (Article 5), at senior or mid-ranking officers, with
little emphasis on more thematic training for officers of any rank who may need
it, given that cross-border crime is dealt with by all ranks of officer, and
not just senior officers. By end 2009, only 1.6% of senior police officers in
the EU had received CEPOL training.[19] In 2010 only around 13 to
15 Member States were able to send officers to receive training.[20]
Courses fail to achieve full attendance. Average attendance between 2006 and
2011 was between 72% and 80%. This may be a result of the fact that attendance
is not formally recognised or certified as a qualification[21].
Member States usually do not have a specific budget to send officers to receive
training[22]. The official
authorisation procedure for attending training in some Member States is complex
and time-consuming.[23] While some Member States
have developed plans for cascading knowledge acquired through CEPOL training,
dissemination is usually not prioritised and tends to be informal and
inadequate[24].

Language also can be an obstacle: most
training is in English which often excludes a large number of officers[25].
In terms of content of training, CEPOL has developed 10 common curricula, of
which only five (including one on trafficking in human beings) have been
finalised, approved by the Governing Board and made available on CEPOL's
website. Some curricula, such as that on counter-terrorism has been delayed for
six years, while other thematic training courses such as on domestic violence
are not supported by e-Learning and exchange programmes. Although CEPOL has the
knowledge and expertise to provide such training, the governance and structural
arrangements prevent this happening.

From this evidence, it appears that EU
police training is perceived as a peripheral activity which is relatively
unattractive in terms of personal career development perspective.

Problem 1.b    Insufficient
coordination between CEPOL, Member States and other agencies

Despite the existing cooperation agreements
between justice and home affairs agencies, there is a lack of systematic
coordination on training of law enforcement authorities in line with EU
strategic objectives. Training programmes are insufficiently focussed and
joined-up: one in three national academies in the EU reported overlap between
CEPOL’s training activities and training delivered nationally. Agency business
plans are rarely aligned and duplication of training is common[26].
For example, Frontex and CEPOL cover similar areas in their training activities
on border management and violation of human rights, illicit trafficking of
goods and language development.

There are also logistical overlaps, where
training activities are provided by different agencies on the same dates thus
preventing some officers from attending the training they require.[27] Europol and CEPOL lack a formal mechanism to
exploit synergies between operational and training priorities, unlike Frontex
which is responsible for training as well as operational cooperation, although
the JHA agencies network attempts to provide a forum for general awareness
raising between the agencies. There is no coordination between the European
Judicial Network and CEPOL on learning activities for prosecutors and police in
fields where they are asked to work jointly. There is no cooperation between
the different agencies’ national units or national contact points[28].
There is no structured cooperation between CEPOL and national and European
research institutes and synergies with initiatives such as the European Research
Area are under-developed[29]. It is unclear who is
responsible for research and science-related activities. In a wider context,
however, direct cooperation between CEPOL and Interpol appears to be
satisfactory, the latter expressing its appreciation of CEPOL as a single
contact point for EU-wide police capacity-building issues[30].

3.2.2    Problem 2: CEPOL's current
governance and structure reduce effectiveness of training

CEPOL's governance and structure inhibit
its ability to be fully effective as an instrument of EU policy. The
organisation has been conditioned by its intergovernmental origin; it remains
essentially a network-based organisation with key activities being organised on
a decentralised basis by Member States. Some Member State representatives still
view CEPOL as an intergovernmental body made up of national representatives,
gathered within the Governing Board, the Director and the Secretariat having a
simple role of support and implementation of the GB's decisions[31].

Problem 2.a    Governing Board lacks appropriate focus

Following the five-year evaluation there
has been some improvement in the efficiency of decision-making, but the
governance and structure of CEPOL remains out of date[32].
The Governing Board tends to focus on minor, administrative matters and not
enough on strategy at EU level. The CEPOL Decision does not focus the tasks of
the board on strategic matters. In practice, the board's time horizon tends to
be limited to approving the annual work programme and (in a very few cases)
agreeing common curricula. The size of the board – there are typically 45-50 Member State participants at each meeting – hampers swift decision-making and creates
disproportionate costs.[33] There is a high turnover
of participants creating a constant need for new members to take time to gain
familiarity with the agency's work.[34] There is no clear
representative of the EU interest in the board, as the Commission is a
non-voting observer, which contradicts the common approach for EU agencies[35].
There are no formal or informal links to the Management Board of Europol, in
spite of the obvious operational synergies between the two agencies. Certain
Member States (FI, SE) reported that the CEPOL agenda is too often driven by
national activities rather than EU cross-border priorities. Member States
disagree on whether CEPOL should itself formulate and deliver policies
determined by the board or focus on the logistical organisation of decisions
taken by the Board[36]. The CEPOL Decision,
which states that the Director (Article 11(4)) ‘shall…draw up the preliminary
draft budget, the preliminary draft annual report and the preliminary draft
work programme to be submitted to the Governing Board,’ allows for such a
minimalist interpretation of the role of the Director: in practice, the Director
is not given sole authority to propose action on either a strategic or annual
basis. This is not in line with the common approach. Unclarities as to the role
of the Director risk rendering the agency less effective[37].

Problem 2.b    Member
States engagement with CEPOL's activities is inconsistent

A large volume of CEPOL training modules
are delivered at Member State level through the network of national contact
points. The role of these contact points is to ‘ensure effective cooperation
between CEPOL and the [national] training institutes’ (Article 14 of CEPOL
Decision) and they are funded by Member States. However, despite several
attempts by the board to address this, roles and responsibilities of these
contact points remain unclear and unspecified[38]. Some Member
States do not have sufficient full-time officers in their national contact
points which can weaken CEPOL's ability to coordinate and evaluate training,
and hinders cooperation and communication between CEPOL and Member States[39].
As a result, some parts of the network are unaware of relevant learning
activities which might be taking place. Other national roles in the network are
also unclear, including those of training coordinators, administrators, e-Net
managers, research and science correspondents and CEPOL national exchange
programme coordinators. Among these staff 29% claimed to have insufficient time
to undertake their activities.[40]

Problem 2.c     Poor
financial planning for training activities by Member States

Operational expenditure – mainly related to
training activities – constitutes over half of planned expenditure. Member
States tend to submit their plans too late in the year, meaning that courses
have to be compressed into the remaining months of that year, and increasing
the likelihood of under-attendance. Between 2006 and 2010, Member States (who
are responsible for the delivery of CEPOL training) cancelled or postponed 13%
of courses, despite the multiannual plan setting a target of only 5%. As the
CEPOL annual work programme is approved rather late towards the end of the
year, by that point Member States may have already finalised their national
planning and have no capacity left for organising EU courses or making trainers
available. Some Member States do not reserve capacity for EU courses without
knowing beforehand whether the capacity will be used. Framework Partnership Agreements and Grant
Agreements, agreed by the Governing Body in 2010, bring the process for
applying for funding into line with EU rules, but they are perceived by Member
States as having created a disproportionately bureaucratic burden[41],
which has had the effect of slowing down the process for submitting proposals.
There were therefore annual underspends in this period of between 50% and 80%
of the total budget, as Member States overestimated potential costs of training
events. These funds which could have been invested in the skills and knowledge
of law enforcement officers are therefore lost.

The reason for this inadequate planning is,
in part, poor needs assessment. Legal and political developments at EU and
national level have created new training and knowledge needs, but the legal
framework and CEPOL's activities are not aligned.[42]
The current system to ensure that the training needs correspond to the actual
necessities of spreading knowledge on EU tools and policies remains suboptimal[43].
There is no definition of needs assessment at an EU level against which
national assessments can be considered. The results and impact of these
activities are not systematically collated, assessed and fed back to improve
planning of future activities.[44] Training needs are
identified on the basis of post-course evaluations from Member States on CEPOL
training modules, but this often consists of little more than a few sentences. Training
content has only slowly adapted to issues identified in past training.[45]
There is a clear need for this feedback loop to be remedied: CEPOL
post-training surveys indicate that one-third of participants have been unable
to apply training received to their work.

3.3     Who is affected by these problems
and in what way

The following groups are affected.

·
Police officers of the
Member States of the EU, particularly the increasing number of those who are
involved in cross-border crime fighting, fail to get the level and quality of
training in EU policing issues that they need for operational activity.

·
Citizens affected by
cross-border crime are indirectly adversely affected as the knowledge deficit
among police officers adversely affects the effectiveness of the fight again
serious cross-border crime.

3.4     Baseline scenario

Under the current governance structure,
training provision is expected to develop steadily. As the Commission continues
to lack full membership of the Governing Body of CEPOL, and without formal procedures
linking the agency to the work and knowledge of Europol, Member States
priorities will prevail which are not necessarily consistent with EU priorities
defined in the Internal Security Strategy or the needs highlighted in threat
assessments. Consequently, European police forces risking being unprepared for
new challenges, although the precise implications cannot be quantified. Using a
linear trend which extrapolates from changes over the past 5 years, (see Annex
D) the number of participants in CEPOL activity is projected to increase from 4
498 in 2011 to around 7 400 in 2020. The number of separate activities –
courses, seminars, conferences and webinars – is projected to increase from 106
(2011) to 153 (2020). The unit cost per participant is projected to decrease
from €1394 in 2011 (€2373 for courses and seminars) to €1240 in 2020 (168 for
courses and seminars).

EU policing knowledge deficit

The existing CEPOL Decision will continue
to limit the reach of EU training to only a fraction of senior officers in the
EU. There is no guarantee that common curricula for police officers will be
developed at a faster pace than hitherto. National police forces may continue
to be reluctant to implement the curricula or to ensure follow up. Member
States are not expected to start to recognise EU training formally. The EU will
be completely reliant on Member States to provide feedback on training needs.
The risk that police in the EU are unprepared for new, evolving and costly
cross-border security challenges would be expected to increase.

CEPOL governance and structure

Roles and responsibilities would remain
unclear, and the Governing Board would continue to lack strategic focus and
proper representation of the EU interest, resulting in increasing inefficiency
in planning appropriate training. While the Commission remains a non-voting
observer on the board, while CEPOL's director continues to lack the
authorisation to devise proposals for training priorities, and while there are
no formal linkages to Europol’s Management Board, an emphasis on EU-wide
priorities stemming from the latest threat assessments would continue to be
lacking. Increasing pressure on national law enforcement budgets could result
in further de-prioritisation of the work of national contact points.
Cooperation agreements with other agencies could be strengthened. Under the
relatively new Framework Partnership Agreements and Grant Agreements, Member
States may be encouraged to set more realistic budgets, although this may not
alleviate the complexity and lengthiness of procedures for allocating budgets.

CEPOL is expected to show continued
moderate growth, with some efficiency gains for the delivery of learning
activities. If recent trends continue, over the coming years the number of
officers participating in CEPOL training could increase from around 5 000 in
2011 to around 7 000 in 2020, which in EU terms is a low number. However,
without EU intervention, the problems described above concerning the EU's
capacity and capability to address the existing and evolving challenges are
likely to become increasingly pressing.

3.5.    The EU's right to act and
subsidiarity

Article 87(2) TFEU provides the framework for
establishing and reforming CEPOL as a means of developing common competences
for police officers across the EU. It refers to serious forms of organised crime (Article 87(2)(c)), while
the article on Europol refers to 'serious crime affecting two or more Member
States, terrorism and forms of crime which affect a common interest covered by
a Union policy' (Article 88(1)). There
is no obligation under the Lisbon Treaty to amend the legal basis and mission
of CEPOL, but reform is supported by the Stockholm Programme. Parliament and
the Council have recommended a European training policy to equip law enforcement
to tackle the increasingly international nature of serious and organised crime
on the basis of mutual trust.

The current Decision does not enable CEPOL to
implement effectively and consistently according to the EU's evolving training
needs. Whilst some Member States are active and successful in the provision of
training to their police officers, other Member States suffer from lack
resources or political or administrative willingness to ensure that law
enforcement training serves cross-border needs. The EU needs to train its
widely diverse police forces on the tools and instruments that have been
developed to facilitate police cooperation and exchange of information but
which would otherwise be a dead letter. EU priorities, rather than only national
priorities, must be taken into account in learning. This cannot be achieved at Member State level but rather requires EU intervention.

4.       Policy objectives

The identified objectives are derived from
wider EU policies on
strengthening cooperation in law enforcement and internal security. There are
obvious synergies between the two specific objectives: better governance
arrangements will enable the EU to ensure that law enforcement training is fit
for purpose.

4.1     General objective

Improve policing in EU through the
establishment of a learning system for law enforcement officers consistent with
evolving strategic priorities for police cooperation.

4.2     Specific and operational
objectives

Specific objective 1:

Ensure better quality, more joined-up and
more consistent training for a wider range of law enforcement officers in cross-border crime issues consistent
with the proposed reform of Europol.

Operational objectives:

1a.
Align EU training
programmes with EU strategic and operational priorities for fighting crime

1b. Ensure that EU training is available to a
wider range of law enforcement officers by reducing barriers such as inadequate
language skills

1c.
Ensure that all
training is evaluated and conclusions incorporated through training needs
assessments into planning for future training

1d. Minimise duplication of law enforcement
training delivered at EU and national level

1e.
Ensure at least 90%
attendance of all CEPOL courses and maximum 5% of course postponement or
cancellation

1f.
Ensure recognition
across the EU of EU training

Specific objective 2:

Establish a clear framework for training
police in accordance with EU training needs, in line with the common approach
to EU agencies

Operational objectives:

2a.
Ensure governing body is configured to focus on EU's strategic training needs

2b.
Ensure clarity of roles and responsibilities at EU and national level

            2c. Speed up financial
management and budget allocation procedures

2d. Ensure consistent
participation of all Member States in delivering training

5.       Description of policy options

This section describes the substantive
policy options, the rationale behind them, stakeholder views, and the changes
they would entail. Each option concretely addresses the identified problems;
Table 2 juxtaposes the problem and the relevant content of the policy options.

5.1     European
Law enforcement Training Scheme

Alongside its proposal for reform of CEPOL, the
Commission is presenting a European Law enforcement Training Scheme for Law
Enforcement (referred to hereafter as the ‘LETS’). This scheme will set out the
training and learning opportunities available and how they should be
implemented in a coordinated manner to build capacity of the EU to face the
common challenges set down in the Internal Security Strategy. The LETS is not
dependent on the implementation of changes to the EU’s mandate - the current
CEPOL Decision - on police training, however to be fully implemented it would
be necessary to extend the EU’s mandate to training of all relevant police
officers.

The LETS will define the content of training, who
should be trained on which subject and who in the EU or at national level will
provide the training. It will seek to guarantee a basic level of knowledge for
all law enforcement officials to work in law enforcement cross-border EU
cooperation. It will encourage the development of EU regional or bilateral
approaches and foster the education of those participating in such regional or
bilateral matters. It will define the criminal or policing thematic areas that
constitute EU priorities, in particular the criminal phenomena highlighted by
the Organised Crime Threat Assessment or the Internal Security Strategy[46].
Finally, it will also address the external dimension of training. Law
enforcement officials operating under an EU umbrella should have common
competences to offer a common degree of performance.

In practical terms, the LETS will entail
several new tasks for which, it is estimated, dedicated resources (total of 12
FTE[47] posts) would be required
in the responsible agency; however, under the existing CEPOL Decision, which
only provides for training of senior police officers, the scope of the LETS if
implemented by CEPOL would be restricted and it is estimated that an additional
3 FTE posts would be required:

·
Developing
core competences, common curricula and courses on EU crime priorities and on
civilian missions in third countries and expanding e-learning platforms, and
developing a framework for recognised EU police sector qualification (5 FTE)

·
Developing
guidance and procedures for bilateral and regional exchange programmes and
delivery of 'Erasmus' style law enforcement exchange programme (1.5 FTE)

·
Annual
mapping
of supply and demand of learning, analysis of needs and learning priorities and
related programming, including database of national trainers and experts (1
FTE)

·
Annual
mapping of relevant research activity and build partnerships with universities,
research institutes, law enforcement training institutes to develop quality
assurance procedures (1.5 FTE)

·
Supporting
Member States in development of basic training on EU tools and priorities and
on general cross-border cooperation (1 FTE)

·
Coordination
and evaluation of activities by agencies and Member States under the LETS and
of a pool of expert advisers (2 FTE)

At a national level, Member States would be expected
to recognise attendance of CEPOL courses as an integral part of national police
development, and to develop basic training on EU tools and best practice in
general cross-border cooperation.

Under Options 1 and 2, the Commission would
encourage Member States to implement the LETS, although the existing CEPOL
Decision would only provide for training for senior police officers. Under
options 4 and 5, CEPOL or (for option 4b) Europol would be responsible for
implementing the scheme.

5.2     Option 1 (Status quo): Promote European
Law enforcement Training Scheme without amendment to CEPOL's legal basis

Certain Member States (e.g. FR, NE, BE, SK)
have opposed any amendment to current CEPOL framework which in their view
provides sufficient training for their officers. Most Member States consulted
are nevertheless of the opinion that there needs to be recast of the legal
basis for EU training agency to develop and update training policy. Under the
status quo, the LETS could still be implemented with participation of CEPOL
under current legal basis, but only if CEPOL’s Governing Board were persuaded
to focus the agency’s resources. CEPOL would however continue only to have the
competence to provide training to senior officers.

5.3     Option 2: Member State-based
training as part of an EU network

CEPOL would be
disbanded as an agency. Coordination and liaison would continue on an
intergovernmental basis with a small secretariat provided by DG Home, as was
the case in prior to the CEPOL Decision. An estimated 10 additional FTEs posts would be
transferred to other EU Agencies to take over some of CEPOL’s learning
activities. This option would
follow the model of the judicial training network,[48]
and would result in immediate direct cost savings. It is opposed by all Member
States.

5.4     Option 3: Discontinue all EU
financial support for training

CEPOL
would be disbanded and EU would cease to allocate any funding for police
training, except sector-specific training by other agencies. Commission and
Europol may identify training needs which would fall to Member States to
address. Withdrawal
of all EU support for training involvement is a radical option meriting
examination. This is opposed by all Member States on the basis that it would just be a return to what is
considered to be a previously inefficient situation.

5.5     Option 4a: Partial transfer of
CEPOL functions to Europol; CEPOL to implement LETS

CEPOL would remain a separate agency but
share corporate services and infrastructure with Europol. Existing HQ would be
closed and Governing Board, Director and operational staff co-locates with
Europol. CEPOL decision would be amended to address the problems of governance
and training quality, and to ensure the implementation of the LETS

Parliament asked the Commission to explore
the possibility of integrating CEPOL with Europol, on basis that they share
similar general aims (improving police cooperation). Such a partial merger
would allow governance issues to be addressed, bringing it in line with the Common
Approach on Agencies, as well as rationalising non-operational functions.
Member States representatives when consulted opposed this option, expressing
the view that this would be first step in the disappearance of a training
agency with its own identity.

5.6     Option 4b: Functions of Europol
and CEPOL merged in single agency; merged agency (Europol) to implement LETS

CEPOL and Europol would be formally merged. CEPOL’s
headquarters would be closed and operational posts transferred to Europol.
Tasks specified in Art. 7 of the CEPOL Decision would be added as a separate
heading to the functions of Europol. A new deputy director responsible for
training would ensure that training needs are fully integrated and recognised
in the work of Europol at all levels. The founding regulation of the merged
agency would include provisions to ensure that the overall Europol budget
allocates appropriate resources to training in accordance with training needs
assessments under the LETS. (To merge the two agencies, the new founding regulation
would have to be accompanied by a new legislative financial statement.) In
order that the training component of the new Europol to be fully represented
within the Management Board, Member States would be required to ensure that the
alternate members of the Management Board of Europol are training specialists,
saving costs of reimbursing attendance. A scientific committee advise Europol's
management board on training issues (already possible under Article 38(12) of
the Europol Decision). An executive board could be established including the
Commission which would increase control over the agency, enable Management
Board to focus on strategic rather than administrative matters, and enhance the
management of training activities.

For the 2014 budget CEPOL is qualified as a ‘new tasks’
agency, which means that while it is also subject to the objective of staff
reductions including contributing to a pool for redeployment, it may also
request new posts from the pool for new tasks albeit with no guarantee of
receiving them. If the Commission proposal to cut 5% of staff is retained by
Council, this would mean that CEPOL would lose 2 to 3 posts. However, CEPOL has
argued[49] that it needs more staff
to perform key horizontal functions (e.g. IT and legal officers), and that ‘The
deficits identified cannot be resolved through the reallocation of posts
without creating new deficits in other areas of the organisation that will be
equally impactful, either operationally or administratively. Any exercise of reprioritisation,
reallocation and efficiency gains would therefore be better addressed within a
bigger structure.’ By unnecessary administrative overlaps between the two
agencies, a bigger share of the staff could be allocated to training activities
without actually increasing the number of total staff. This could eventually
equal to a budget-neutral implementation (in terms of staff allocation) of the European
Law enforcement Training Scheme, which could not be achieved if those tasks
were assigned to CEPOL as a separate agency. Savings from discontinuing CEPOL’s
administrative posts would therefore be reinvested in training to finance the
implementation of the LETS and, in case those savings were slightly to exceed
the needs of the LETS, reinvested in other activities of the merged agency.

Merger would create difficulties in recruiting new
staff until the transfer is effective, and in retaining those who are earmarked
for transfer to Europol. Therefore there would be a need for the two agencies
supported by the Commission to analyse and defined quickly the implications for
individual staff (i.e. contracts not renewed, available allowances, impact on
current contracts – e.g. new coefficient, working conditions in Europol, new
reporting lines, and the personal / family aspects e.g. transfer and
resettlement allowances, schooling arrangements available in the Hague, social
security aspects) and provide them with as much time as possible to prepare.
Europol support functions should start as soon as possible to prepare for the
transferring staff. Transition would be managed by the CEPOL Executive
Director.

Merger is opposed by some Member States on the grounds
that, in a single agency, quality and commitment to training activities would
be weakened by such close proximity to operational priorities, although certain
Member States including UK (the host Member State for CEPOL) expressed
willingness to consider benefits and costs. However, any measure for
rationalisation and savings in relation to agencies would be compatible with
the Council's position in the negotiations for the 2013 EU budget in asking for
a flat 1% reduction in agencies' budgets), and with the European Parliament
which in multiannual framework negotiations recommends exploring scope for
pooling resources and costs savings among agencies.[50]

In
line with exploratory discussions at service and political level, this option
would include the following:

•         There would be a separate heading for training within the
proposed instrument for a merged agency

•         The instrument would include a provision to ensure sufficient
funding for training

•         The name of the merged agency would be Europol, sited as now
in The Hague, with a distinct department (a new fourth department) responsible
for training.

•         The Management Board would comprise
alternate members who would decide training issues, and a scientific committee
would advise on technical issues.

•         A Deputy Executive Director at AD13 level
would be responsible for the training directorate.

•         The annual report and work programme would
include a specific section on training.

•         The transition would be managed in a single
phase, allowing some time between adoption and entry into force of the
regulation.

•         Contracts which expire before the date of
the merger may be extended or renewed for persons who occupy posts that will
not become redundant after the merger. Staff members who occupy posts that will
become redundant but who are suitable for implementing the LETS may apply for
the relevant posts.

Posts which are saved as a result of the
merger will be redeployed for the implementation of the LETS and, in case those
savings were to slightly exceed the needs of the LETS, reinvested in other
activities of the merged agency.

5.7     Option
5: Strengthening and streamlining CEPOL

CEPOL's role would be clarified and
reinforced, requiring some additional staff. The CEPOL Decision would be
amended to address the problems of governance and training quality. This would
be in line with the Common Approach on Agencies and respond to calls from many
Member States for a stronger CEPOL and more coherent training policy.

Details of how each of these options would aim to address the problems
and objectives described above are in table 2 below. Section 6 then assesses
the likely impact of each policy option, in particular how it would enable to
EU address the problem of the knowledge deficit in the EU dimension of
policing. Finally, section 7 compares the options and concludes by identifying
the preferred option.

Table 2: Detail of policy options with
reference to problems and policy objectives

Problem || Policy option elements addressing problems and objectives

1 Status quo || 2 Member State-based training as part of an EU network || 3 Discontinue all EU-level training || 4a: Partial transfer of CEPOL functions to Europol || 4b Full merger of CEPOL and Europol || 5 Strengthening role of CEPOL

Problem 1. Knowledge deficit in EU dimension of policing: Objective1 : Ensure better quality and more consistent training for all relevant law enforcement officers in cross-border crime issues

1a. EU training does not reach all who need it: -lack of formal recognition -lack of national budget allocation -slow official authorisation procedures -poor dissemination of knowledge -language barriers -slowness in setting common curricula || COM encourages CEPOL and MS to refocus resources to implement the LETS. || COM encourage MS to recognise EU-relevant training provided at national level for all ranks of officer. || No action. || -CEPOL responsible for delivery of LETS and ensuring EU-related training of all law enforcement officers as well as to customs officers and other officers dealing with cross-border issues. -CEPOL responsible for delivering EU priority training and research activities. -Establishment and coordination of the pool of experts or scientific committee -CEPOL regularly review and update curricula -CEPOL develop EU accreditation system for participation in CEPOL learning activities || As 4a except Europol assume responsibility for training activities and will be able to use Europol’s wider translation and interpretation facilities. || As 4a

2b. Insufficient coordination between agencies and with MS: -business plans not aligned -logistical overlaps -no coordination between police and prosecutors -unclear who is responsible for research and science-related activities || COM encourage CEPOL with other agencies to establish a training forum to review effectiveness of training || COM review agency activities and recommend to MS and other agencies how to prevent overlaps and gaps in training. || No action || -CEPOL responsible with national contact points for ensuring complementarity and coherence in training at EU and national level to avoid overlaps without jeopardising the mission and mandates of other agencies in sectoral training. -CEPOL lead responsibility for cross-border crime research activities || -CEPOL national contact points merged with the Europol National Units with responsibility for cooperating with Frontex. - Contact points responsible for ensuring coherence in EU and national training || As 4a

Problem 2. CEPOL's current governance and structure reduce effectiveness of training. Driver: Legal and political developments Objective 2: Assign clear roles and responsibilities for training police on EU matters for all actors at EU and national level, in line with the common approach to EU agencies

2.a. Governing Board lacks focus on EU priorities -insufficient focus on strategy -bloated board membership and high turnover -no links to Europol Management Board -Director not given authority to propose action || -No formal change -COM continue with observer status -Director continues to be responsible for ‘preliminary draft’ work programmes and budgets in line with EU priorities || -CEPOL disbanded so no formal governance arrangements. -COM monitor and evaluate national training activities every 3 years and recommend to network future priorities || -CEPOL disbanded. -Member States to consider whether joint action necessary   || -Governing board mandate focused on strategic needs -Director responsible for preparing and implementing work programmes, budget. -COM becomes full member of Governing Board with 2 representatives -Scientific committee and executive board established to improve the quality of agency's activities and speed up board's decisions || -Merged management board responsible for ensuring operations and training are coherent. -COM full member of board. -A deputy director given responsibility for training, supported by scientific committee. || As option 4a

2b. Inconsistent engagement from Member States -task of contact points and related national roles unclear -some contact points under-resourced || -COM to work with Member States who have been unable to participate fully in CEPOL activities and if necessary look at possibility of EU funding. -National contact points continue to be responsible for ensuring cooperation. || Council presidency would convene network as required with COM support. || No action. || CEPOL responsible for ensuring coherence of national activities with EU priorities. || CEPOL national contact points merged into Europol national units who become responsible for coherence of national training activities. || As 4a

2c. Poor financial planning and needs assessment -Member States plans submitted too late -too many cancelled or postponed courses -procedures too slow and consequent underspends -poor needs assessment and activities not aligned with political priorities || -COM use observer status to encourage greater emphasis on needs assessment, evaluation and realistic financial planning. -CEPOL with MS and agencies carry out periodic needs assessment in light of priorities for cross-border crime, plus evaluation || -MS would submit training proposals to COM for support from internal security fund. -COM would assess proposals on the basis of national needs assessments || -MS responsible for national training and other agencies for sectoral training (ie border guards and customs officers) -COM in review of ISS consider needs for training in light of latest threat assessments and may recommend action to Council. || -Establish clear planning cycle based on timely submission of national needs assessments which are checked by CEPOL in the light of EU priorities. -On that basis, Director prepares work programme for Governing Body's approval. -Penalties for late cancellation or postponement of courses. || -Europol deputy director responsible for ensuring timely provision from MS of financial information. -MS submit annual training needs assessments alongside resource estimates to deputy director. || As 4a

6.       Analysis
of likely impact of the policy options
6.1     Assessment
criteria

Likely positive and negative, direct and
indirect impact of these options is described with reference to two
socio-economic categories:

(1)        Security, crime and police
cooperation (through changes to quality, delivery and effectiveness of police
training)

(2)        EU and national authorities budgets,
including total direct costs of implementing the policy option and
administrative burdens and indirect costs for criminal law enforcement and
criminal judicial system.

No significant impact resulting from the
options on any fundamental rights is envisaged.

6.2     Methodology and assumptions for
estimating costs and benefits

General remarks

No research has been undertaken in this
area and scientific evidence is not available, therefore quantified benefits in
terms of police efficiency and recovery of criminal assets are based on
educated, reasonable guesses informed by discussions held with experts in the
law enforcement and education and training field. These guesses are
conservative given the weakness of causal links; this approach was endorsed in
discussion with the experts. The estimates have been checked and validated by
European experts in the area of police training.

The costs and benefits cover 2012-2020
(which includes the whole of the next multiannual framework period of
2014-2020).

In line with the Commission’s impact assessment
guidelines, a standard discount rate (4%) has been used to calculate the
present value of impacts occurring in future years.

An average annual inflation rate of 2% has been used
for the period 2011 to 2020 which represents the target inflation rate for the
ECB and for most non-Euro area central banks.

Average cost per participant per type of learning activity
is calculated using the actual expenditure in 2011 on each of the five main
activities or deliverables (see section 3.1.1) and number of participants
(source CEPOL).

Other data are sourced from Eurostat, UNODC
and Member States.

For each option anticipated costs are
clearly itemised.

At Annex C, a spreadsheet covering each
option calculates costs, based on extrapolations from the two Member States (UK and Netherlands) which have been able to provide detailed costs for police training at a national
level.

The methodology adopted for calculation of
costs is described in Annex D, as well as the costs elements of each single
option.

Key assumptions

As stated above (section 2.4), it is assumed that
investing in good quality training makes policing more efficient; the
coefficient is guessed to be 0.2%, and the benefit to policing is calculated by
applying this coefficient to the estimated the total budget in the EU dedicated
to policing, €2.6 billion (section 3.1.2).

If policing is more effective, more prosecutions could
be brought before the courts, and a more convictions could result in more
pressure on prisons. The overall result could be an increase in burden on the
criminal justice system.

It is assumed that for every percentage point of
efficiency gains or losses related to policing will lead to an increase or
reduction of the costs of the Criminal Justice System of half of this
percentage point, as not all efficient policing will be applied to the
investigation of cases.

It is assumed that there is a positive correlation
relation between efficiency gains in policing and the volume of assets
recovered from convicted criminals. It is assumed that for every percentage
point increase or reduction of costs related to the criminal justice system
will lead to an increase or reduction of asset recovery of half of this
percentage point, as on average, 40%[51]
of prosecuted cases are brought and of these, 50% to 60%[52] result in a
conviction.

6.3     Option
1: Status quo implement training scheme, no change
to legal basis
Security, crime and police cooperation

As CEPOL’s competence is currently limited to
providing training only for senior officers, this option not enable the EU to
address the knowledge deficit for all relevant law enforcement officers.
Under this option there would nevertheless be some improvement in the
competences and knowledge of senior police officers on carrying out
cross-border investigations. It could result in an increase in the number of
prosecutions, convictions and a higher number of people being incarcerated, and
in an increase in seizure of criminal assets and proceeds and disruption of
cross-border criminal networks. The EU interest may not be reflected in
decisions on training because the Commission is not a full voting member of the
Governing Body. Nevertheless, benefits of this option if implemented by Member
States as well as CEPOL could amount to over €100m during the period 2012-2020.

EU and national
authorities budgets

Direct costs in terms of running costs of
CEPOL are estimated at around €8m per year over the period 2012-2020. The
potential marginal cost to the EU of implementation of the European Law
enforcement Training Scheme for law enforcement, not including any legislative
initiatives, has been estimated at €0.9 million per year between 2012 and 2020.
This would reflect a 10-25%
increase in e-learning participants and related costs; an additional 200-350 participants in third-country
mission training, hardware and software costs related to the regular updating
and maintenance of databases and the expanded learning platforms. to ensure the
annual mapping of learning opportunities and definition of learning priorities,
management of databases, management of e-learning platforms, on-going support
to bilateral and regional exchange programmes, missions in third countries and
support to the sharing of best practices. To perform these new tasks it is estimated
that CEPOL would require an additional 3 FTE posts.

Direct costs at national level of
implementing the LETS are estimated at around €60m over 2012-2020. It is
doubtful that Member States and CEPOL Governing Board would agree to make the
necessary changes without a legal requirement to do so. The indirect costs of
the option in terms of additional burden for criminal justice systems are
estimated at around €9m (or 0.004%)
over 2012-2020.

If the LETS were implemented, it could deliver an
estimated 2-10% increase in
training efficiency, through elimination of duplication and better exploitation
of synergies. A 0.008% efficiency gain in policing as a result from more
appropriate knowledge and skills is estimated, and a 0.002% increase in
criminal asset seizure.

Estimated costs and benefits

Table 3: Costs and benefits Option 1

Measure || Costs || Quantifiable benefits

Encourage implementation of LETS (for senior police officers only) || Annual CEPOL running costs €7.9m. Additional €0.9m per year to implement LETS Indirect costs to Member States criminal justice system estimated at 0.004% i.e. €5-10m over 2012-2020. Costs to Member States of adapting new training tools and guidance and to use new databases estimated at about 0.5% increase in budget, producing €50-60m 2012-2020 || Increase in policing efficiency of €70-90m 2012-2020 Increase in criminal asset seizure of €15-30m 2012-2020

6.4     Option 2: Member State-based training as part of an EU network
Security, crime and police cooperation

It is assumed that disbanding CEPOL and reducing or
ceasing all EU support for police training would:

a) increase the workload of other EU agencies;

b) increase decentralised learning activities which
would vary among Member State;

c) lead to less effective and less efficient
organisation of learning activities overall;

d) reduce effectiveness of cross-border
investigations; and

e) contribute to a reduction in the number of
prosecutions, convictions and imprisonments.

In the absence of CEPOL there
would be no EU agency competent to deliver, coordinate general law enforcement
training or ensure priority setting. Some Member States may find it difficult
to sustain the network. Different Member State's ability and willingness to
finance training could be an obstacle to the equal participation in training at
EU level, and where training is not supported police competences would suffer.
It is expected that there would be fewer training opportunities available.

The majority of Member States training
experts highlighted a risk of fragmentation of learning activities among other
EU agencies which will focus on their own operational tasks at the expense of
training. This could reduce competences and knowledge of police officers on how
to lead cross-border investigations and of their awareness of EU law, police
values and culture, with a negative impact on the security. Learning would no
longer be delivered according to a common format and set of themes. Exchange
programmes would be more difficult to coordinate. The EU interest would
probably be neglected as the Commission's role would be restricted to providing
a secretariat for the network. Cooperation of national police training centres
with other EU agencies will become more difficult without a central agency. The
different agencies are focussed on specific training for their own needs and no
general training at EU level would be organised by any entity.

In summary, this option would therefore
significantly reduce the EU’s ability to address the knowledge deficit in the
EU dimension of policing.

In monetary terms, weaker police
competences resulting from this option could result in a minimal cost to the EU
in terms of less efficient criminal justice system and criminal asset recovery
over 2012-2020.

EU and national authorities' budgets

There would be some negligible new costs to EU e.g.
developing guidance for police on the changes, cost of transfer of some posts
to other agencies. The EU would no longer carry the on-going costs of running a
separate agency for training, although an estimated 10 additional FTEs posts
would be required in Europol and Frontex to take over some of CEPOL’s learning
activities. The annual number of participants in EU training is expected to
fall by 50%. EU training would be delivered less efficiently, increasing
initially the average cost per participant. Disbanding CEPOL could save the EU around €60m over
2012-2020, while cost Member States for taking on some of the training hitherto
organised by CEPOL could be €60-70m over 2012-2020. There could be a minimal
reduction in police efficiency.

Estimated costs and benefits

Table 4: Costs and benefits Option 2

Measure || Costs || Quantifiable benefits

Transition of responsibility for EU training from CEPOL to intergovernmental network and Europol and Frontex. || Negligible || None

Disbanding CEPOL || EU costs savings of €60m 2012-2020 || None

Member States assume responsibility for training on EU policing issues || Additional cost to Member States of €60-70m 2012-2020 || Possible negative effect on police efficiency and criminal asset seizure of €0-15m 2012-2012

6.5     Option
3: Member State based training
Crime, police cooperation and security

Without
any EU support for police training, police competences in cross-border crime
fighting would deteriorate, and cooperation would become less effective. This
option would very largely eliminate the EU’s ability to address the knowledge
deficit in the EU dimension of policing; only some sector-specific training by
other agencies would continue to be funded by the EU. It is estimated that loss
of policing efficiency could cost the EU €20-30m, with €5-10m less in criminal
asset recovery, over the period 2012-20.

EU and national authorities' budgets

As
Option 2, disbanding CEPOL would incur negligible one-off costs. Without any EU
involvement in police training, it is estimated that very small compensatory
increase in national policing budgets might ensue – no more than 0.1%. There
might be a minimal reduction in criminal justice burdens.

Ceasing all financial support for police
training could reduce costs to around €4m over 2012-2020 (consisting of
disbanding CEPOL and transferring a small number of activities to other
agencies), with a cost to Member States of around €10m and savings in indirect
costs of around €4m over this period.

Estimated costs and benefits

Table 5: Costs and benefits Option 3

Measure || Costs || Quantifiable benefits

Disbanding of CEPOL || Costs savings of €60m 2012-2020 || None

Member States assume responsibility for training on some additional policing issues || Additional cost of €5-10m 2012-2020 || Possible negative effect on police efficiency and criminal asset seizure of €25-40m 2012-2012

6.6     Option 4a: Partial transfer of CEPOL functions to Europol
Crime, police cooperation and security

This option would to a good extent enable
the EU to address the knowledge deficit in the EU dimension of policing: there
would continue to be an EU agency responsible for the EU dimension of training;
the agency’s competence would be widened to cover all relevant law enforcement
officers; and administrative cost savings would contribute to funding the
implementation of the LETS.

The LETS, if implemented effectively and
extended to all relevant police officers, would be expected to deliver a number
of benefits to police efficiency in cross-border cooperation and levels of criminal asset recovery are
envisaged – estimated at up to €200m over 2012-2020. Europol’s HR and other
support functions are expected to be sufficient to absorb the marginal cost of
the partial merger, whereby they would be responsible for an additional 20-30
core CEPOL staff. Requiring CEPOL to rely on the human and finance resource
support of Europol may affect management efficiency and procedural workflows,
and some complex inter-agency working arrangements would have to be set up. It
would imply a legally complex governance construction combining two directors
and two management boards set up under different legal bases relying on common
resources. A partial merger could weaken the identity of CEPOL, and reduce the
attractiveness of its training activities. In addition, synergies with Europol
would not be fully exploited.

EU and national authorities' budgets

There
could be administrative cost savings over the period 2012-2020 of around €10m due to staff reductions
(estimated at 25% of current complement) and ceasing involvement in certain
missions and operations and reductions in building maintenance. These savings
would almost offset the cost of relocating CEPOL staff and recruiting and
strengthening the role of CEPOL, including the addition of 10-12 staff to
implement the LETS (see Section 5.1), and costs related to the running of the scientific
committee, the financing of research activities and an overall increase in the
number of participants. Over the period 2012-2020, the overall cost of this option for the EU is estimated
at around €12m, and total costs to Member States at €150-200m. Benefits
in terms of efficiency gains
in policing (assuming an estimated coefficient is 0.010%) by 2020 as through
improved knowledge and skills in EU and increase in criminal assets seizure
(coefficient 0.005%) matters could reach €200m over the period 2012-2020.

Estimated costs and benefits

Table 6: Costs and benefits Option 4a

Measure || Costs || Quantifiable benefits

Implementation of LETS || Additional €20-25m resources required for CEPOL per year to implement LETS of which €10-12m staff costs 2012-2020 and €10-15m for additional number of participants in training. Additional €150-200m cost to Member States 2012-20: €15-20m to reinforce national contact points, €120-140m in costs of providing training, €20-40m in additional burden to criminal justice systems || Increase in policing efficiency of €130-150m 2012-2020 Increase in seizure of criminal assets of €40-60m

Merger of support functions || Estimated cost savings of €11-14m 2012-2020 || None

6.7     Option 4b: Full merger of CEPOL with Europol
Crime, police cooperation and security

Merger with Europol could enable CEPOL's
hitherto decentralised networking-based organisation to benefit from its
operational expertise of cooperation with Member States and its hub of EU-wide
intelligence and information. Europol’s operational core could meanwhile
benefit from proximity to training expertise. This could facilitate the
widening of target audience for training to relevant officers at all ranks.
Some initial effort will be needed to ensure that there is no conflict between
operational and training interests. Merger of CEPOL National Contact Points
with the Europol National Units could improve coordination at national level.
This option would reduce the risk of overlaps, although traditionally there is
a division in all Member States between training and operational structures,
which could make it difficult for Europol to coordinate. A merged agency would have the capability to impose top down
priorities to achieve greater
rationalisation and efficiency in the expenditure and to coordinate training
activities by other agencies under the LETS – which potentially could generate
benefits in terms of police efficiency and asset recovery of up to €200m over
period 2012-20.

This option would therefore enable the EU to
address the knowledge deficit in the EU dimension of policing: there would
continue to be an EU agency responsible for the EU dimension of training;
operational and training aspects f EU law enforcement support would be brought
together to create a mutually-reinforcing dynamic; the agency’s competence
would be widened to cover all relevant law enforcement officers; and
administrative cost savings would enable the LETS to be implemented.

There is concern among Member States that a
merged agency could subordinate training needs to more immediately pressing
operational priorities. This risk would be mitigated by clearly identifying
training as a new core task of Europol the inclusion of a deputy director with
specific responsibility for training, by the requirement for alternates on the
management board to be training specialists, and by the requirement in the
legislative measure to ensure that at least for a transition period appropriate
resources are assigned to training in annual budgets.

The announcement of a merger could create
uncertainties for CEPOL staff and could affect motivation and performance which
would need to be managed carefully. There is the risk staff are reluctant to
move to Europol; causing a short term loss of expertise. This could lead to
inefficiencies such as longer and more frequent board meetings, which might in
turn lead to setting up committees and working groups, similar to CEPOL’s
current problem. Policing efficiency could be expected to drop slightly
initially, before improving as synergies are exploited, such as Europol’s a
wealth of information which would inform training and can enable outreach to
the law enforcement community. As savings from support functions would be
reinvested in training priorities, this option would enable the LETS to be
implemented without the need for additional resources.

EU and national authorities' budgets

The potential savings from a full merger are estimated
to be €23.5m over 2012-20. This would include the discontinuation of the 14
posts which are dedicated to support functions, either by not renewing a
contract that is due to expire and for which there are no associated financial
costs, by terminating by anticipation a contract that will expire naturally,[53]
or by terminating a contract of indefinite duration.[54]
It would enable the EU to save money through the lower coefficient for salaries
in Netherlands compared to UK – between €0.7m and €1m per year. The cost to
Europol of absorbing CEPOL would be minimal: there would be a marginal increase
in HR costs for increasing staff from around 460 to around 500 in the merged
agency is negligible. Therefore, the total annual salary savings could
represent €2.5m i.e. 29% of CEPOL's annual budget for 2013.

 Neither
CEPOL nor Europol pay rent for the buildings they occupy – both are financed
respectively by the UK and NL authorities. Maintenance costs are under
discussion for CEPOL and they amount to €1.35million for Europol. Moving the around
40 staff of CEPOL to Europol's building would not necessarily trigger
substantial additional costs: Europol's building is 31 000 m² in size
accommodating 600 staff members at 51.6 m² per staff member - well above
Commission building standards (35 m² per staff member). Therefore, the main
infrastructure costs of relocation would be potential one-off penalties to
cease CEPOL's lease and/or refurbish the building and one-off moving costs
(estimated minimum €30 000). The UK authorities have announced their intention
to close the Bramshill site where CEPOL is located. This means that even if
CEPOL continues as a separate agency – i.e. under options 1, 4a or 5 – it will
in any event need to move. There would therefore also be removal costs under
those options.

There are also, albeit on a small scale, issues of
expenses for participation of Management Board members and members of the
proposed scientific committee, which cannot at present be calculated precisely,
but which are overall likely to be on the savings side.

Estimated costs and benefits

Table 7:
Costs and benefits Option 4b

Measure || Costs || Quantifiable benefits

Implementation of LETS || Additional €20-25m resources required for CEPOL per year to implement LETS of which €10-12m staff costs 2012-2020 and €10-15m for additional number of participants in training. Additional €150-200m cost to Member States 2012-20: €15-20m to reinforce national contact points, €120-140m in costs of providing training, €20-40m in additional burden to criminal justice systems || Increase in policing efficiency of €130-150m 2012-2020[55] Increase in seizure of criminal assets of €40-60m[56]

Full merger || Costs associated with the move of the Agency from the UK to the Netherlands estimated €30 000. However, the UK has announced its intention to close the Bramshill site and so CEPOL would in any event have to be relocated even if no merger were envisaged. Estimated cost savings of €23.5m 2012-2020: buildings and equipment, reduction in expenses for separate management boards (€1.5m) and staff (€22.5m) || Police efficiency gains 2012-20 of €0-5m

6.8     Option
5 Strengthening and streamlining CEPOL and changing its legal basis
Impact on quality, delivery and
effectiveness of police training

The measures proposed could ensure the complementarity
of EU policy of training and coherence in EU learning strategy, and reduce
overlaps in training provision. Eventually accredited training could boost the
attractiveness of training to police officers. Revising CEPOL’s tasks would
attract participation of police officers in CEPOL’s activities. Extending the
target group of CEPOL will increase the knowledge and skills of more law
enforcement officers working in cross-border matters who are at present
excluded from CEPOL’s activities, and help raise awareness among police
officers generally of EU police values and culture. This option would therefore
to some extent enable the EU to address the knowledge deficit in the EU
dimension of policing, notably by widening the agency’s competence to cover all
relevant law enforcement officers. However, the implementation of the LETS
under this option would require additional resources (see section 5.1). Given
current budget constraints there is a high risk that such additional resources
would not be forthcoming.

This option is expected to raise the number and
quality of successful cross-border investigations, leading to an improvement of
the public perception of safety. The overall benefits of this option could
reach up to €200m over 2012-20, consisting of efficiency gains to policing and increase in seizure
of criminal assets.

EU and national authorities' budgets

Direct costs of this option at EU level are estimated
at €20-25m over 2012-2020, and €135-160m at national level. Indirect costs in
terms of criminal justice burden are estimated at €20-40m over the same period.
It would involve an increase of 10-12 staff to carry out the additional
responsibilities for coordination and improving effectiveness and efficiency in
planning and delivery, plus financing a new scientific committee, and providing
training to an estimated extra 250-300 participants per year by 2020.
Successful implementation of the LETS could lead to increased burden on
criminal justice systems of €20-40m over 2012-20.

Estimated costs and benefits

Table 8:
Costs and benefits Option 5

Measure || Costs || Quantifiable benefits

Implementation of LETS || Additional €20-25m resources required for CEPOL 2012-20 implement LETS of which €10-12m staff costs 2012-2020 and €10-15m for additional number of participants in training. Additional €150-200m cost to Member States 2012-20: €15-20m to reinforce national contact points, €120-140m in costs of providing training, €20-40m in additional burden to criminal justice systems || Increase in policing efficiency of €130-150m 2012-2020 Increase in seizure of criminal assets of €40-60m

7.       Comparison
of policy options

All policy options are compared with the
baseline scenario using the criteria of (1) effectiveness in meeting the policy
objectives, (2) efficiency (i.e. incremental cost for each option of additional
coverage and effectiveness) and (3) coherence with other measures, including
the need for simplification of administration.

7.1     Effectiveness
in meeting policy objectives
Specific
objective 1: Establish a clear framework for training police in accordance with
EU training needs, in line with the common approach to EU agencies

Options 4a, 4b and 5 are considered the
most effective, as the new rules will be enforceable. Each would enable
Commission to ensure that the EU interest is properly represented. The roles
and responsibilities are less clear under option 2 and 3, where there is no
formal framework for providing training in the context of EU security
priorities. Overall, option 4b is expected to be the most effective, as it
would allow both to reinforce the training activities at EU level and to
rationalise the agencies framework in line with the common approach.

Specific
objective 2: Ensure better quality, more joined-up and more consistent training
for law enforcement officers in cross-border crime issues consistent with the
proposed reform of Europol

Converting CEPOL into a multi-governmental
network under option 2 would further weaken the scope for ensuring EU priorities
are reflected in law enforcement training. It is likely that much EU training
under CEPOL would not be continued, as Member States tend to focus on national
priorities. There would be no systematic training needs analysis and planning
under options 1, 2 and 3. Under options 4a and 4b (merging CEPOL with Europol,
partially or fully), the transition period could be disruptive and would
therefore need to be well managed to ensure the existing competent staff remain
motivated and in place. In addition, the visibility of EU training
opportunities would need to be safeguarded. Option 1 relies on Member State willingness to follow Commission promotion; gaps in implementation at EU level
may be partially addressed. Only senior police officers would be able to
benefit from these additional activities. Option 4b is most likely to improve
the quality and consistency of training, and ensure that the EU interest is
appropriately reflected in planning and implementation.

The European Law enforcement Training Scheme
(LETS) for Law Enforcement (see section 5.1) will ensure a coordinated approach
to developing and implementing the EU aspect of law enforcement training.
However, given that implementing the LETS will entail additional costs, the
extent to which the different option would allow its implementation can be
compared as follows:

·
Under
option 1, the existing limitation of CEPOL’s competence to senior officers
would remain. This means that the scope of the LETS if implemented by CEPOL
would be accordingly limited but so would be the required additional resources.

·
Under
option 2, the Commission would encourage Member States to implement the LETS but
this would probably be unsuccessful in the absence of a central EU agency responsible
for coordinating matters.

·
Under
option 3, there would be no LETS.

·
Under
option 4a, CEPOL would have the wider competence necessary fully to implement
the LETS, and administrative cost savings would contribute to funding the
implementation of the LETS.

·
Under
option 4b, the merged agency would have the wider competence necessary fully to
implement the LETS, and administrative cost savings would enable the LETS to be
implemented.

·
Under
option 5, CEPOL would have the wider competence necessary fully to implement
the LETS, but there would be no administrative cost savings that would fund, or
at least contribute to funding, the implementation of the LETS. The LETS would
thus be dependent on the uncertainties of being able to find new resources.

7.2     Efficiency

This calculation checked with EU operational police
training experts. The most efficient options are 4a and 4b, but efficiency
gains depend on the success of the partial merger, which is expected to cause
potential serious disruptions to training, especially given the lack of
political support for such a partial merger. Disbanding CEPOL under options 2
and 3 could involve savings but lead to inefficiency and duplication due to the
lack of coordination of EU training. For option 5, direct costs are quite high.
There are also some indirect costs for Member States as it is expected that
costs of prosecution, court proceedings and imprisonment will increase as a
result of efficiency gains in policing. The success of option 5 would depend on
additional funding being available. Notwithstanding Council and European
Parliament statements of support for achieving costs savings among agencies,
option 5 would probably however be supported by most Member States unlike options 4a and 4b whose main weaknesses appear to be the lack of political
support.

Table 9 -
Estimated costs and quantified benefits of policy options

Policy option || Present total value of costs (2012 - 2020) || Benefits

Direct costs || Indirect costs

EU Budget || MS Budget || MS Budget

1 || Status quo || €70m || €50-60m || €5-10m || €75-100m

2 || Member State-based training as part of an EU network || -€60m || €60-70m || Negligible || - €0-15m

3 || No EU support for training || -€60m || €5-10m || €4m || - €25-40m

4a || Partial transfer of CEPOL functions to Europol || Costs savings of €6-14m || €150-200m || €20-40m || €140-200m

4b || Full merger with Europol || No net additional costs (additional €20-25m offset by cost savings of €23.5m) || €150-200m || €20-40m || €140-200m

5 || Strengthen and streamline CEPOL || Additional €20-25m || €135-160m || €20-40m || €140-200m

7.3    Coherence
with other measures
Implementation
of internal security strategy

Options 2 and 3 appear to accord less importance to
training of law enforcement, which is recognised as a key enabler for the
implementation of the internal security strategy. Options 4a, 4b and 5 and to a
lesser extent option 1 attempt a strategic approach to training across the EU
which is aligned with security priorities. Options 4a, 4b and 4c with their
emphasis on needs assessment and consolidation of national plans in the light
of EU priorities, and potential integration of cross-border police operational
and training cooperation, would appear to support new initiatives such as the
EU cybercrime centre whose success will depend on police with skills in
tackling high tech crime.

Reform of Europol

A proposal for reforming Europol is under development,
which could result in a requirement for additional FTE posts to perform
additional tasks. Partial or full merger of Europol and CEPOL could be
disruptive as part of Europol’s staff would be busy with the administrative and
budgetary consequences of the merger. Savings from merging the agencies of
CEPOL and Europol could enable posts to be redeployed and avoid the need for
any additional staff. In the long term, efficiencies and synergies are likely
to emerge, as operational priorities and training needs assessments become more
closely integrated.

Common approach to agencies

Options 4a and 4b are consistent with the
recommendation to merge agencies which may share scope to further exploit synergies
and share services. Relocating to The Hague is not expected to make
it any easier or harder for stakeholders to access the agency's
premises. CEPOL’s disbanding under options 2 and 3 is not justified in
that it is it not considered to be ‘underperforming’, but rather reform may be
appropriate. Options 4a 4b and 5 meet the guidelines in terms of composition
of the board and the proper role of the Director, in that the Commission
would be represented, while option 1 would perpetuate the incompatibility. Options
4a, 4b and 5 enhance the role of contact points responsible for ensuring
satisfactory information flow between national authorities. Implementation of
the LETS under Options 1, 4a, 4b and 5 also would improve strategic approach to
international relations. The planning cycle envisaged by options 4a, 4b
and 5 are consistent with the guidance for annual work programmes and
budgetary procedures, and there would be some improvement of coordination
under option 1. Option 2 risks being the least transparent of options,
as the absence of a formal agency could limit the amount of information on
training and use of EU resources which is published. Options 1, 4a , 4b and 5
each envisage periodic evaluations.

7.4     Summary comparison table

Table 10
summarises the above analysis of each of the options in terms of how they score
against the baseline scenario (Option 1) (0) on effectiveness, efficiency and
coherence on a scale of -3 to +3.

Table 10: Summary comparison of options

|| Effectiveness || Efficiency || Coherence

Baseline (Option 1) || 0 || 0 || 0

Option 2 || -2 || -1 || -1

Option 3 || -3 || -2 || -2

Option 4a || +1 || +2 || +1

Option 4b || +2 || +3 || +2

Option 5 || +3 || +1 || +2

7.5     Legislative considerations

Option 1 would not require any amendment to
the CEPOL Decision. Option 2 would involve thorough reformulation or repeal of
the CEPOL Decision. For Option 4a, the CEPOL Decision and the Europol Decision
would be revised in a limited manner to reflect the sharing of infrastructure
and the transfer to The Hague of CEPOL’s Secretariat staff. Under Option 4.b a
full revision of Europol's competences, structures and procedures would require
amendments to the both instruments, bearing in mind that CEPOL's mandate is
broader than Europol, which is restricted to certain defined forms of crime. Option
5 would require amendment of the CEPOL Decision. Any proposed legislative
changes would invoke protocols 21 and 22 TFEU under which Denmark is excluded from Title V instruments and Ireland and UK are excluded unless they decide to
opt in. Therefore, if and when the new instrument(s) were adopted, DK and
(unless they opted in) IE and UK would remain bound by current instruments.

7.6     Identification
of the preferred policy option

Option 4b is the preferred policy option. It will
achieve savings, so that unnecessary duplication in administration is
eliminated and posts redeployed to serve the operational needs of the LETS.
There would be short-term disruption and loss of expertise which would have to
be minimised, but longer term there would be additional flexibility to redeploy
according to priorities. Savings triggered under this option would be
significant in proportion to the current budget of CEPOL, allowing the merged agency
to transfer resources to the development of policy activities, in particular LETS,
while limiting the increase of resources needed. Swift decision-making –
setting a clear date for the merger which coincides with ending of a number of
staff contracts, careful stakeholder management and an adequate preparation of
the merger by both agencies would mitigate any negative impact for staff and
activities of either agency.

It would align CEPOL's governance more closely with
the Common Approach on EU agencies. Ongoing training needs evaluations will
ensure that the agency’s activities remain relevant to the EU’s cross-border
police cooperation priorities. It strikes the best balance between central
oversight and coordination and national activities. It would help improve
coordination with other agencies. Taking into account an estimated gain in
policing efficiency resulting from gains in knowledge and skills, and an
estimated increase in seizure of criminal assets, the benefits expected for
2012-20 of implementing the preferred option could be considerable.

Overall it would permit an effective implementation of
the European Law enforcement Training Scheme for Law Enforcement and thereby reinforce
EU police training, making it more efficient and effective, and help close the
skills and knowledge gap among law enforcement officers.

8.       Monitoring and evaluation

CEPOL should gather the data to enable the EU to
monitor and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed option.
As well as the horizontal governance rules applicable to agencies, CEPOL should
publish an annual report including these data. There will be a specific
provision in the future regulation for a periodic overall evaluation of the
effectiveness of the measure, with recommendations as appropriate, by or on
behalf of the Commission every five years which will include report on the data
gathered by CEPOL.

Table 11: Indictors and evaluation arrangements

Objectives || Indicators || Evaluation

Clear roles and responsibilities || o Number of GB meetings organised per year o Number of Decisions taken by two/third majority and simple majority o Number of proposals submitted by the Director to the GB o Number of staff working on CEPOL-related matters within National Units o Number of “recommendations” issued by the Scientific Committee o Number of grant agreements signed with the Member States o Number of National Units established, in accordance with criteria and definition of their role in the basic act o Unit price / price per participant per activity developed by CEPOL o budget spending, reimbursement (timely payments), implementation of Procurement Plan, etc. || o Annual activity reports o Periodic CEPOL’s Balanced Scorecards o Periodic surveys of National Units, GB members, other national actors o Surveys of CEPOL’s central staff

To improve the quality of law enforcement training and of law enforcement officers across the EU || o Number of activities delivered o Number of law enforcement officers participating in learning activities per year o Number of law enforcement officers participating in the Erasmus inspired law enforcement exchange programme o Number of JHA staff participating in learning activities organised by CEPOL o Number of mapping activities carried out by CEPOL || o Annual activity reports o Periodic CEPOL’s Balanced Scorecards o Periodic surveys of National Units, GB members, other national actors o Surveys of CEPOL’s central staff

To align agency capacity to recent developments in the EU policy and legal framework || o Number of tools produced by CEPOL to support learning activities in the Member States o Number of modules implemented o Number of languages available per modules o Number of longer-term courses organised by CEPOL o Progress in developing national accreditation systems to accredit learning gained from the participation in CEPOL’s activities || ▪ o    Annual activity reports ▪ o    Periodic CEPOL’s Balanced Scorecards ▪ o    Periodic surveys of National Units, GB members, other national actors o       Surveys of CEPOL’s central staff

[1] Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20
September 2005 (referred to in this document as 'the CEPOL Decision').

[2] Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 establishing the
European Police Office

[3]               This was requirement under Article 21 of the CEPOL
Decision. Study on Five Years evaluation of CEPOL activity 21.1.2011 Consortium Blomeyer & Sanz, Centre for Strategy and
Evaluation Studies LLP and Evalutility Ltd; referred to in this report as
‘evaluation report’;
http://www.cepol.europa.eu/fileadmin/website/newsroom/pubblications/CEPOL\_5\_Year\_Evaluation.pdf

[4] Communication COM(2010) 673 'The Internal security strategy: Five
steps to a more secure Europe'.

[5] Study on the amendment of the Council Decision 20905/681/JHA
setting up CEPOL activity. Final Report 24.4.2012 by GHK
Consultants (referred to in this report as ‘GHK study’); http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/pdf/policies/police\_cooperation/cepol\_final\_report\_100512.pdf.

[6] CEPOL, 'European training scheme: Mapping of law enforcement
training in the European Union: Final Report'.

[7] The Stockholm Programme (paragraph 1.2.6) (see reference below) refers
to a 'systematic European Training Scheme' which is meant to offer
systematically accessible EU training to all law enforcement officers active in
the implementation of the area of freedom, security and justice in order to
foster a genuine European judicial and law enforcement culture. This includes
judges, prosecutors, judicial staff, police officer, border guards and customs
officers.

[8][8] Ramboll, Eureval, Matrix, Evaluation of
the EU decentralised agencies in 2009, Final Report Volume I, Synthesis and
prospects, December 2009, page 31; http://europa.eu/agencies/documents/synthesis\_and\_prospects.pdf

[9][9] Ramboll, Eureval, Matrix, Evaluation of
the EU decentralised agencies in 2009, Final Report Volume I, Synthesis and
prospects, December 2009, page 31;
http://europa.eu/agencies/documents/synthesis\_and\_prospects.pdf

[10] CEPOL annual
report 2011.

[11] Other organisations included Interpol, the Organisation for
Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Union Agency for Fundamental
Rights, European Network of Forensic Science Institutes, Academy of European
Law, the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute and
Aquapol.

[12] Council document 11050/11, 6 June 2011 and Council Conclusions from
3043rd Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting 8-9 November 2010; for further
information see http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/internal-security/harmony-process/index\_en.htm

[13] See https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/press/europol-organised-crime-threat-assessment-2011-429
; from 2013 this will be known as the Serious and Organised Crime Threat
Assessment.

[14] OJ C115, 4.5.2010; 'An open and secure Europe, serving and
protecting citizens' (the 'Stockholm Programme').

[15] The report is available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2011-0150&language=EN

[16] Council document 11450/12 18 June 2012;
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st11/st11450.en12.pdf

[17] Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU
and the European Commission on decentralised agencies, 12 June 2012;
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/604&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.

[18] Source: Responses to GHK study

[19] Evaluation report p.87.

[20] GHK study p.65.

[21] GHK study p.64.

[22] GHK study p.64.

[23] GHK study p.64.

[24] GHK study p.66.

[25] GHK study p.35.

[26] GHK study p.67.

[27] GHK study p.67.

[28] GHK study p.67.

[29] GHK study p.65. As an example, currently, the reference to CEPOL’s
research activities in the Decision is very limited as the latter only mentions
“disseminate best practice and research findings”. There is therefore a need to
specifically mention the tasks of the Agency in relation to research and
science activities (also specifying how such activities will be implemented on
the ground; for example, which national actors should be involved, what should
be the final outputs, etc.).

[30] Evaluation report
p.85.

[31] The GHK study (p.14) noted tensions created by that view of some
Members States as contrasted to the view of other Member States (and the
Commission) of CEPOL as an EU agency with the Director playing a key role in
proposing and implementing a programme decided by the GB.

[32] The evaluation report (pp.92-94) made recommendations to streamline
governance, rationalise structures and strengthen the secretariat. These were
generally endorsed by the Governing Board and many that do not require a change
to the legal base have been implemented, with resulting improvements in
decision-making. For a summary of the recommendations that have not been
implemented, see GHK study p.62.

[33] The evaluation report stated: 'The size of the
Governing Board does not seem to be commensurate to the size of the agency. For
a small agency like CEPOL it is questionable whether it is reasonable and
efficient to have Governing Board meetings with a number of participants as
high as three times the size of the agency itself'.' The European Parliament
has voiced similar criticism.

[34] Evaluation report p.22.

[35] The evaluation report (p.93) recommended granting the Commission
voting rights, a recommendation endorsed by the board itself.

[36] GHK study p.14.

[37] GHK study pp.72,
63.

[38] GHK study pp.16,
63.

[39] GHK study p.63.

[40] GHK study p.63.

[41] GHK study p.18.

[42] GHK's study p.66.; ECA, The European Union Agency, Getting Results,
Special Report n.5, 2008 page 15.

[43] GHK study p.25.

[44] Evaluation report pp.91-92.

[45] GHK study pp.25.

[46] E.g. up-to-date knowledge about modus operandi used by relevant organised
crime groups, including criminal strategies, the misuse of new technologies and
multidisciplinary aspects including the linguistic, technical, analytical and
financial ramifications of the case.

[47] For cost calculation purposes, each
additional post is assumed that these posts will be at AD-7 level.

[48] The European judicial training network aims to promote
training programmes with a European dimension for members of the judiciary in Europe. Its members and observers include the Commission and nearly 40 EU national judicial
bodies; http://www.ejtn.net/

[49] Staffing Plan

[50] The EP 'suggests that an independent assessment be conducted on the
effectiveness of public spending at three levels – national, regional and
European – in order to examine in depth added value and possibilities for
pooling resources and for cost savings in areas such as defence, development
policy, decentralised agencies, the European External Action Service, and
scientific research by means not only of encouraging economies of scale at EU
level, but also of respecting the subsidiarity principle; believes that this
assessment should lead to cost savings; recalls that the assessment regarding
decentralised agencies should take into account the relevant provisions of the
Common Approach annexed to the Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the
Council of the EU and the European Commission on decentralised agencies signed
on 19 July 2012.'

[51] 2010 European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics

[52] UK statistics

[53] Terminating a
contract in this way would incur - for the agency - indemnity corresponding to
one third of the period still to be served and - for the EU - unemployment
allowances that are complementary to the national ones.

[54] Terminating a
contract of indefinite duration incurs no financial costs for the agency,
provided a certain period of notice is respected, but incurs for the EU budget
unemployment allowances.

[55] These are the same figures as those under Option 4.a.

[56] These are the same figures as those under Option 4.a.

Annex A: Overview of CEPOL

CEPOL
is an EU decentralised agency in charge of operational activities[1].

Governance
and structure of CEPOL

The
governance and structure arrangements of CEPOL are established under Chapter
III of the CEPOL Decision and are summarised below.

The
Governing Board (GB) is CEPOL's overall decision-making body
formed by the directors of the national training institutes for senior police.
The GB is chaired by the director of a national training institute of the Member State holding the EU Council Presidency, and meets at least once per Presidency.
Each delegation has one vote.

The
GB, by its Decision 10/2007/GB, established four committees to support its
work: the Annual Programme Committee, the Budget and Administration Committee,
the Training and Research Committee, and the Strategy Committee. Article 10 of
the CEPOL Decision also allows the GB to establish working groups for the
development of strategies and support. Until 2012, when the governance
structure of CEPOL was streamlined following the recommendations of the
five-year evaluation, the committees were supported by a number of permanent
working groups and temporary project groups. The Committees and the existing
working groups were disbanded by Governing Board Decision 32/2011 of 25 October
2011.

The
Commission is a non-voting observer in the GB.

In February 2010 the Governing Board
adopted the new financial rules based on framework partnership agreements
established by the EU Financial rules. All the vacancies have been filled. The
number of staff devoted to financial issues has increased and internal
procedures have been simplified. The new Director has drafted, and the GB has
approved, a new Strategy and a balanced scoreboard which are excellent tools to
improve the policy of the Agency and to act as a real European law enforcement
education centre.

In October 2010, the Court of Auditors
conducted their Audit to CEPOL for the financial year 2010. The auditors
reported significant improvements and no significant negative findings
affecting legality and regularity have been detected.

On 19 November 2010 IAS audit Report was
addressed to Cepol. The objective was to assess the progress made by CEPOL in
implementing the remaining actions related to the critical and very important
recommendations from the IAS audits done in early 2009. Based on the results of
IAS follow-up audit, it was assessed that all the remaining recommendations
from the two audits referred to above have now been adequately implemented
except for two of them which have been downgraded in consideration of the
significant progress made.

However the refusal to discharge the budget
2008 has kept CEPOL in the political spotlight and the discharge for the budget
2009 is under discussion.

Staffing

The
CEPOL Decision provides for a Director of CEPOL. The Director,
appointed by the GB for a four-year period, is responsible for the day-to-day
administration of CEPOL's work and is legally responsible for CEPOL. However,
the Decision does not specify his/her powers on strategy. This has led to
conflicting views as to his/her role in proposing strategic documents to the
GB.

The
CEPOL Secretariat based in Bramshill, UK, is in charge of assisting
CEPOL with all the necessary day-to-day and administrative tasks to implement
the annual programme and initiatives. It has two departments: the Learning,
Science, Research and Development Department and the Corporate Services
Department. As at February 2012, it had 43 staff members.

The
Council Decision establishes National Contact Points (NCPs). Each
Member State has an NCP within its administration. The NCPs are the
coordinators and disseminators of CEPOL's information within Member States.
However, the NCPs' mandate and role is not well defined in the Decision, which
results with significant differences between MS in organising the network at
national level and allocating resources.

Purpose, objectives and tasks of CEPOL

Under
its legal basis, CEPOL should help train senior police officers by optimising
cooperation between Member States, and support and develop a European approach
to the main problems facing Member States in the fight against crime, crime
prevention and the maintenance of law and order, in particular the cross-border
dimension of those problems.

CEPOL's
portfolio consists of products and activities as well as an electronic network:

· Courses, seminars and conferences covering key topics
with a European policing dimension;

· Common Curricula: defined to provide a harmonised
approach to teaching on specific topics with a European dimension;

· Research: dissemination of research findings and best
practice;

· Exchange programme: multilateral exchange of senior
police officers and police trainers in order that they better understand the
Member States' legal systems and organisations and get to know colleagues and
working methods in other countries.

· CEPOL has also the legal capacity to be partner in EU
grants for the implementation of projects such as the EUROMED II Project which
aims to strengthen international police cooperation within the MEDA programme[2].

The financing
of CEPOL

CEPOL's
budget is part of the EU budget and consists of three main categories of
expenditure: (1) staff (42 to 46% of total expenditure in the years 2006 to
2010), (2) buildings, equipment and miscellaneous (5% to 6%) and (3)
operational activity (49% to 58%). CEPOL's budget (commitments) increased from
€4.3 million in 2006 to between €8 and €8.8 million (2007 to 2009), before
falling.

CEPOL and Europol

Agency || Mission || Year of creation || Seat || Staff 2012 || Staff 2013 || Budget 2013

CEPOL (European Police College) || Helps cross-border training of senior police officers by optimising and reinforcing co-operation between relevant national institutes and organisations. Aims at supporting and developing an integrated EU approach on the cross-border problems faced by its Member States in their fight against crime, crime prevention, the maintenance of law and order and public security. || 2001, but agency since 2006 || Bramshill/ UK || 43 || 43 || 8 450 640

Europol (European Police Office) || Help the EU member states co-operate more closely and effectively in preventing and combating organised international crime. || 1995, but agency since 2009 || The Hague/NL || 457 || 457 || 82 520 000

Both CEPOL and Europol are former 3rd
pillar agencies. The Treaty of Lisbon includes a chapter on police cooperation
(Articles 87 to 89 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU) and, in
particular, provides for a new legal basis for Europol. DG HOME launched a
review of the founding regulation of CEPOL and Europol in 2010.

Annex B:
'Problem tree' illustrating drivers and problems

Annex C: Detailed cost calculations

Annex D: Explanation of the approach to
quantification of impacts

This
Annex sets out the approach, including the underlying logic, the key
assumptions made and the statistics used, for quantifying the economic impacts
of the policy options. It should be read in conjunction with Annex \*E, which
includes the detailed statistical information and calculations.

1) Assumptions: policy effectiveness

A
set of assumptions of the likely effects of policy options have been made,
which underpin assessment of economic effects of those options.

Options 2 and 3

It
is assumed that disbanding CEPOL and reducing or ceasing all EU support for
police training would:

a)
increase the workload of other EU agencies;

b)
increase decentralised learning activities which would vary among Member State;

c)
lead to less effective and less efficient organisation of learning activities
overall;

d)
reduce effectiveness of cross-border investigations;

e)
contribute to a reduction in the number of prosecutions, convictions and a
higher number of people being incarcerated;

Options 1, 4a, 4b and 5

It
is assumed that the policy options to strengthening CEPOL through
non-legislative changes (option 1) or changing its legal basis (options 4a, 4b
and 5) would:

a)
increase the workload of the EU agency responsible for training and increase the
number of learning activities at EU and national level;

b)
make the police training more effective;

c)
make police training more efficient;

d)
make cross-border investigations more efficient and effective;

e)
improve the quality of policing;

f)
increase in
the number of prosecutions, convictions and a higher number of people being
incarcerated.

g)
increase seizure of criminal assets and proceeds and disruption of cross-border
criminal networks.

2)
Key assumptions for calculating the economic effects
Timeframe for analysis

The
costs and benefits have been estimated over a nine year period (2012 to 2020)
to get a sense of the longer term impact of each option.

Discount rate

In
line with the Commission’s impact assessment guidelines, a standard discount
rate (4%) has been used to calculate the present value of impacts occurring in
future years.

Inflation

The
following inflation rates have been used to adjust figures to their current
values:

2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 - 2020

2.2% || 2.3% || 3.7% || 1.0% || 3.0% || 2.0%

The
inflation rate for the years 2006 to 2010 represents actual values which have
been sourced from Eurostat. An average annual inflation rate of 2% has been
used for the period 2011 to 2020 which represents the target inflation rate for
the ECB and for most non-Euro area Central Banks

CEPOL’s workload

Table
F.1 shows how CEPOL’s workload in terms of the number of participants by type
of learning activity is expected to develop in the baseline scenario. The
figures for 2012 to 2020 have been extrapolated using linear trend approach.
For the online activities (online seminars and e-learning modules), the same
linear development as for the training has been calculated, as information on
the number of participants is only available for 2011.

Table
F.2 shows how CEPOL’s workload in terms of the number of learning activities,
by type of activity, is expected to develop in the baseline scenario. The
figures for 2012 to 2020 have been extrapolated using linear trend approach.
Again, for the online activities (webinars), the same linear development as for
the training has been calculated, as figures are only available for 2011.

Table F.3 (CEPOL’s budget) shows the
past evolution of CEPOL’s budget (final expenditure) and, using linear trend
approach, the assumed development of CEPOL’s budget (based on final expenditure
during the previous years). It also shows the expected average unit costs per
participant and the average cost per participant per type of learning activity.
The latter has been calculated by estimating the proportion of the CEPOL budget
dedicated to the different types of ‘core’ CEPOL deliverables (as included in
the Agencies planned budget breakdown), namely:

i.
Courses and seminars (excl. E-learning), corresponding to 77% of the
CEPOL budget

ii.
E-learning and
electronic networks, corresponding to 8% of the CEPOL budget

iii.
Common curricula and
learning methods, corresponding to 6% of the CEPOL budget

iv.
Research and good
practice, corresponding to 5% of the CEPOL budget

v.
Exchanges,
corresponding to 4% of the CEPOL budget.

These
overall shares have been subsequently applied to the (2011) final expenditure
of CEPOL and divided by the number of participants per type of learning
activity (Course and seminars; E-learning and e-networks; exchanges). It is
noted that the entire budget has been used in order to calculate the costs per
participants, as it is assumed that all other CEPOL expenses and related
activities are ‘in function’ of the delivery of its ‘core’ deliverables.

Table F.1:
CEPOL’s workload in terms of numbers of
participants

Table F.2: CEPOL’s workload in terms of
number of learning activities

Table F.3: CEPOL’s budgetary
developments and unit cost per participant and
per type of learning activity

Member State workload

Member State workload, in terms
of their budget dedicated to law enforcement education and training, has been
calculated by identifying the national law enforcement education and training
budgets of the Netherlands and Northern Ireland, as well as their overall law
enforcement budgets, and applying this share (2.05%) to the law enforcement
budgets of other Member States. The total budget of the 27 Member States
dedicated to law enforcement education and training is estimated to be €2.6
billion, corresponding to an average of 91 million per Member State per year in 2012.

It
is assumed that those policy options likely to lead to an increase in learning
activities will increase Member State budgets for law enforcement education and
training, for example in order to integrate CEPOL activities or to adapt
national curriculums and accreditation. This is expressed as a % of the total
budget in the EU dedicated to law enforcement education and training.

 It was not possible to use the figures which were included in the
questionnaires circulated as part of the LETS expert groups.

3) Costs of law enforcement and criminal
justice systems
Public expenditure on public order and
safety

The
following data is available on Eurostat.

Table F.4: COFOG Classification of public expenditure on public order and
safety

COFOG classification || Data availability

GF03: Public order and safety || Available for all 27 Member States

GF0301: Police services || Available for 22 Member States

GF0302: Fire protection || Not relevant

GF0303: Law courts || Available for 22 Member States

GF0304: Prisons || Available for 22 Member States

GF0305: R&D || Available for 21 Member States

GF0306: nec || Available for 22 Member States

Total cost for law enforcement

This
is based on the total public expenditure on police services at an EU level
(Eurostat COFOG classification FG0301). The latest available and most complete
data is for 2009. The EU total has been calculated by multiplying the average
values of the 22 Member States by 27.

It
is assumed that some of the policy options can lead to efficiency gains in
policing, because, as a result of learning activities, law enforcement
officials would have improved skills and knowledge, which in turn would lead to
investigations being conducted more effectively and successfully (whilst other
policy options can lead to efficiency losses in the absence of learning
activities). This is expressed as a % of the total budget in the EU dedicated
to police services.

Total costs of the Criminal Justice
System
Total cost of prisons

This
is based on the total public expenditure on prisons at an EU level (Eurostat
COFOG classification GF0304). The latest available and most complete data is
for 2008. The EU total has been calculated by multiplying the average values of
the 22 Member States by 27.

Cost of prosecution, legal aid and court
proceedings

Data
has been sourced from 'Judicial Systems Edition 2010 (data 2008): Efficiency
and quality of justice', European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice
(CEPEJ). The table below provides data by Member State. It should be noted
that:

For
some countries, separate data for courts and public prosecution services are
not available, since they are included in a single budget (Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Spain).

Data
on the budget allocated to the prosecution system were not provided by Denmark (the public prosecution service’s budget partially depends on the police budget), Portugal and UK-Northern Ireland

In
the Czech Republic, legal aid is funded both by the state budget and the budget
of the Czech Bar Association. The following table only shows publicly funded
legal aid.

Where
possible, missing data has been estimated as follows:

|| Estimated as follows: Total annual approved public budget allocated to all courts, public prosecution and legal aid X Average public budget allocated to the public prosecution system (24%) NB: Average based on MS for whom data is available

|| Data for Average amount of legal aid allocated per case (criminal + other cases)

|| Estimated as follows: Total annual approved public budget allocated to all courts, public prosecution and legal aid X Average public budget allocated to all courts (58%) NB: Average based on MS for whom data is available

It
is assumed that a higher or lower efficiency and effectiveness in policing will
lead to respectively higher or lower costs of the criminal justice system. If
policing is more effective, the Criminal Justice System might need to deal with
a higher number of prosecutions, court cases and imprisonment, which will thus
mean an increase of the costs allocated to these activities.

It
is further assumed that, every percentage point of efficiency gains or losses
related to policing will lead to an increase or reduction of the costs of the
Criminal Justice System of half of this percentage point, as not all efficient
policing will be applied to the investigation of cases (it can also, for
example, relate to third-country missions).

Table F.5 Costs of the Judicial System,
2008 Data

Assets available for seizure

The
global figure has been calculated as a proportion (18%) of the total ‘market
size’ of transnational organised crime. The market size estimates have been
sourced from UNODC (figures in yellow) as presented in the table below. Only those
highlighted in yellow, directly affecting the EU, have been used for the
calculations.

Table F.6: Estimated value of transnational organised crime flow (USD
million), annual, 2010 data

Crime || Estimated market size

Cocaine to North America || 38,000

Cocaine to Europe || 34,000

Heroin to Europe || 20,000

Heroin to Russia || 13,000

Counterfeit goods to Europe || 8,200

Migrant smuggling from Latin America || 6,600

Illicit South-East Asian timber || 3,500

Counterfeit medicine || 1,600

Trafficking in persons to Europe || 1,250

Identity theft || 1,000

Child pornography || 250

Migrant smuggling from Africa || 150

Maritime piracy || 100

Ivory to Asia || 62

Firearms from Eastern Europe || 33

Firearms to Mexico || 20

Rhino horn to Asia || 8

Total || 127,773

Total to Europe in USD || 43,483

Total to Europe in EUR || 32,800

Source: UNODC http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/tocta/Conclusion.pdf. Note: Cells highlighted in yellow
denote crimes relevant for the EU

In
addition, we have added EU figures on cybercrime and EU VAT fraud to the
‘market size’, namely:

Cybercrime:
750,000 EUR million source: http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-establish-cybercrime-agency-news-486715

EU
VAT Fraud: 200,000 EUR million source: http://ec.europa.eu/commission\_barroso/kovacs/speeches/VATFraud\_20070329.pdf

The
proportion of assets available for seizure is based on UK evidence.

Table F.6 UK
Evidence on Assets available for seizure

Crime || Estimated market size

People smuggling || 250

People trafficking || 275

Drugs || 5,300

Excise fraud || 2,900

Fraud || 1,900

Non-excise intellectual property theft || 840

Total || 11,465

Criminal assets available for seizure || 2,040

As % of total market size || 18%

Source: Dubourg, R. And Prichard, S.
(undated) The impact of organised crime in the UK: revenues and economic and
social costs

It
is assumed that higher or lower costs for the Criminal Justice System (because
of a higher number of prosecutions, court cases and imprisonment) will also
lead to increased availability of assets for recovery, as the court could order
this for a proportionally higher number of convicted criminals.

It
is further assumed that, every percentage point increase or reduction of costs
related to the Criminal Justice System will lead to an increase or reduction of
asset recovery of half of this percentage point, as on average, 40%[3] of prosecuted cases are
brought and of these, 50% to 60%[4] result in a conviction.

Annex E: Summary of stakeholder
consultation

E.1 Introduction

This is a summary of the stakeholders views on
the future of CEPOL and presents the detailed write-ups of all stakeholder
interviews undertaken until January 2012, with Governing Board members, the
Secretariat, Ministry Representatives, external experts, and participants of
the annual Exchange Programme Evaluation conference in Prague.

E.2 Background

A total of 51 interviews were undertaken by GHK
in order to provide into a much greater level of detail, the functioning of
CEPOL and the legislation governing CEPOL in the light of the objectives set
out in the Stockholm programme and other important and more recent policy
developments.

As part of the Evaluation Phase, three types of
interviewees were undertaken namely:

▪           Interviews with sample of
CEPOL Governing Board members- 17 interviews were undertaken with 17 different
Member States

▪           Interviews with CEPOL’s
Director and Secretariat: - 3 interviews

▪           Interviews with CEPOL
stakeholders:

o          National Exchange Coordinators: 7
interviews;

o          Participants of the 2011 Exchange
programme:  7 interviews; and

o          External experts: 3 interviews

▪           Interviews with EU
stakeholders, including Europol, Frontex, the European Judicial Training
Network and a representative of the COSI Group - in total 4 interviews were
undertaken

▪           Interviews with national
senior law enforcement officers/representatives of Ministries of the Member
States - 9 interviews were undertaken

The write ups of such interviews are presented
in Table herewith.

The Commission involved all Member States in the
assessment of the functioning of the Council Decision and its revision. The
future role of CEPOL was also discussed in the context of several workshops to
gather ideas on the contents of the European Law Enforcement Training Scheme
organised by the Commission in the second half of 2011 and the first part of
2012.

In the framework of the preparatory study,
Commission organised a consultative workshop in Brussels on 7 February 2012, to
validate the problems identified within the course of the study as well as to
discuss the recommendations and to select the most viable alternatives for
action. The workshop was comprised of about 20 participants from a range of MS'
representatives from the Ministries of Interior specialised in training policy,
CEPOL Governing Board Members, CEPOL representatives and Commission
representatives in addition to impact assessment experts.

On the 3rd May 2012 the European Commission
organised a consultative conference in Brussels, comprised of about 60
participants from all Member States, represented by law enforcement officers
involved in the training policy, CEPOL Governing Board Members, CEPOL
representatives and European Commission representatives in addition to impact
assessment experts. The purposes of the conference was to present the outcomes
of the preparatory study as well as to discuss the recommendations as they have
been considered in the policy options regarding the identified problems as well
as the recommendations concerning CEPOL’s governance, management, operational
work and legal base.

The Commission also organised a Conference on
"the European Police Culture: What future?" in Brussels on 18 May
2011. The Conference was devoted to an analysis of the policy on the basis of
presentations by high-level speakers who provided ideas and contributions to
achieve a common understanding about the content of such a policy to be
developed in the next years. The participants identified some steps to be taken
to develop a European law enforcement training policy which should be managed
by enhanced, responsive and effective structures with legal, financial and
administrative resources to support the emergence of a genuine integrated
police culture.

The future role of CEPOL was also discussed in
different meetings of the Governing Board of the Agency. In the meeting of 22
and 23 June 2012, the Governing Board discussed the GHK's final report and
ideas to change the legal basis of CEPOL. Most of the Member States generally
supported the idea to optimise CEPOL's role. It was clear from those exchanges
of views that nobody endorsed the idea to disband the Agency or merge it with
Europol because traditionally training will suffer of proximity with
operational activities.

The possible policy options on future user
requirements for CEPOL were also discussed in the meeting of Law Enforcement
Working Party on 1st June 2012 and in the meeting of COSI on 25th June 2012. In
those meetings a clear majority of Member States supported the option to
Optimise CEPOL and change its legal basis as it was suggested by GHK's study
and supported by the Commission. Few Member States supported 1 while
respectively expressing outstanding doubts and misgivings regarding in
particular the objective of the reform because they think CEPOL has currently
solved the problem and it should stick to its original funding concept and not
to become a Policy Academy. Less bureaucracy and strong decentralisation is the
idea of this minority of Member States.

E.3 Views concerning the relevance of CEPOL
activities

Belgium, Alain Ruelle                1.         Identification
of new training / knowledge needs resulting from the EU policy framework

In order to identify new training and knowledge
needs, the CEPOL secretariat takes the Internal Security Strategy, Stockholm
Programme and the Lisbon Treaty into account. In his view the EU legislation is
very straight forward and clear and CEPOL manages to meet such needs.

2.         Identification of new training /
knowledge needs resulting from changes to national policies and practices

3.         CEPOL implemented surveys that ask MS
to give detailed comments about their needs and wishes regarding the upcoming
programme. In BE these surveys are distributed to every police department on
all level (including local) to gather and cover as many inputs as possible. In
BE they are usually asked to provide a 3 years forecast on their needs.

4.         According to Mr Ruelle, it is easy
for CEPOL to answer to the MSs needs by reason that the chosen topics for
activities are so broadly defined. However, this is an opportunity as CEPOL
than has the possibility to focus on particular topics within the chosen area.

5.         Mr Ruelle is hoping for a training
need assessment process that goes beyond questionnaires and surveys something
that adds real value. The post course evaluations should be taken into account
more often.

6.         CEPOL’s ability to identify the most
relevant needs which result from national change

7.         CEPOL is able to identify the most
relevant needs and implements successfully related activities. The main
obstacle to a perfect identification lies in the MS’s participation. In many
cases the feedback from MSs is not more than just terms or few sentences per
topic, making it difficult for CEPOL to act upon.

8.         Involvement of the  Director / Secretariat
in the identification of new training / knowledge needs resulting from changes
to national policies and practices

The Secretariat is involved in identification of
new training / knowledge needs by communicating closely with Member States and
implementing the abovementioned surveys.

As was mentioned before, CEPOL’s ability to
identify new needs depends greatly on the initiatives and activeness of Member
States. However, they believe that CEPOL is able enough to identify the most
relevant needs which result from national changes.

9.         Extent to which the objectives and
tasks as set out in the CEPOL Decision are relevant to address today’s law
enforcement training / knowledge needs

         In his opinion the CEPOL
decision is quite clear and very helpful in defining what CEPOL has to do. It
is therewith relevant to current challenges and lays down a good institutional
balance between the Secretariat and the Governing Board. However, what has to
change is the level of decision making in the GB, away from
micro/administrative decision towards more strategic/long-term decision making.

10.       Support of the changes to CEPOL, which
are currently being implemented to take on board the recommendations of the
Five year evaluation of CEPOL, in order to increase the agency’s relevance

a)         Clarify the CEPOL intervention logic:
CEPOL is doing very well and is on track.

b)         Streamline governance and rationalise
structures: ongoing.

Is hopeful that the newly implemented structure
will work well: line of command is shorter

Nevertheless, closing down Committees and
rationalising Working Groups inhales the risk that the GB will be left with a
lot of basic work.

Working Groups should also follow orders from
the GB timelier as too many decisions are delayed.

c)         Strengthen the CEPOL secretariat:

First a clear definition of tasks needed, than
ok with new HR staff

Secretariat not enough manpower.

But pessimistic whether CEPOL will ever have
enough staff to fulfil all tasks.

d)         Merge capacity building for law
enforcement:

It is necessary to build a link between all
levels of law enforcement but this is rather a task for the long-term
perspective.

e)         Assess member State engagement with
CEPOL:

f)          Concentrate capacity building
efforts:

g)         Measure results and impacts:

So far the evaluations do not represent the
long-term effect of activities. Line manager questionnaires are working well,
even though only 60% response rate. Regarding the analysis of evaluations only
some Member States take them into account. The analyses of evaluations should
also be taken into account by the Secretariat in formulating the multi-annual
work programme.

Training and knowledge needs to be addressed by
CEPOL in the future

Mr Ruelle believes that CEPOL sufficiently
covers future challenges through its training activities. CEPOL covers from an
EU perspective the most important topics that are relevant for police training
on senior level. Regarding the 2011 and 2012 programme CEPOL is already implementing
needs mentioned in the EU Policy Cycle. Requests by other EU Agencies can often
not be met, due to a limited budget.

Bulgaria, Plamen Kolarski         11.       Identification
of new training / knowledge needs resulting from the EU policy framework and
national policies and practices

CEPOL is able to identify the most urgent
training/knowledge needs resulting from EU and national policy changes. CEPOL
GB does the best to provide the MS with topics related to new EU policies.
CEPOL helps improving the national training programme and the national
curricula and adapting the national standards to EU standards. The training
received by CEPOL has been very relevant for law enforcement officers as it
helped to adapt to the EU acquis during the transition period.

The topics covered are very relevant especially
transnational crime, THB, illegal migration, drug trafficking and respect of
human rights.

12.       Extent to which the objectives and
tasks as set out in the CEPOL Decision are relevant to address today’s law
enforcement training / knowledge needs

The objectives are still relevant as they are
included in the Decision.

13.       Support of the changes to CEPOL, which
are currently being implemented to take on board the recommendations of the
Five year evaluation of CEPOL, in order to increase the agency’s relevance

The interviewee agrees with all the
recommendations as they help improve not only the relevance but also the
efficiency and effectiveness of CEPOL.

Streamline governance and rationalise
structures:  the Secretariat has to be more effective. An improvement will be
triggered by the dismantlement of the working groups and committees. The latter
were not mentioned in the CEPOL Decision and were considered to be “heavy”
structural elements.

The possibility to establish ad hoc working
groups seems an option providing for more flexibility.

The interviewee was against a potential merger
of CEPOL with Europol. The latter needs to focus exclusively on operational
work. Training for law enforcement officers has to be concentrated in one
Agency. CEPOL is considered to be the first step towards the creation of an EU
Police organisation.

Spain, Mr Eduardo Borobio Leon (NCP) on behalf
of Jose Antonio Rodriguez 14.       Identification of new training / knowledge
needs resulting from the EU policy framework and national policies and
practices.

15.       The role of the GB members when
identifying the training needs is basically to value the update of the
multi-annual strategic plan. Within the identification of needs the EU policy
documents such as the Stockholm programme and the ISS are discussed and the
multi-annual plans shall also ratify the new objectives at the EU level for the
training.

16.       At a national level, the training
needs are identify by the MS and usually they try to find new themes. For
example after the terrorist attacks in Spain in 2004, new training needs were
developed for the prevention of terrorism. These needs are constantly updated,
given that new types of crimes are also identified such as cybercrime.

17.       The interviewee highlighted that CEPOL
should have for this a flexibility margin in order to be able to include new
training according the training needs. The best example is the reserve list of
activities that is done for each year, where activities are listed as a “back
up” in case other activities are cancelled or postponed.

18.       Involvement of the  Director /
Secretariat in the identification of new training / knowledge needs resulting
from changes to national policies and practices

19.       The Director is responsible for
implementing the multi-annual plan which establishes the training needs that
have been identified.

20.       Extent to which the objectives and
tasks as set out in the CEPOL Decision are relevant to address today’s law
enforcement training / knowledge needs

The interviewee considers that some of the
objectives are too general, thus the Decisions needs to be updated and to
specify certain of the objectives and the structure of CEPOL. For example the
Decision should also define the target groups more specifically in order to
achieve such objectives. The target group in this context could be broadened in
order to be able to include teachers/trainers and research police staff as
well. The inclusion of police students in their final phase could also be a
discussed.

21.       Support of the changes to CEPOL, which
are currently being implemented to take on board the recommendations of the
Five year evaluation of CEPOL, in order to increase the agency’s relevance

Overall, they agree with the recommendations and
in addition they highlighted that the structure and the functioning of CEPOL
shall be revised. The committees will be already disbanded.

Furthermore CEPOL should also have more capacity
and competence in order to be a consulting body for the NCP. In addition if the
work that the committees were previously undertaking is going to be transferred
to the Secretariat, the latter needs to be strengthened.

The bureaucracy involved within the GB meetings
could also be reduced and the GB shall have a focus on strategic decision
making and planning.

Training and knowledge needs to be addressed by
CEPOL in the future

In particular, CEPOL should address training at
EU Level. The best example is the LETS in which CEPOL will have to provide the
training for the police. Thus CEPOL would have to provide a common EU training
plan. The needs shall be adapted to the MS needs and to be updated according to
the new crime trends.

Finland, Kimmo Himberg          22.       Identification
of new training / knowledge needs resulting from the EU policy framework

         When Finland makes proposals to
CEPOL they try to filter the needs through the policy basis. On a national
level they do a check as to whether the ideas match EU policies.

         When one looks at the training
programme, it is obvious that there are still some topics, courses, on the
calendar which are hard to be matched with the policies. The role of CEPOL
should be to put emphasis on cross border phenomena and it is not always too
evident.

23.       Involvement of the Governing Board
(THE GOVERNING BOARD) in the identification of new training / knowledge needs
resulting from the EU policy framework

         The role of the Governing Board
is rather thin in the process. Mr Himberg is not fully aware of the mechanisms
which bring new knowledge needs into the agenda of CEPOL. Seems to be strongly
based on the activities of the Member State, institutions which make proposals
to CEPOL.

         Discussion on these needs have
been minimal in the 2 meetings he attended.

24.       Identification of new training /
knowledge needs resulting from changes to national policies and practices

This is strongly based on the activities of the
Member State themselves and whether or not to make proposals on new topics to
CEPOL.

25.       CEPOL’s ability to identify the most
relevant needs which result from national change

The major part of the issues that ultimately
appear on the training agenda are relevant. However, there are still some
individual topics which are not as relevant as they should.

26.       Involvement of the  Director /
Secretariat in the identification of new training / knowledge needs resulting
from changes to national policies and practices

Too new, not entirely clear to him. Generally
speaking he is very satisfied with the way the D and S run CEPOL.

27.       Extent to which the objectives and
tasks as set out in the CEPOL Decision are relevant to address today’s law
enforcement training / knowledge needs

         The key is cross border police
cooperation. This happens at two levels:

▪           the real activity level,
whether or not each of the training courses are relevant in terms of improving
practical everyday cross border cooperation;

▪           Improving cross border cooperation
calls for a general understanding of the way law enforcement authorities work
in different member states. It is very useful for Mr Himberg’s and his
colleagues’ work. In this respect, CEPOL activities are very useful. Sometimes
concentrate too much on issues which are relevant at national level.

         With regard to the tasks:

▪           exchange programmes are very
useful in terms of improving the general knowledge of law enforcement
activities. Especially for the second level

▪           Training sessions: many are
very useful and Finland is a relatively small Member State and was very active
in sending police officers to the various training courses.

28.       Support of the changes to CEPOL, which
are currently being implemented to take on board the recommendations of the
Five year evaluation of CEPOL, in order to increase the agency’s relevance

         Mr Himberg is very certain that
very meaningful improvements will be reached.

Training and knowledge needs to be addressed by
CEPOL in the future

Mr Himberg is looking forward to seeing CEPOL
put more emphasis on the real cross border issues in the near future and very
interested to see an increase in a number of activities focusing in cooperation
of law enforcement authorities, commonly known criminal phenomena on cross
border crime (e.g. human trafficking, drug trafficking, environmental crimes,
money laundering). Concrete training sessions or activities which look at more
efficient police cooperation should be expanded.

France, Mr Emile Pérez            29.       Role
of the NCP as opposed to that of member of the Governing Board

Mr Perez is the Director of the International
Cooperation Directorate and was before the director of France Nationale Police
Training Department : where he already had a team which managed all the CEPOL
aspects. He is still the National Contact Point but the work is done by a team
dedicated to CEPOL (policemen and gendarmerie's officers). This enables to get
more coordination and consistency, and all national viewpoints. The NCP does
the day to day work. It receives all the information from CEPOL through the
network (Secretariat and the Member States), then distributes it to those in
charge of activities, those participating at national level, and prepare files
for the representative of France at the Governing Board.

30.       Identification of new training /
knowledge needs resulting from the EU policy framework

With regard to the EU dimension, the needs are
well known by all representatives. The national programmes integrate those EU
dimensions into the national policies.

31.       Involvement of the Governing Board
(THE GOVERNING BOARD) in the identification of new training / knowledge needs
resulting from the EU policy framework

Since its creation in 2001, the Governing Board
is the executive body of CEPOL: all the Member States can express themselves on
the CEPOL's policies. The Governing Board takes the decisions to enable
applying the orientations of the policies. The orientations are taken on the
basis of each Member State, by the partners and the stakeholders of CEPOL (such
as EC, Council, Europol, Eurojust, Frontex etc). The Governing Board needs to ensure
that all interests are taken into account in the daily work of those actors and
partners. It can be done thanks to the diversity of the representation of
members of the Governing Board (Member States and other actors).

The CEPOL's policy is elaborated with the
Governing Board which also adopts and amends the governance decisions, prepared
on the basis work of the Committees and the Working Groups with the support of
the Secretariat, which produces propositions and establish the annual
activities programme and within each Member State is represented as well. They
will facilitate the decisions of the Governing Board as well as appropriation
of the needs of the partners and Member States. Needs of the Member States are
always taken into account within each working group.

32.       Identification of new training /
knowledge needs resulting from changes to national policies and practices

33.       CEPOL’s ability to identify the most
relevant needs which result from national change

This is the whole utility of the Committees and
Working Groups which go into details of requests made to Member States: what
are they ready to do as well as what they wish to have from CEPOL for their
officers? Each Member State establishes their priorities which are then put
together to provide a working group and then proposed to the Governing Board
for validation. All the activities are defined not by CEPOL but by Member
States for the profit of CEPOL.

34.       Involvement of the  Director /
Secretariat in the identification of new training / knowledge needs resulting
from changes to national policies and practices

The role of the director is to coordinate and to
ensure that the work is done.

The question at the moment is whether if there
is a need for the committees. However, the secretariat itself does not
represent the Member States. The Member States do need to be represented. The
secretariat should ensure that the work commissioned to committees is done and
may complete it with other works, in order to ensure decisions which could be
taken by the Governing Board.

35.       Extent to which the objectives and
tasks as set out in the CEPOL Decision are relevant to address today’s law
enforcement training / knowledge needs

The objectives are relevant. The EU construction
needs to go through a long process where they need to get to know each other,
to recognise each other, accepting that there are other standards, and respect
each other, and work in trust. CEPOL is playing this role. This is one of the
few agencies which enable to bring together policemen who come from all Member
States and other countries, which will learn to get to know each other and
respect each other, within an EU framework. This is an avoidable objective of
CEPOL.

Another possibility could have been to have an
agency with EU civil servants, which would implement training in Member States.

The approach of asking each Member States to
participate in the implementation of those actions and principles is the most
important way to do. Although France is much centralised, this decentralised
approach is the best to coordinate training for all Member States.

36.       Support of the changes to CEPOL, which
are currently being implemented to take on board the recommendations of the
Five year evaluation of CEPOL, in order to increase the agency’s relevance

With regard to the seven main recommendations:

▪           Clarify the CEPOL intervention
logic:  There is a need to define what the intervention logic is. If it is to
reinforce Director and secretariat with more bureaucracy, then no. It should
leave room for networking of Member States and correspond to needs of Member
States and not of bureaucracy. It needs for sure to be clarified but in the
right direction.  It should first clarify what exists and what needs to be
clarified.

▪           Streamline governance and
rationalise structures:  There is a need to ensure it is going to the right
direction. If it is to suppress working groups and diminish the meetings of the
Governing Board and giving more power to secretariat it will not be useful.
Committees should not be suppressed. Since 2008, France has proposed to set up next
to the Governing Board an Executive Committee which would absorb in details all
the work which needs to be realised. This Executive Committee would be composed
of representatives of Member States. When CEPOL will privilege bureaucracy to
networking, it will die. The only thing is that CEPOL will multiply its budget
by 10 to pay the work of civil servants which are now being made freely by
Member States and activities freely organised by Member States. The day Member
States will make pay their daily investment in CEPOL, it will require at least
100 millions for functioning, 90% will be for salaries.

▪           Strengthen the CEPOL
Secretariat: This should be achieved in number but not in power. See other
questions. It should be given the power to fulfil its function.

▪           Merge capacity building for
law enforcement:  It is unclear. The chance of CEPOL is to have diversity of
the Member States.

▪           Assess Member State engagement
with CEPOL: The five years evaluation wants that the involvement of Member
States great and recognised.

▪           Concentrate capacity building
efforts:  this is a basic requirement.

▪           Measure results and impacts: 
same as above.

If those changes lead to less involvements of
the Member States, a reduction of the involvement of the network, decrease of
activities for bureaucracy, non relevant of activities because implemented by a
secretariat, those will not go in the right direction. All that will reinforce
involvement of Member States, sharing between all the members, to ensure that
CEPOL is the cornerstone for EU training and is of great input.

Training and knowledge needs to be addressed by
CEPOL in the future

The needs are those expressed by the
representatives of Member States and other actors (stakeholders: Europol,
Frontex etc). It is not to CEPOL to say what the needs are. CEPOL has to put
together the needs and to ensure that they are addressed. CEPOL should not
express those needs but integrate them. Up to now, CEPOL has always tried to
fit with the needs of all participants in proposing training offers. The issue
is that today the decrease of number of activities or participants in trainings
will affect the expected objective.

Training is the first way to change the culture
of a service and then to change a system.

All the issues mentioned above are indeed
needed. These should be assessed and put forward by Member States, and each
Member State might have different needs.

Greece, KRIERIS Dimitrios      37.       Identification
of new training / knowledge needs resulting from the EU policy framework and
national policies and practices

CEPOL takes into account the priority of the
Council and the MS and the Octa reports from Europol when planning its
activities. Moreover, MS are asked, by CEPOL, to fill in questionnaires
underlining their training needs (such questionnaires are circulated annually).
MS have also ownership over the planning of activities as GB members are
responsible for voting the annual programme.

Therefore all the activities are relevant to the
training /knowledge needs. In the identification of such needs, scorecards are
considered to be very valuable tools.

38.       Extent to which the objectives and
tasks as set out in the CEPOL Decision are relevant to address today’s law
enforcement training / knowledge needs

New developments, such as the LETS should be
taken into account in the Decision. The role of CEPOL in this respect should
also be clarified in its legal basis.

Moreover, the coverage of CEPOL’s activities
should be broadened (the activities should involve also middle-range officers).
This should be reflected in the objectives of CEPOL.

39.       Support of the changes to CEPOL, which
are currently being implemented to take on board the recommendations of the
Five year evaluation of CEPOL, in order to increase the agency’s relevance

All the changes implemented as a result of the
recommendations are considered to be very useful and improve the relevance,
efficiency and effectiveness of CEPOL.

40.       Training and knowledge needs to be
addressed by CEPOL in the future

According to the interviewee, CEPOL should be
responsible for the implementation of the LETS. CEPOL should also be
responsible for the coordination of training provided by other Agencies.

Hungary, Emese Horváczy        41.       Identification
of new training / knowledge needs resulting from the EU policy framework

         All those aspects are taken
into account.

42.       Involvement of the Governing Board (THE
GOVERNING BOARD) in the identification of new training / knowledge needs
resulting from the EU policy framework

         The annual programme is
approved by the Governing board.

43.       Identification of new training /
knowledge needs resulting from changes to national policies and practices

         This is done through
networking.

44.       CEPOL’s ability to identify the most
relevant needs which result from national change

Annual programme is prepared and presented to
the Director and the Secretariat.

45.       Involvement of the  Director /
Secretariat in the identification of new training / knowledge needs resulting
from changes to national policies and practices

Yes. Through the national contact points it can
identify the most relevant needs.

46.       Extent to which the objectives and
tasks as set out in the CEPOL Decision are relevant to address today’s law
enforcement training / knowledge needs

The objectives and tasks are good. It is the
basis for good cooperation between authorities. Senior policy officers are
trained on the same point and basis which can help for the common thinking in
the future.

47.       Support of the changes to CEPOL, which
are currently being implemented to take on board the recommendations of the
Five year evaluation of CEPOL, in order to increase the agency’s relevance

With regard to the seven main recommendations:

▪           Clarify the CEPOL intervention
logic: this should focus on the most important thematic areas to increase cost
effectiveness of capacity building.

▪           Streamline governance and
rationalise structures: to establish a clear division of responsibilities
between GB, D and S and Member State.

▪           Strengthen the CEPOL
Secretariat: it has to be sufficiently staffed

▪           Merge capacity building for
law enforcement: to increase cooperation, it needs to ensure adequate staffing.
Should be examined if CEPOL should be envisaged a central point for training on
law enforcement.

▪           Assess Member State engagement
with CEPOL: consultation at national level should be improved to ensure good
representation of Member States’ opinions.

▪           Concentrate capacity building
efforts: the development of the work programme should be based on strategic
needs followed by evaluation.

▪           Measure results and impacts:
should implement penal court system. There should be key performance
indicators.

These changes will make a more efficient agency,
helping the relevance.

Training and knowledge needs to be addressed by
CEPOL in the future

They have to focus on the priorities on the EU
framework.

At national level: focus should be on organised
crime, Human trafficking, cyber crime, and drug trafficking.

Italy, Rossana Farina (on behalf of General
Giuliani)      48.       Identification of new training / knowledge needs
resulting from the EU policy framework and national policies and practices

Training needs and knowledge needs are
continuously evolving. CEPOL can provide the relevant answers to such needs as
is able to identify and monitor the changing training / knowledge needs.
Language courses are also very relevant as there is an increasing need for
police forces to speak fluently not only English but also other EU languages in
order to cooperate.

49.       Extent to which the objectives and
tasks as set out in the CEPOL Decision are relevant to address today’s law
enforcement training / knowledge needs

50.       The objectives are still strategic.
However, there is a need to re-define the target group and broaden the coverage
of CEPOL’s activities also to middle level officers. There is also a need to
include “training the trainers” on specific themes as a strategic objective of
CEPOL. There is a need to include trainers in the beneficiaries of CEPOL’s
activities. Finally, liaisons officers should be also included as a strategic
target group of CEPOL’s activities.

51.       Support of the changes to CEPOL, which
are currently being implemented to take on board the recommendations of the
Five year evaluation of CEPOL, in order to increase the agency’s relevance

52.       The interviewee considered all the
recommendations to be important. Some reluctance was however shown concerning
the strengthening of the Secretariat. The role of the Member States cannot be
limited as the latter are fundamental actors in the functioning of CEPOL.
Member States have the knowledge of training needs and policies and are the end
users of best practices in the area of law enforcement training.

53.       Training and knowledge needs to be
addressed by CEPOL in the future

It would be good if CEPOL could organise
language courses of all EU languages.

Lithuania, TOMAS BIKMANAS         54.       Identification
of new training / knowledge needs resulting from the EU policy framework

For the purposes of identifying new training /
knowledge needs, CEPOL pays attention to the initiatives and proposals
established in such strategic EU documents as Internal Security Strategy, the
Stockholm Programme, Lisbon Treaty etc. For instance, currently prominent
attention is given on the EU level to the prevention of and fight against cyber
crime. Respectively, CEPOL increased the number of training modules related to
this area of law enforcement cooperation.

55.       Involvement of the Governing Board
(THE GOVERNING BOARD) in the identification of new training / knowledge needs
resulting from the EU policy framework

56.       As the governing body of CEPOL, the GB
adopts common curricula, training modules, learning methods and any other
learning and teaching tools. This way, the GB gets involved in the process
adapting training supply to new training needs.

57.       Identification of new training /
knowledge needs resulting from changes to national policies and practices

58.       CEPOL’s ability to identify the most
relevant needs which result from national change

New training / knowledge needs resulting from
changes to national policies and practices may only be identified in close
cooperation with Member States. Provided that these needs are long-term, they
are addressed by CEPOL.

59.       Involvement of the  Director /
Secretariat in the identification of new training / knowledge needs resulting
from changes to national policies and practices

Seeking to identify these needs, the Director
holds discussions with representatives of respective Member States on his/her
own initiative or on the initiative of such Member States. The Secretariat is
involved in identification of new training / knowledge needs by processing the
information on such needs from the Member States and transferring them to
respective CEPOL bodies.

As was mentioned before, CEPOL’s ability to
identify new needs depends greatly on the initiatives and activeness of Member
States. However, they believe that CEPOL is able enough to identify the most
relevant needs which result from national changes.

60.       Extent to which the objectives and
tasks as set out in the CEPOL Decision are relevant to address today’s law
enforcement training / knowledge needs

         They believe that all the above
objectives are fully relevant to address today’s law enforcement training /
knowledge needs.

61.       Support of the changes to CEPOL, which
are currently being implemented to take on board the recommendations of the
Five year evaluation of CEPOL, in order to increase the agency’s relevance

The role of CEPOL in the EU should without a
doubt be strengthened. Therefore, the abovementioned recommendations will
contribute greatly to the relevance and efficiency of CEPOL.

Training and knowledge needs to be addressed by
CEPOL in the future

CEPOL should address training needs relevant to
EU policy and priorities. National training needs should be implemented by
national training institutions.

The Netherlands, Mr van Baal  62.       Identification
of new training / knowledge needs resulting from the EU policy framework and
national policies and practices.

The interviewee explained that until the CEPOL
Annual Program 2011, within the CEPOL governance structure, the Annual
Programme Committee with the support of the CEPOL Secretariat took care of
this. New training /knowledge needs were identified by meetings with CEPOL’s
stakeholders (among others: COMMISSION, EUROPOL, EUROJUST, FRA, FRONTEX, EMCDDA
), by questionnaires completed by the Member States (MS) and based on the
Commission’s opinion and relevant EU Strategies and programmes (as Internal
Security Strategy, Stockholm Programme, chapter 5 Lisbon Treaty). In the case
of the Netherlands, NGOs are not invited as stakeholders to consult the future
training needs, but the interviewee mentioned that if necessary they would have
no problem to consult and invite them to the meetings.

The Annual Programme Committee (APC) was the
Committee within the CEPOL governance structure responsible for among others
the CEPOL Annual Programme of activities. It was usually composed of 9 MS’s,
the composition of the MS changed every year, however the president of the APC
remained for a lager period (3-4 years). The rest of the 18 MS took part in two
other committees and the MS’s rotated over the committees every three years.

The Annual Programme Committee was chaired by
one MS and an employee of the Secretariat supported the committee as secretary.
As agreed in the GB and awaiting a new CEPOL structure all CEPOL committees
will be disbanded from 1 January 2012. The GB officially adopted the annual
programme (including the new needs) each year.

The EU polices are integrated into the annual
programme in the following way:

▪           The Internal Security
Strategy: The themes and topics from the EU Internal Security Strategy were
incorporated in the CEPOL Work Programme and through that in the Annual
Programme and activities (f/e the Exchange Programmes).

▪           The Stockholm Programme in
particular the objective to establish the European Law Enforcement Training
Scheme. Topics from the Stockholm Programme were incorporated in the CEPOL Work
Programme and through that in the Annual Programme and activities (f/e the
Exchange Programmes).

▪           Chapter 5 on police
cooperation in the Lisbon Treaty:  Topics from chapter 5 of the Lisbon Treaty
were incorporated in the CEPOL Work Programme and through that in the Annual
Programme and activities (f/e the Exchange Programmes).

Until 2011, the MS could indicate new topics/
national needs for CEPOL’s Work Programme by completing a questionnaire.

Overall, the interviewee explained that the
structure has now changed for good, where the committees will be disbanded.
Nevertheless it was highlighted that consultations in order to obtain the
inputs and contributions of the MS need to be guaranteed for the identification
of the training needs.  Any new future structure shall take into account and be
based on the MS priorities and the role of the Secretariat shall be clarified
in this context, given that the Secretariat is currently set as a support body
for the CEPOL network. Thus, the Secretariat should to be the body to establish
the training priorities of the MS.

In general, the interviewee considers that the
CEPOL network was able to identify the most relevant needs which resulted from
national changes in the old structure. This was done through the questionnaire
completed by the MS’s, the functioning of the Annual Programme Committee and
commitment of MS’s.

For the future, with a governance structure in
place which safeguards the influence and commitment of MS’s, could be
continued.

63.       Involvement of the  Director /
Secretariat in the identification of new training / knowledge needs resulting
from changes to national policies and practices

The outcome of the questionnaires were collected
and analysed by the secretary of the Annual Programme Committee, which was an
employee of the Secretariat and reported to the APC. The Director is
responsible for the writing of CEPOL’s Annual Work Programme in which among
others the outcome of the MS’s questionnaires were included.

64.       Extent to which the objectives and
tasks as set out in the CEPOL Decision are relevant to address today’s law
enforcement training / knowledge needs

         All those objectives and tasks
are still relevant to address today’s law enforcement training / knowledge
needs.

         If CEPOL with a new mandate
will be dealing with a broader law enforcement target group, this should be
changed in the Decision, given that the focus on senior police officers is
currently considered as too narrow. This should also be broadened and also
including middle rank officers, specialists, researchers etc.

65.       Support of the changes to CEPOL, which
are currently being implemented to take on board the recommendations of the
Five year evaluation of CEPOL, in order to increase the agency’s relevance

▪           Clarify the CEPOL intervention
logic:  Yes, this will help to increase the agency’s relevance.

▪           Streamline governance and
rationalise structures: Yes, this will help to increase the agency’s Relevance.

▪           Strengthen the CEPOL
Secretariat: Yes, with employees with the appropriate competences and in a good
balance and cooperation with the CEPOL network of MS

▪           Merge capacity building for
law enforcement:  Yes, this will help to increase the agency’s relevance

▪           Assess Member State engagement
with CEPOL:  Depends on the new governance structure of CEPOL and changes to be
made. If the network becomes less influential within CEPOL, the commitment of
MS’s will change anyway. By then more should be done than assessing it.

▪           Concentrate capacity building
efforts: Yes, this will help to increase the agency’s relevance, for example,
moving the Secretariat to EUROPOL so that it can profit from financial systems,
personal structures and ICT structures already in place could be an efficient
choice. Or a structure as the NATO colleges in Rome and Oberamergau.

▪           Measure results and impacts:
Yes, this will help to increase the agency’s relevance. The Key Performance
Indicators system now in place will improve a lot in this respect.

         The interviewee explained that
any change shall include the inclusion of MS discussions such as the GB
meetings. If changes are to be made to CEPOL this should be either the
following options:

−          CEPOL remains a network
(preferred option since its cost effective)

−          CEPOL becomes a standing
colleague

         However is important that these
options are not combined. They have to be either one or the other, but not a
combination of both, since it would be cost-effective.

Training and knowledge needs to be addressed by
CEPOL in the future

In particular, CEPOL should address training
related to EU policy (as Internal Security Strategy, Stockholm Programme,
chapter 5 Lisbon Treaty). Focus should be on EU dimension. And to contextual
developments as mentioned above.

National policy shall be addressed directly by
the MS.

Romania,  Radu Todoran          66.       Identification
of new training / knowledge needs resulting from the EU policy framework

In regards to the identification of needs not
all activities are following the EU policy framework but many. There is a need
to change the Policy Framework amongst others to include the development of
capacity in cyber crime.

67.       Involvement of the Governing Board
(THE GOVERNING BOARD) in the identification of new training / knowledge needs
resulting from the EU policy framework

68.       The role of the Governing Board in the
identification process is very small, but Mr Todoran would like to see the GB
more involved.

69.       Identification of new training /
knowledge needs resulting from changes to national policies and practices

70.       In Romania the training needs
identification is centralised and annually reported to CEPOL. Since 2008 CEPOL
always met the training needs that were raised by Romania.

71.       Involvement of the  Director /
Secretariat in the identification of new training / knowledge needs resulting
from changes to national policies and practices

NA

72.       Extent to which the objectives and
tasks as set out in the CEPOL Decision are relevant to address today’s law
enforcement training / knowledge needs

         There is a need to modify the
decision, which is too generic, too exhaustive and not yet covering all
activities organised by CEPOL. The tasks should be better defined and extended
beyond knowledge in order to help actual police work.

73.       Support of the changes to CEPOL, which
are currently being implemented to take on board the recommendations of the
Five year evaluation of CEPOL, in order to increase the agency’s relevance

         Where recommendations were
applied the relevance of CEPOL clearly increased. Clarifying the CEPOL
intervention logic has not been accomplished yet. CEPOL is working on and
committed to streamlining governance and rationalising its structure but more
is needed. Closing committees and rationalising Working Groups to a temporary
basis is a good way forward.

         Mr Todoran is not sure whether
the Director should get more power and cannot see how the administration can be
improved. More staff is certainly not needed for the Secretariat, but there is
a need for more experts in national police structures. Assessing Member States
engagement is certainly a good way forward and participation is already high
and engagement increasing.

Training and knowledge needs to be addressed by
CEPOL in the future

The subjects that Romania would like to
emphasise for future training are: Schengen training, organised crime, cyber
crime and human trafficking.

Sweden,  Mr.  Bo Åström        74.       Identification
of new training / knowledge needs resulting from the EU policy framework and
national policies and practices.

The interviewee explained that all three EU
policies, ISS, the Stockholm programme and the Lisbon treaty are all
interrelated and integrated, Considering this, CEPOL identifies the training
needs within the EU policy framework by taking first into consideration what
has been established within these EU Policies and legal basis.

The best example, according to the interviewee,
and the best indicator is the Commission initiative on the European Law
Enforcement Training Scheme.

The identification of training needs resulting
from national policies and practices, are identified at the national level by
each Member State. For example, in the case of Sweden the training needs are
identified according to the national strategy, also there is a discussion and
consultation dialogue between the Ministry of Justice, the National Police
Board and the Police Academy, in order to identify the training needs and those
the activities that will provide an added value for the law enforcement
training in the country.

Once these needs are identified, they are sent
to CEPOL, subsequently the Annual Work Programme Committee will collect all the
training needs identified by MS and the priorities of these needs are discussed
within this Committee. After the priorities of such training needs are
discussed, they are passed on to the Strategy Committee.  In this case it is
the Secretariat that coordinates the MS contributions related to the training
needs and the Committees which discuss and establish the training to be
delivered for the working programme.

Overall, CEPOL is able to identify the most
relevant needs, because they have the support of the MS, however, some of the
obstacles are encountered when implementing the training. For example when
designing the courses, the content and the target groups.

75.       Involvement of the  Director /
Secretariat in the identification of new training / knowledge needs resulting
from changes to national policies and practices

The Director acts as an executive officer. He is
charge of implementing the decisions adopted for the working programme. In
addition, according to the interviewee, he is considered as a discussion
partner since he participates within the meetings and committees developed to
define the training needs. In addition the Director also develops the CEPOL
cooperation and network with other EU agencies such as Frontex and Europol.

76.       Extent to which the objectives and
tasks as set out in the CEPOL Decision are relevant to address today’s law
enforcement training / knowledge needs

         The objectives are relevant to
a certain extent. The interviewee considers that the national police system
does not only include the senior police officers, but rather a larger group. In
this sense the target groups should not only look at ranks or functions of the
officers, but the target group should be broadened looking at officers and also
to civil servants and researches involved in the fight against
international/cross-border crime. Thus the target groups shall focus in the
functions of the officers rather than in the rank. If this is reached then the
objectives of the CEPOL Decision, such as “To increase the knowledge of the
national police systems” can be met.

77.       Support of the changes to CEPOL, which
are currently being implemented to take on board the recommendations of the
Five year evaluation of CEPOL, in order to increase the agency’s relevance

With regard to the seven main recommendations,
the interviewee explained that Sweden is in favour of all seven
recommendations. It was also explained that regarding the governance structure,
the Governing Board shall remain as the decision making body within CEPOL.
Following the recommendation of the 5 year Evaluation, the interviewee
explained that the structure has already been changed. This was reflected by
the fact that the committees were disbanded and the creation of working groups
will be in line with the project needs, and these groups are going to be
temporary rather than permanent.

Nevertheless it was stressed that CEPOL should
remain a network, since this is one of its biggest strengths. In addition the
interviewee considered that it would not be wise to further reduce the number
of GB meetings, and to increase the written procedures, given that discussion
and consultation between the MS is essential.

Training and knowledge needs to be addressed by
CEPOL in the future

Overall, the training delivered by CEPOL should
be focused on the EU level, in order to deliver a common EU approach. The
training shall consider as a source of inspiration the inputs provided by the
MS and their National training needs. In addition they shall also focus on
“training the trainer” and on establishing cooperation agreements and
programmes with third countries.

Most importantly, CEPOL should focus on a common
approach to develop a knowledge cascading plan. It is important to define how
we can measure the knowledge gained or how can its impact be measured? This
must be addressed in the future.

The interviewee explained that so far CEPOL has
implemented the, Kirkpatrick’s model as the basis for the training evaluation.
The model contains four levels of evaluation, and up to date, according to the
interviewees’ opinion, CEPOL has so far reached level number two.

The four levels are the following:

▪           Level 1: Reaction (measures
participant satisfaction)

▪           Level 2: Learning
(accumulation of knowledge, skills and changes in attitudes)

▪           Level 3: Behaviour (change in
performance - transfer of knowledge, skills and attitudes at the work place)

▪           Level 4: Results (effects on
the organisation resulted from the changes in behaviour)

Slovakia, Ladislav Mihalik        78.       Identification
of new training / knowledge needs resulting from the EU policy framework.
Identification of new training / knowledge needs resulting from changes to
national policies and practices

CEPOL is adequately following its mission as a
network of colleges to develop and identify new training and knowledge needs.
CEPOL is doing so by providing the academies and colleges in Member States with
the opportunity to provide their view and needs regarding activities and course
topics. Mr Mihalik assured that CEPOL is not just collecting such information
but also implements them successfully, including the needs deriving from the
Internal Security Strategy.

Regarding the exchange programme no feedback can
be given as Police academy in Slovakia is not dealing with the programme.

Furthermore, CEPOL is doing well in identifying
the needs through Member State proposals for the next annual plan.

79.       Involvement of the Governing Board
(THE GOVERNING BOARD) in the identification of new training / knowledge needs
resulting from the EU policy framework

80.       Not able to answer this question yet,
due to recent post.

81.       Involvement of the  Director /
Secretariat in the identification of new training / knowledge needs resulting
from changes to national policies and practices

Both the Director and Secretariat are heavily
involved in that process. The Director is responsible for overseeing the
process and communicating with Member States directly, whereas the Secretariat
is processing the outgoing and incoming proposals surveys etc.

82.       Extent to which the objectives and
tasks as set out in the CEPOL Decision are relevant to address today’s law
enforcement training / knowledge needs

         n/a

83.       Support of the changes to CEPOL, which
are currently being implemented to take on board the recommendations of the
Five year evaluation of CEPOL, in order to increase the agency’s relevance

Mr Mihalik was not able to answer all questions
sufficiently due to his recent involvement as GB. However, he believes that the
Secretariat needs to be further strengthened in respect to the amount of staff
employed and decision making power transferred to the Director. This judgement
is also based on the great work the Director has accomplished, while listening
to everyone involved. It is very important to assess the Member States
engagement with CEPOL and critical to assure the necessary commitment, however,
very difficult to accomplish and probably not realistic for years. In general
there is a need for more tolerance towards CEPOL. Regarding the impact
measurement by CEPOL, it has to be clearer what exactly is assessed and
evaluated and how CEPOL uses the results.

Training and knowledge needs to be addressed by
CEPOL in the future

There is an overall satisfaction with CEPOL
choice of topics for the future, in particular the focus on financial crime.
More attention could be given to the subject of crisis management, which is of
high importance in many Eastern European countries.

United Kingdom,  Kurt Eyre     84.       Role
and background of the GB

85.       Mr Eyre is Governing Board member for
over a year (The NPIA holds the GB position. He worked for the military before,
being involved in training and research globally and witnessed the development
of CEPOL since several years.

86.       NPIA is not part of the police force
neither the Ministry of Interior but rather independent.

87.       Identification of new training /
knowledge needs resulting from the EU policy framework and identification of
new training / knowledge needs resulting from changes to national policies and
practices

There was a great improvement by CEPOL in
identifying the training and knowledge needs on both levels. The new approach
is much more efficient. In this process the Secretariat is working with the
Council, Member States and EU Agencies together. Through the Multi Annual Plan
the CEPOL Secretariat tries to incorporate the Internal Security Strategy and
the European Law Enforcement Training Scheme. There is a strong reliance on
CEPOL’s relation with NCPs.

Concern: The relations of the GB with national
ministries and NCPs are not mentioned in the legislation. More strategic
awareness needed for training and technical aspects.

88.       Involvement of the Governing Board
(THE GOVERNING BOARD) in the identification of new training / knowledge needs
resulting from the EU policy framework

89.       As the governing body of CEPOL, the GB
is involved by recommending activities etc to the Secretariat. There is a
steady information flow between them and the NCPs in written version and there
is a contribution by Member States during the bi-annual GB meeting.

90.       CEPOL’s ability to identify the most
relevant needs which result from national change

91.       Involvement of the  Director /
Secretariat in the identification of new training / knowledge needs resulting
from changes to national policies and practices

92.       Extent to which the objectives and
tasks as set out in the CEPOL Decision are relevant to address today’s law
enforcement training / knowledge needs

         CEPOL effectively increased
European police cooperation and crime awareness in Europe and the establishing
of network structures which is an urgent and certainly current objective of the
decision. But less certain about improving the knowledge of international and
Union instruments. The training sessions based on common standards are relevant
indeed but have a limited impact on the strategic level amongst others due to
the limited amount of officers participating. Common standards are very helpful
but not on Member State or operational level. Regarding the facilitation of
relevant exchanges, they do meet today’s needs; however, there is a lack of
incorporating them in operations. In future the exchange programme should be
able to organise exchanges on demand. For example if the UK has trouble with a
Polish part of a community there would be a certain demand to ask for Polish
police officers to help.

93.       Support of the changes to CEPOL, which
are currently being implemented to take on board the recommendations of the
Five year evaluation of CEPOL, in order to increase the agency’s relevance

In his opinion the 5ys evaluation was good but
too heavily focused and overshadowed by CEPOL’s old problems with the budget.
Therefore, GHKs new study makes sense as GHK is now able to assess “new” CEPOL.

a)         Intervention logic: Doesn’t mean
anything to anyone. In future CEPOL should aim to simplify language in order to
increase understanding and minimise time used for translation during GB
meetings.

b)         Streamline governance and rationalise
structures : Too much focus on internal and old problems: He is confident about
the work of the Director.

c)         Merge capacity building for law enforcement:
It should be assured that participants do not just participate only for their
own career and CV. The Commission should address this policy problem by
implementing a more serious selection procedure.

d)         Assess Member State engagement with
CEPOL: There should be more acceptance at police and operational level and a
better sense of the benefit of CEPOL activities in Member States. Assure Member
State engagement with grading system.

e)         Measure results and impacts: More
performance and benefit measurements should be implemented internally. In
addition Member States need to see far smarter benefits analysis.

Training and knowledge needs to be addressed by
CEPOL in the future

Subjects that should be addressed are:

-           Forensic capacity (technical)

-           Freezing of criminal assets

-           Leadership management development

94.

95.

E.4 Views concerning efficiency of CEPOL's
activities

96.

Belgium, Alain Ruelle    Extent to which CEPOL
has been able to deliver its planned activities, against the planned budget. Extent
to which CEPOL’s efficiency has increased or decreased over the past few years

The main problems causing the ineffective
delivery of planned activities against the planned budget are solved. He also
noted that many of the problems were not necessarily caused by CEPOL management
but rather by Member States. A still current problem however, is the late vote
on the next budget. Such a late vote means that most of the activities cannot
start until the 2nd semester, but if activities in the 2nd semester are
cancelled you lose money, if they are cancelled instead in the 1st semester
they can be re-introduced in the 2nd due to reserve lists. Hence, reserve
ability lists are a very efficient tool implemented by CEPOL.

Extent to which CEPOL is achieving the milestones
set out in the CEPOL’s Multi-annual Plan 2010

CEPOL is achieving these milestones successfully
enough.

Ability of current legal, administrative and
financial structure to fully identify and deliver relevant training and other
activities.

They believe that the current legal and
financial structure of CEPOL is relatively sufficient to fully identify and
deliver relevant training and other activities. CEPOL is not perfect but most
of the problems are due to a lack of commitment, mainly from Member States
themselves.

▪           The role of the Director:
According to Mr Ruelle, the Director of CEPOL has all powers he needs to fulfil
his tasks and obligations. There is room though to increase his rights to make
decisions regarding administrative and financial issues.

▪           The role of the Secretariat: 
There is no need for more senior position within the Secretariat; instead the
HR should make sure to recruit better qualified and suited people for the
particular position.

▪           The role of the Governing
Board: The main obstacle of an effective GB is the issue with micro decision
making. There is a lack of strategic decision making and Member State
participation in particular. The already implemented changes of less GB
meetings and written procedures will hopefully increase the efficiency.

▪           Financial resources available
to CEPOL: Taking into account CEPOL’s current coverage and span of activities
the financial resources given are certainly enough. Of course, in case of an
increase of activities organised there is also a need of an increase in the
financial resources available to CEPOL.

Average length for the Governing Board to take a
decision

Very difficult to say and often depending on
many different factors.

Main causes for any delays in the
decision-making process (if any)

The GB takes too much time on administrative
issues rather than on strategic ones.

Required changes to the role of the Commission
within CEPOL (if any)

The Commission should have more influence in
CEPOL and the Governing Board, including a voting right (but only 1 vote). This
is only reasonable as it is the case in all other EU agencies as well.

CEPOL’s ability to efficiently respond to new
learning needs emerging from EU and national policies and other related
developments

A very general estimate is that it takes about a
year to implement them, hence, sufficient.

Bulgaria, Plamen Kolarski         97.       Ability
of current legal, administrative and financial structure to fully identify and
deliver relevant training and other activities.

Concerning the role of the Director and the
Secretariat, no changes should be made to their powers.

The Secretariat should be more active in
preparing material before GB meetings. That would facilitate decision-making
within the GB and the level of involvement of national authorities (especially in
MS where the human resources dedicated to CEPOL are limited).

The idea of limiting the number of GB meetings
to two per year is helpful in order to improve the efficiency of CEPOL.

Concerning the resources available to CEPOL, the
interviewee indicated that number of staff dedicated to CEPOL within the Member
States is at present insufficient. There is a need to create stronger CEPOL
units within MS. Also, the staff allocated should deal with CEPOL’s related
matters on a full-time basis.

Concerning the set up of CEPOL, there is a need
to ensure a balance between the network approach and the Agency logic.

98.       Average length for the Governing Board
to take a decision

Currently, less time is needed to take a
decision within the GB compared to the past. The decision making within the GB
is more efficient.

99.       Main causes for any delays in the
decision-making process (if any)

Management and governance problems trigger some
delays in the decision-making process. Also, the turnover in GB members creates
some delays as new GB members need to get familiar with CEPOL related matters
before being able to take decisions.

100.     Required changes to the role of the
Director of CEPOL (if any)

The Director of CEPOL should have more
decision-making powers. That would improve the efficiency of the decision
making within the Agency. However, some guarantees would need to be established
to check that such strengthened powers are not abused.

101.     Required changes to the role of the
Commission within CEPOL (if any)

The interviewee indicated that strengthened
powers for the EC would improve the monitoring of the Agency.

Spain, Mr Eduardo Borobio Leon (NCP) on behalf
of Jose Antonio Rodriguez Extent to which CEPOL has been able to deliver its
planned activities, against the planned budget. Extent to which CEPOL’s
efficiency has increased or decreased over the past few years

One of the main chronic problems CEPOL had was
the under spending of the budget. Also the “release” of the budget was rigid.
To overcome this problem some measures have already been adopted by the GB and
the budget has been planned according to the activity plan and overall CEPOL
has improved a lot in this area.

Milestones set out in the CEPOL’s Multi-annual
Plan 2010

Most of the objectives set in the Multi-annual
plan have been achieved. Also, an internal report has been developed to assess
the development and implementation of the plan and this has been considered as
positive. In addition, tools in order to evaluate the performance have been
established, the so called, Key Performance Indicators.

Ability of current legal, administrative and
financial structure to fully identify and deliver relevant training and other
activities.

As explained before the legal basis should be
updated. CEPOL is a young EU Agency that has adapted itself step by step to the
EU requirements and rules, such as the EU financial rules.

The structure, as it previously was, was not
adequate to rationalised the tasks and to avoid overlaps. For example ES,
during the presidency, proposed to establish a Executive Committee, as a long
term option, so the committee would be in charge of supervising the working
groups and also to filtrate the decisions that had to reach up to the GB. For
this type of change/inclusion, the legal basis has to be changed.

Also the location of CEPOL might be a factor
influencing CEPOL’s capacity to attract new staff and to guarantee the staff
continuity.

Average length for the Governing Board to take a
decision - Main causes for any delays in the decision-making process (if any)

The interviewee explained that this depends on
the subject and the priority/importance of the subject. For example if is
related to something urgent the GB can apply the writing procedure, meaning the
members will have their vote sent by electronic channels (e-mail) and in this
cases they have reached to a decision in about two weeks.

But it can also take up to six months, from the
moment the decision or plan is generated then it goes to the Committee and then
in about a year the GB will adopt the decision.

Some decisions have taken around 2 years,
because of the sensitiveness of the topic and politic implications.

Usually the delays are depending on the theme or
content of the decision, but also in the structure they have to pass through
the strategic committee which can then take longer. That is why the proposal of
Spain to establish an executive committee in order to filtrate those decisions
going to the GB, in order to save time.

Required changes to the role of the Director of
CEPOL (if any)

Currently the Director has a limited capacity of
decision. Thus he should have autonomy to interpret his role and CEPOL rules in
order to be able to implement the CEPOL rules and to adapt the budget. However
the role of the Director should be restricted to administrative issues and
other budget issues in which he could be capable to take decisions or to
allocate budget to certain activities. Usually, if the Director was able to
take his type of decisions, a decision of the GB wouldn’t be needed and less time
will be spent on administrative issues.

Required changes to the role of the Commission
within CEPOL (if any)

The interviewee explained that the Commission
would have more guarantees if they could have a vote in the decision making
process and also it could better monitor and follow up CEPOL activities.

CEPOL’s ability to efficiently respond to new
learning needs emerging from EU and national policies and other related
developments

Overall, the interviewee considers that CEPOL
has been efficient and it has been able to identify the relevant needs. Also
the reserve list has proved to be a success and also the e-learning platforms.

Finland, Kimmo Himberg          Extent to which
CEPOL has been able to deliver its planned activities, against the planned
budget.

One of the big issues for training activities
has been that the budget has been overestimated. In terms of efficiency, Mr
Himberg understands that the Director and Secretariat focus on a more accurate
budgeting system. Mr Himberg was surprised that many delegated sounded
disappointed on discussions aiming at more realistic and accurate financial and
budgetary system. The Director and Secretariat seem to be working hard on this
issue. It will certainly improve the quality of administration.

Extent to which CEPOL’s efficiency has increased
or decreased over the past few years

The efficiency seems to have considerably
improved over the recent year (as compared to what his predecessor told him).

Extent to which CEPOL is achieving the
milestones set out in the CEPOL’s Multi-annual Plan 2010

It has achieved them very satisfactorily.

Ability of current legal, administrative and
financial structure to fully identify and deliver relevant training and other
activities.

▪           The role of the Director: His
role is very relevant and the Director is managing well in this position.

▪           The role of the Secretariat:
The role is rather an administrative role maybe not really related to the
identification of needs for activities. Its role should certainly not be
stronger than what it is now.

▪           The role of the Governing
Board: Its role is surprisingly thin and weak. Mr Himberg hopes that the recent
changes (such as abolition of committees) will improve the role / emphasis the
role of the Governing Board in those issues.

▪           Financial resources available
to CEPOL: NA

▪           Other issues : NA

The recent changes concerning the organisation
structure will improve the dynamism of CEPOL.

Average length for the Governing Board to take a
decision

With many important issues it takes all too
long. Maybe it is partly due to the fact that the preparatory structure with
working groups was a multi layer organisation and machinery had to slow down
the process as a whole. Hopes that improvements will be seen.

Main causes for any delays in the
decision-making process (if any)

The preparatory work, through several layers is
the main cause for delays.

Required changes to the role of the Director of
CEPOL (if any)

If he could vote he would be in favour in a
stronger role of the director. Mr Himberg would like to give more power to the
director: preparation of the activities, or programmes.

Required changes to the role of the Commission
within CEPOL (if any)

This far the Commission has taken a sort of
advisory and supporting in CEPOL activity and it is the way things should be.
The way the EC cooperates with the Director and Secretariat, representative
role are the way they should be.

CEPOL’s ability to efficiently respond to new
learning needs emerging from EU and national policies and other related
developments

Mr Himberg’s impression is that CEPOL is rather
strongly dependent on the activities of the Member State, preparedness to make
proposals.

France, Mr Emile Pérez            Extent to
which CEPOL has been able to deliver its planned activities, against the
planned budget.

The planned budget may seem very with less than
9 millions. In comparison, outside the wages, for France the budget was 54
millions per year when Mr Perez was director of training (500 millions
including wages). The budget is very low but still allows functioning. The
Governing Board was right when it refused the increase of budget since 2008,
during the French Presidency.

It works because Member States implement the
activities.  The cost of an activity is around 30,000 euros. However, the
Member States pay for people to go and attend. CEPOL pays for food, but in a
way of reducing costs (such as schools). The people contributing or coming are
not paid for this in particular; it is included in their wider activities/functions. 
All of this is taken in charge by Member States. If the system changes, Member
States would try and obtain returns from CEPOL.

Today, the budget of CEPOL is sufficient. If
Member States don't implement it anymore, they will behave like clients and
they will not be be involved in the agency anymore, Member States will not take
part in it.

Extent to which CEPOL’s efficiency has increased
or decreased over the past few years

There has been a loss of efficiency in the
recent years because of bureaucratisation (e.g. the grant agreements procedure
is not positive).  Many more procedures have been launched. In each Member
State for the organisation of 3 days training course for 30 people, they need
to apply for funding following the same process implemented for an EU 3 years
programme.

Extent to which CEPOL is achieving the
milestones set out in the CEPOL’s Multi-annual Plan 2010

This is also a bureaucracy. There should be more
focus on the activities themselves than on the definition of indicators.
Evaluation is necessary, for 10 years it has been done after each activity.
Everybody has a chance to express his evaluation in positive or negative, there
are already many channels for evaluation.

Ability of current legal, administrative and
financial structure to fully identify and deliver relevant training and other
activities.

The previous structure allowed it. Now the new
structure will not.

▪           The role of the Director: it
should not be increased. The director manages the secretariat, which has a role
of coordination. The director needs to ensure that everything is consistent and
goes ahead as planned.

▪           The role of the Secretariat : 
it has a  coordinating role

▪           The role of the Governing
Board: it takes decision based on the work of the working groups.

▪           Financial resources available
to CEPOL: NA

▪           Other issues : NA

What has always been missing is something
between committees and Governing Board, so that Governing Board can focus on
general policy. Today, all the committees are being suppressed with the entire
secretariat doing all the work without inputs from Member States (except maybe
by email). The Governing Board will then be without capacity to make policy
decisions. It will discover files prepared by the secretariat, not by the
Member States anymore.

Therefore France is against it and expressed its
opinion on this issue at the meeting in Cracow in October. We are loosing the
network benefit.

Average length for the Governing Board to take a
decision

It depends on the decision, if it is complex or
not, if there is consensus or not.

The length for decision process. 4 Governing
Board pear year, now less. If there are fewer meetings, there should be longer
ones. Probably it will be less efficient and less effective.

The question is whether to set up a structure in
CEPOL which would involve Member States in the preparation of decisions but
also in working . This would reduce the amount of work of Governing Board.

Main causes for any delays in the
decision-making process (if any)

There are no delays really. If there is a delay
it is because of a debate, which is something positive. It should then be
organised differently, to keep the debate. This is why the Governing Board
should be supported by the executive committee to ensure more/structured
debate. Debate needs to stay to ensure EU construction, based on Member States
and not coming only from Brussels.

Required changes to the role of the Director of
CEPOL (if any)

The Director needs to stay in his role, should
not try to decide or manage everything.

France proposed to have a Deputy Director who is
always available to ensure that everything is working when the Director is not
there (e.g. external meeting). The Deputy Director does not add to bureaucracy
(he will  facilitate and manage the Secretariat internal work).

Required changes to the role of the Commission
within CEPOL (if any)

The Commission needs to ensure that CEPOL has
means to work, the possibility to take into account all the partners and that
their needs are addressed. The commission should be a facilitator. It should
not be involved in decision process. It is not for the Commission to have a
role for decision. It should give the means only. It is not for the Commission
to give a unique direction. It is not superior to the other ones.

CEPOL’s ability to efficiently respond to new
learning needs emerging from EU and national policies and other related
developments

CEPOL has to ask Member States for their needs
and not  tell them what their needs are.

Greece, KRIERIS Dimitrios      102.     Extent
to which CEPOL has been able to deliver its planned activities, against the
planned budget.

103.     Under-spending has been an issue in the
past. However, the efficiency of CEPOL has drastically improved. In order to
further improve the efficiency of the Agency, more flexibility should be
provided for shifting the budget from one post to another. This is currently
not possible and sometimes leads to under-spending in some areas. The Director
of CEPOL and the GB members should be able to take decisions concerning the
shift of money from different budget posts.

Extent to which CEPOL is achieving the
milestones set out in the CEPOL’s Multi-annual Plan 2010

104.     CEPOL is achieving the milestones set
out in the multi annual Plan 2010 and meeting MS expectations.

105.     Ability of current legal,
administrative and financial structure to fully identify and deliver relevant
training and other activities.

106.     The Director should be provided with
additional powers, especially concerning administrative matters such as
decisions over staff of the Secretariat. The human resources available to the
Secretariat should be strengthened.

107.     The number of GB members has been reduced.
According to the interviewee, this might affect the quality of the decisions.
There is a need to have more GB representatives. Also, it is expected that GB
decisions will be taken only twice a year as the number of meetings has been
reduced. The web meetings might alleviate such change, allowing for some
flexibility.

108.     The frequent turnover of GB members
might also trigger some problems. There is a need to ensure a long perspective.

109.     Main causes for any delays in the
decision-making process (if any)

110.     Delays in the past were mainly caused
by duplication of work and the proliferation of components such as committees
and working groups. These delays have now been overcome.

111.     Required changes to the role of the
Director of CEPOL (if any)

112.     The Director should be provided with
additional powers, especially concerning administrative matters such as
decisions over staff of the Secretariat.

113.     Required changes to the role of the
Commission within CEPOL (if any)

Strengthening the powers of the EC within CEPOL
is not considered to be a popular option. During the last GB meeting, only two
GB members voted in favour.

Hungary, Emese Horváczy        Extent to which
CEPOL has been able to deliver its planned activities, against the planned
budget.

Most planned activities were fulfilled. The new
regulation which prohibits postponement of events can help.

Extent to which CEPOL’s efficiency has increased
or decreased over the past few years

Over the past few years, it has increased
definitely.

Extent to which CEPOL is achieving the
milestones set out in the CEPOL’s Multi-annual Plan 2010

It has achieved them very satisfactorily.

Ability of current legal, administrative and
financial structure to fully identify and deliver relevant training and other
activities.

▪           The role of the Director: The
new structure will give more power to the director.

▪           The role of the Secretariat:
it is effective with more staff could be more efficient.

▪           The role of the Governing
Board: Cracow took the decision to increase effectiveness of CEPOL, the length
of process to take decision depends on Member State (if agree or not)

▪           Financial resources available
to CEPOL: managed by the Director and Secretariat not Governing Board’s
competency

▪           Other issues : NA

Average length for the Governing Board to take a
decision

It is difficult; sometimes it takes years,
sometime less than few months.

Main causes for any delays in the
decision-making process (if any)

Such delays have not appeared during her
experience.

Required changes to the role of the Director of
CEPOL (if any)

It is very important to involve him in the
strategic decision making process.

Required changes to the role of the Commission
within CEPOL (if any)

The Commission should get one vote.

CEPOL’s ability to efficiently respond to new
learning needs emerging from EU and national policies and other related
developments

Elearning modules are very efficient tools to
give responses to new learning needs.

Italy, Rossana Farina (on behalf of General
Giuliani)      114.     Extent to which CEPOL has been able to deliver its
planned activities, against the planned budget.

115.     Some of the activities are under-
utilised/capitalised. In order to improve the efficiency of CEPOL, there is a
need to improve the already established activities, not to develop new
activities. For example, the website should be updated, including information
on MS’s legislation concerning law enforcement training.  The e-platform should
be also improved.

Extent to which CEPOL is achieving the
milestones set out in the CEPOL’s Multi-annual Plan 2010

According to the interviewee, CEPOL achieved the
milestones set out in the multi annual plan to a great extent. However, there
are some improvements to be made to some of the activities developed such as
the exchange programme and the common curricula (see below).

116.     Ability of current legal,
administrative and financial structure to fully identify and deliver relevant
training and other activities.

117.     We are now in a transition phase as
some of the recommendations are already being implemented. The working groups
have been dismantled, but it is still unclear what is going to be the
organisation setup of CEPOL in the future. According to the interviewee, there
is a need to provide the opportunity for MS to be represented in groups working
on specific issues. For example, the working group focussing on evaluation of
training activities should be kept.

118.     Concerning the role of the NCP,
problems are created by the fact that there is no official guidance or
legislative provision on the tasks of the contact points and their structure.
This leads to very different setups in the MS. There is a need to clarify the
roles and responsibilities of the NCPs within the Council Decision and provide
the MS with some guidance concerning the organisation of the NCP at national
level.

119.     Finally, there is a need to strengthen
the NCPs in the MS (by providing more human resources).

120.     Main causes for any delays in the
decision-making process (if any)

121.     The time taken to take a decision within
the GB depends on the topics at stake. Usually it is a month or more. The GB
members are also involved through a written procedure. It is very important
that, even if a written procedure is used, that all MS are involved and
opinions are shared between the members.

122.     Required changes to the role of the
Director of CEPOL (if any)

123.     The interviewee is reluctant as far as
a strengthening of the Director’s powers is concerned. What needs to be
strengthened, on the other hand, is the staff dedicated to CEPOL’s related
issues in the MS (the NCP).

Lithuania, TOMAS BIKMANAS         Extent to
which CEPOL has been able to deliver its planned activities, against the
planned budget. Extent to which CEPOL’s efficiency has increased or decreased
over the past few years

CEPOL has been fully able to deliver its planned
activities against the planned budget. They believe that due to improvement of
activities and organisation of activities on new topics increased efficiency of
CEPOL in the past few years.

Extent to which CEPOL is achieving the
milestones set out in the CEPOL’s Multi-annual Plan 2010

CEPOL is achieving these milestones successfully
enough.

Ability of current legal, administrative and
financial structure to fully identify and deliver relevant training and other
activities.

They believe that the current legal and
financial structure of CEPOL is relatively sufficient to fully identify and
deliver relevant training and other activities, however, attention should be
given to the administrative structure and to the competences of CEPOL staff.
Changes in the administrative structure of CEPOL are currently in process
(Committees will be disbanded, working groups have to finish their tasks till
June 2012) but there are problems with key competencies of the Secretariat
staff (practical experience in policing and training).

▪           The role of the Director: The
role of the Director should focus on administrative issues and representation
of CEPOL policy on European and international level.

▪           The role of the Secretariat: 
There are problems with key competencies of the Secretariat staff (practical
experience in policing and training). Special staff of Secretariat should
identify the content of training topics.

▪           The role of the Governing
Board: The GB should act as a strategic decision-maker. The administrative
issues should not be the task of the GB. In many cases Committees overlap some
roles of the GB. Working and Project Groups are very important in solving
problems or creating recommendations, curricula, etc. (when practical and
professional experience is required).

▪           Financial resources available
to CEPOL: Limited capacities to handle effectively the complexities of the EU’s
financial and staff regulations and special type of CEPOL (CEPOL operates as a
network)

▪           Other issues: Difficulties
with recruitment procedures, lack of career system in CEPOL Secretariat and
frequent changes in staff and lack of experience.

Average length for the Governing Board to take a
decision

The decision-making time depends broadly on the
type of question discussed. However, in general, decision-making process is too
lengthy and requires adequate development.

Main causes for any delays in the
decision-making process (if any)

The GB takes too much time on administrative
issues rather than on strategic ones. This workload should be overtaken by the
Director. The GB should act as strategic decision maker only.

Required changes to the role of the Director of
CEPOL (if any)

The role of the Director should focus on
administrative issues and representation of CEPOL policy on European and international
level.

Required changes to the role of the Commission
within CEPOL (if any)

Current decision-making process is rather slow.
The cooperation between Commission and CEPOL should be made more efficient.

CEPOL’s ability to efficiently respond to new
learning needs emerging from EU and national policies and other related
developments

They believe that due to close cooperation with
Member States and other stakeholders, CEPOL is able to respond efficiently and
in due time to new learning needs emerging from EU and national policies, and
other related developments.

The Netherlands, Mr van Baal  Extent to which
CEPOL has been able to deliver its planned activities, against the planned
budget. Extent to which CEPOL’s efficiency has increased or decreased over the
past few years

The efficiency of CEPOL in deliverance of its
planned activities has increased over the past few years. Fewer activities were
postponed or shifted to the next year. Under spending of CEPOL’s budget has
been more of a problem than overspending. Also the interviewee explained that
the current Director has done a very good job in improving the planning and
managing of CEPOL activities.

Milestones set out in the CEPOL’s Multi-annual
Plan 2010

With 38 out of 44 milestones completed, CEPOL is
on its way in achieving the milestones set.

Ability of current legal, administrative and
financial structure to fully identify and deliver relevant training and other
activities.

▪           The role of the Director: The
Director could have more powers in administrative matters, for example the
Director can have the authority to spend some of the budget for administrative
matters, and also more independence in this own decision making process. 
Regarding the content of the training,   the CEPOL Network (the MS) should stay
the main actor and decision maker.

▪           The role of the Secretariat:
Secretariat should be strengthened with employees with the appropriate
competences. The interviewee emphasised that the role of the Secretariat should
not be regarded as the role of CEPOL being a network of Member States. Thus,
the Secretariat should remain as a supporting body.

In this respect, it was also highlighted that
the role of the National Contact Points needs to be clarified, given that these
are not part of CEPOL staff but the MS organisations and thus they are paid by
MS. It is important then to specify the responsibilities between the NCPs and
the Secretariat.

▪           The role of the Governing
Board:

-           The structure of CEPOL’s governance
is already under construction: Committees will be disbanded per 1-1-2012 and
Working Groups per 1-6-2012.

-           The amount of GB meetings is brought
back to three per year and the amount of participants paid for to two per MS.
The speed of decision-making in the GB should not have to be hindered by the GB
size if there is one spokesperson per delegation. The costs of GB meetings were
already reduced by only reimbursing the costs for two delegates per MS’s.

-           About the overlap of the GB with
Committees and the focus on administrative instead of strategic issues: The new
structure of CEPOL as proposed by a Project group appointed by the GB for that
reason, sees the GB, the National Contact Points (NCP’s), Working Groups to be
defined and the Secretariat as actors in the new structure. The Project group
proposed to shift a lot of tasks to the NCP’s, but this are national points,
all paid for by the Member States. So in this proposal workload will be shifted
to the NCP’s, so to the capacity and financial resources of the MS’s, who
already are investing a lot in implementing CEPOL activities (question 11).  It
is also not yet clear how the Working Groups will be composed and how the
outcomes of the Working Groups will go to the GB, since there is no Strategy
Committee anymore.

NL opinion: the role of MS’s in WG’s and also
with reference to the workload shifted to NCP’s should be cleared.

▪           Financial resources available
to CEPOL: This has been and partly still is a serious problem. It has been
improved in the last years by the Head of Operations of the Secretariat.

Average length for the Governing Board to take a
decision - Main causes for any delays in the decision-making process (if any)

The interviewee explained that an indication of
time cannot be provided, since the time to take a decision depends on the
content and theme. For example if the decision is well prepared and is not that
sensitive, the GB could take a decision by written procedure. This is done more
and more often.

But issues like a decision on a new CEPOL
structure can take a lot of discussion and sometimes the proposal has to go
back to the Committee / Project group in order to be rewritten.

Currently, the GB will have less meetings per
year, thus, the expectation is that more decisions will be taken by written
procedure.

Main causes for delays in the decision-making in
the old CEPOL setting: both Governance structure (in all layers of the
governance structure the same issues were discussed, over and over again) and
management Secretariat (working groups and committees) were not always
supported by Secretariat employees with the right competences and Secretariat
staff was overloaded with work.

Required changes to the role of the Director of
CEPOL (if any)

Changes were already made in the role of the
Director regarding to administrative and financial tasks.

MS’s / GB should stay leading in the content of
CEPOL’s activities and the execution of its work programme. After all the MS’s
are implementing the annual programme of activities in their countries; the
trainers, course organisers, experts and all are provided for free by the
Member States, since salary costs of own staff are not reimbursed. The only way
to keep EU police education close through practise and updated will be to keep
the MS’s in charge of the content.

Required changes to the role of the Commission
within CEPOL (if any)

GB decided this year (Budapest, spring 2011) on
the basis of recommendations from the 5-years evaluation that the EC should be
given the right to vote in the GB meetings. It was explained that the EC was/is
already very much involved in the needs analysis and setting up of CEPOL’s work
programme.

CEPOL’s ability to efficiently respond to new
learning needs emerging from EU and national policies and other related
developments

Annual Programme of activities is prepared two
years in advance. So some space should be kept to respond adequately to new
urgent learning needs.

A problem in responding rapidly is the system of
grant agreements for organising CEPOL activities which is in place since 2010.
Member States have to apply for grants for organising CEPOL activities and this
takes a lot of preparation, effort and time. Taking into account that (except
from some administrative courses) all CEPOL activities are organised and
implemented by the MS’s and that all expertise, experts, course organisers are
delivered by the MS’s, which also have their national planning and their
national yearly budget systems, responding rapidly and adequately to new urgent
learning needs will be hindered by this grant agreement system.

Romania,  Radu Todoran          Extent to which
CEPOL has been able to deliver its planned activities, against the planned
budget. Extent to which CEPOL’s efficiency has increased or decreased over the
past few years

There was obviously a big problem with CEPOL’s
budget in the past years, mainly due to Member States postponing or cancelling
activities. Last year’s solution to the problem resolved the issue and this
year the planned activities have met the planned budget.

The recently developed reserve list for
cancelled courses is a very helpful tool to counteract any disturbance in
planned activities.

Extent to which CEPOL is achieving the
milestones set out in the CEPOL’s Multi-annual Plan 2010

NA

Ability of current legal, administrative and
financial structure to fully identify and deliver relevant training and other
activities.

▪           The role of the Director: Not
sure if change is needed, but in any case sceptical to what extend Member
States would accept change.

▪           The role of the Secretariat: 
The Secretariat is doing a good job and there is no need to change anything
about it.

▪           The role of the Governing
Board: The introduction of the written procedure was very good and increased
the timeliness of GB decision making. Nonetheless, the GB is still too big and
Member States have too many representatives resulting in time consuming collective
decision making.

▪           Financial resources available
to CEPOL: The budget is enough at the moment, what is needed is an increase in
efficiency.

▪           Other issues: The location of
CEPOL is not very helpful; it is expensive, far away for most and in a
different currency area.

Average length for the Governing Board to take a
decision

Cannot say.

Main causes for any delays in the
decision-making process (if any)

Cannot say.

Required changes to the role of the Director of
CEPOL (if any)

No changes needed.

Required changes to the role of the Commission
within CEPOL (if any)

Mr Todoran welcomes voting power for the
Commission so the latter can monitor CEPOL more closely. He would like to hear
the Commissions opinion and advice more often.

Sweden,  Mr.  Bo Åström        Extent to which
CEPOL has been able to deliver its planned activities, against the planned
budget. Extent to which CEPOL’s efficiency has increased or decreased over the
past few years

Overall, the efficiency of CEPOL has been good
for the last couple of years and has also improved. The interviewee considers
that in order for CEPOL to remain efficient, CEPOL has to continue working as
an information catalyst (also refereeing to the training programmes). In order
to efficiently plan the activities to be developed, CEPOL should not only focus
on the number of participants they wish to target, but they have to focus on
the new arising phenomena developed within the crime area. Training provided
shall always address new phenomena and shall have a cross border dimension.

Ability of current legal, administrative and
financial structure to fully identify and deliver relevant training and other
activities.

▪           The role of the Director: The
director is already in charge of managing the working plan and he has to make
sure the activities will be implemented. In addition it acts as CEPOL’s
executive officer. Perhaps, he should have more flexibility within his ability
of decision making concerning administrative tasks.

▪           The role of the Secretariat:
The Secretariat acts as the centralised coordination point. Nevertheless, with
the disbandment of the committees and working groups, chances are that the
workload of the Secretariat will increase, therefore they should be prepared
and they should increase the number of staff and of course the staff has to
have the relevant competences.

▪           The role of the Governing
Board: The GB shall remain the decision making body and shall focus on the
strategic planning.

▪           Financial resources available
to CEPOL: The financial regulations are considered as complicated already.

▪           Other issues : NA

Average length for the Governing Board to take a
decision - Main causes for any delays in the decision-making process (if any)

The interviewee explained that the length and
any causes of delays will always relay on the subject or content of the
decision. For example, there are some decisions that can be taken within weeks,
while other decisions concerning political issues, such as an agreement with
third countries, can take months or years. Therefore the main causes of delays
cannot be generalised.

Required changes to the role of the Director of
CEPOL (if any)

No, there is no need for changes in his role

Required changes to the role of the Commission
within CEPOL (if any)

No, the Commission already has a role within
CEPOL as observer. In addition, the EC opinions are always taken into account;
therefore, they already have an influence within the decision making process of
CEPOL. Furthermore, the EC has already launched the LETS initiative for which
CEPOL will be engaged, as well as the MS and EU agencies. If the Commission has
a role within the LETS and the CEPOL training activities, the EC would be
incurring in the development of common standards. Thus, the EC should have a
clear division of competences.

CEPOL’s ability to efficiently respond to new
learning needs emerging from EU and national policies and other related
developments

Overall, the efficiency, effectiveness and
impact of the activities implemented by CEPOL lay upon the MS commitment. The
MS are the ones responsible for identifying and communicating their needs to
CEPOL, as well as to implement the training activities. CEPOL acts as a
coordinator, catalyst of information and facilitator.

On the time perspective, the whole process of
identification and implementation of training needs its time consuming. CEPOL
and the MS should work together to improve the delivery of training and to
deliver a quick response in launching training programmes.

Slovakia, Ladislav Mihalik        Extent to
which CEPOL has been able to deliver its planned activities, against the
planned budget. Extent to which CEPOL’s efficiency has increased or decreased
over the past few years

Not able to answer.

Extent to which CEPOL is achieving the
milestones set out in the CEPOL’s Multi-annual Plan 2010

Not able to answer.

Ability of current legal, administrative and
financial structure to fully identify and deliver relevant training and other
activities.

▪           The role of the Director:

▪           The role of the Secretariat:
The Secretariat should have access to more seconded national experts from
Member States, because there is not enough experience at present time.

▪           The role of the Governing
Board: The Governing Board is overcrowded and therefore inefficient in taking
decision quickly, particularly taking into account that one GB meeting is only
2 days long. There is a need for more flexibility and especially a reduction in
administrative topics discussed. The fact that relevant GB materials and
information are only handed out a few days in advance hinders a good
preparation of the GB meeting.

▪           Financial resources available
to CEPOL: Regarding the current amount of courses offered by CEPOL the
financial resources provided are fully sufficient. However, more financial
flexibility should be given to those Member States organising such activities in
order to prevent them from using national resources in case the activity
exceeds the fixed budget.

Average length for the Governing Board to take a
decision

Not able to answer.

Main causes for any delays in the
decision-making process (if any)

So far Mr Mihalik did not experience any major
delays but criticises the regulations for submitting the grant agreements as
too complicated and time consuming.

Required changes to the role of the Director of
CEPOL (if any)

The role of the Director should be strengthened
in regards to decision making and coverage.

Required changes to the role of the Commission
within CEPOL (if any)

There is a need for an educational institution
to be autonomous. Nevertheless, there is an advantage of a further engagement
of the Commission in CEPOL in order to improve the financial discipline and as
advisor for subjects and work plans.

United Kingdom,  Kurt Eyre     Extent to which
CEPOL has been able to deliver its planned activities, against the planned
budget. Extent to which CEPOL’s efficiency has increased or decreased over the
past few years

Due to the remarkable improve in efficiency,
CEPOL was able to deliver its planned activities against the planned budget.

Extent to which CEPOL is achieving the
milestones set out in the CEPOL’s Multi-annual Plan 2010

CEPOL is achieving these milestones.

Ability of current legal, administrative and
financial structure to fully identify and deliver relevant training and other
activities.

▪           The role of the Director,
Secretariat and the Governing Board: All the institutional parts are too
bureaucratic and too focused on administration, whereas more flexibility is
needed. Especially the GB is focused too much on administrative decisions rather
than long-term ones. Some sort of extension for the Secretariat staff is needed
and the expert system should be improved so than can be reached on demand.

▪           Financial resources available
to CEPOL: Financial resources available to CEPOL are sufficient enough.

▪           Other issues: Difficulties
with recruitment procedures, lack of career system in CEPOL Secretariat and
frequent changes in staff and lack of experience.

Average length for the Governing Board to take a
decision

The decision takes usually several months, but
it very much depends on the decision that has to be made.

Main causes for any delays in the
decision-making process (if any). Required changes to the role of the Director
of CEPOL (if any)

GB too involved in administrative issues etc,
more powers should be given to the Director.

Required changes to the role of the Commission
within CEPOL (if any)

The GB and the Secretariat of CEPOL are already
heavily involved in EU policy, there is no further need to give the Commission
further influence in CEPOL.

            124.     EFFECTIVENESS

Belgium, Alain Ruelle    Level of successfulness
of implementation of CEPOL’s activities. Main success factors and main
obstacles.

▪           Training: One obstacle is
often due to either the topic of the activity or the assigned experts, leading
to a lack of participants. Another obstacle is that the grant agreement is
often too low.

▪           Exchange Programme: Matching
could be improved.

▪           Research: As CEPOL is a
network it should be enough to use academy researcher.

Main strengths and weaknesses of the activities
developed and delivered by CEPOL

Quality: Main weakness that no common standard
exists for all activities. Language of participants and trainers can reduce the
quality of the implemented activity. Selection of participants often not good
enough and they do not meet quality standards.

Timeliness: Length of activity should not be
fixed but should allow for flexibility depending on topic and scope.

Coverage: Most important topics are covered and
reaction to new needs was quick.

CEPOL’s contribution to the achievement of the
objectives set out in the CEPOL Decision, included in the Stockholm Programme
and included in the ISS

NA

Reach of adequate target audience/groups

If there is a certain need to focus on other
than senior police officers, the possibility should exist to widen the target
audience. He pledges for also including civil servants and academic experts and
puts particular emphasis on the need to focus on position instead of ranks.

The cascading of gained knowledge by the participants
(at least in BE) is certainly a weak point and the approach of cascading has to
be improved.

Added value of providing training and other
learning activities at EU level

The CEPOL activities add a EU dimension to
police cooperation and training in Europe, support and initiate networking
structures, increase best practice sharing, strengthen language capabilities of
participants, raises EU Agency awareness, and establishes cooperation with EU
neighbouring countries.

Bulgaria, Plamen Kolarski         125.     Level
of successfulness of implementation of CEPOL’s activities. Main success factors
and main obstacles.

According to the interviewee, the exchange
programme is the right way to fulfil the mission of CEPOL. Training is
obviously very important but the practical knowledge gained through the
exchange programme is particularly valuable. The exchange programme is
therefore considered to be the most successful activity implemented by CEPOL.

Common Curricula are also successful, however,
their implementation on the ground is very difficult, i.e. there are some
difficulties in implementing directly the Common Curricula in the National
Academy’s Programme.

126.     Main strengths and weaknesses of the
activities developed and delivered by CEPOL

According to the interviewee, the main strength
of CEPOL is the quality of the activities. CEPOL’s training activities are
attended by high-level experts from Member States but also from EU Agencies
such as Eurojust, Frontex and OLAF.

The timeliness of activities is also a strength
of CEPOL. The training sessions usually take four days. This is considered as a
very good timing by the interviewee.

Concerning the timing of the exchange programme,
the possibility to limit such exchange to one week should be considered (due to
the fact that senior police officers usually cannot be out of the office for
two weeks). Another solution could be to widen the scope of exchange programme
activities to more operational staff).

Reach of adequate target audience/groups

Concerning the cascading plan, participants are
required to draft a plan before their participation in CEPOL’s activities.
There is some general reluctance concerning the plan. Participants prefer to
share the experience with their colleagues in an informal way.

127.     Added value of providing training and
other learning activities at EU level

Concerning the added value of CEPOL, the
interviewee considered that the Agency, through its activities, is increasing
the national training standards.

Spain, Mr Eduardo Borobio Leon (NCP) on behalf
of Jose Antonio Rodriguez Level of successfulness of implementation of CEPOL’s
activities. Main success factors and main obstacles.

The main obstacles for the implementation of
activities where described as the following:

▪           The Member State commitment
when implementing the training: MS have to ensure the quality of the trainers
and   of the training provided and that the experts are relevant to the
training

▪           The novelty of the training:
The content of the training and subject shall be new or something interesting
for the       participants

▪           The language is one of the
biggest obstacles for the best specialist to attend the training

Main strengths and weaknesses of the activities
developed and delivered by CEPOL

The training has been shifting from one theme to
another providing a good range of options; such variety was described as
strength. However the quality of the training will depend on the commitment of
the MS and on the interest of the participants.

The interviewee considers that one of the mains
strengths the training and activities developed by CEPOL provide, is the
opportunity to exchange experiences and practices and also it provides a
European Dimension.

CEPOL’s contribution to the achievement of the
objectives as set out in the CEPOL Decision, included in the Stockholm
Programme and included in the ISS

The interviewee considers that CEPOL’s
contribution to the achievements of the Stockholm and ISS objectives has been
successful to a great extent. Nowadays CEPOL is present and known in most of
the MS, it has provided a common EU culture in law enforcement training and it
has facilitated the learning exchanges.

Reach of adequate target audience/groups

Overall, it is the responsibility of the MS to
identify the participants and to make sure the right profile has been targeted.
Nevertheless the target group could be broadened in order to be able to include
other offices which are also involved in the fight against international crime,
such as researchers, teachers etc.

The cascading of knowledge is not very evident
as it is currently very difficult to measure the impact of it.

Concerning the networking the interviewee
explained this is one of the main advantages for the participants, to be able
to construct an informal network.

Added value of providing training and other
learning activities at EU level

The main added values were described as the
following:

▪           CEPOL provides law enforcement
training with a EU dimension

▪           The opportunity to develop an
informal network between the participants which allows for a further
cooperation network between the MS

▪           CEPOL promotes the common
culture within the training

▪           CEPOL activities allow the
best practices exchange

▪           CEPOL activities provide the
participants to learn and to know how other MS work and the functioning of the
police systems.

Finland, Kimmo Himberg          Level of
successfulness of implementation of CEPOL’s activities. Main success factors
and main obstacles.

▪           Training: participants have
various experiences: mostly successfully implemented.

▪           Exchange programme:
participants very satisfied.

▪           Research: it does not seem to
be very effective. It has not found the best possible format so far.

▪           Common curricula: Experience
with online activities are so far quite good.

Main strengths and weaknesses of the activities
developed and delivered by CEPOL

▪           Quality: The feedback on the
quality of the activities is quite good. People are quite satisfied e.g. on the
training course

▪           Timeliness: no issues

▪           Coverage : there could be some
improvements, e.g. focus on cross border phenomena (see above)

CEPOL’s contribution to the achievement of the
objectives set out in the CEPOL Decision, included in the Stockholm Programme
and included in the ISS

Mostly. In certain areas there is still room for
improvement.

Reach of adequate target audience/groups

The selection of audiences is in the hands of
Member State. Mr Himberg saw that for almost any given training course, the
organisation level may vary a lot from one country to another. It is hard for
CEPOL to influence the Member State on selecting their national participants.
He has certain doubts about the ability of the participants to cascade their
knowledge.

With training activities saw that the interest
of the participants may vary a lot: some people have a good knowledge of the
theme and strong interest in it whereas others seem not to bother on the
course.

Added value of providing training and other
learning activities at EU level

It has a strong added value, especially on the
level 2 of cooperation (distributing info and knowledge, improving
understanding of activities of authorities in other Member State).

France, Mr Emile Pérez            Level of
successfulness of implementation of CEPOL’s activities. Main success factors
and main obstacles.

▪           Training: Training usually
works well, because it is a product which responds to needs of the Member
States/ Each time France organises an activity, there is more demand than
availability.

▪           Exchange programme: it is
important and would need to be more funded and with other funding Research:
there is very limited funding.

▪           Common curricula: this does
not work at all. All the elements which correspond to the content of the
training. They have been done for many years, as an EU product which could be
applied by Member States. It is very expensive and needs to be always updated
but nobody uses it. This, also because some defined what was the need instead
of asking what the need was. Today it would be even more expensive as it would
need to be translated in all 23 EU languages. France does not need a Common
curriculum as it has its own tools.  It would be even less needed if available
in English only.

The most successful activities are those for
which Member States feel they designed, according to their needs with the
support of other Member State and the EU, including CEPOL.

Main strengths and weaknesses of the activities
developed and delivered by CEPOL

The quality, timeliness and coverage are overall
good.

The first satisfaction is to bring together
people who did not know each other will learn to cooperate: networking for
police cooperation.

The main strength is to bring together people
who do not know each other with similar issues and will learn to respect and
work with more people from other Member States.

Activities should keep on being an occasion to
have people meeting with each other. It would be a failure to develop tools
such as e-learning when networking is needed.

CEPOL’s contribution to the achievement of the
objectives sSet out in the CEPOL Decision, included in the Stockholm Programme
and included in the ISS

From such a large Decision, it depends on the
extent of the organisation and implementation of the decision. What has been
done so far is already very good and correspond to the expectations of France.
France is the first beneficiary (the greatest number of participants) and the
first provider (the most activities within CEPOL). CEPOL reaches its
objectives; even more as France as well as all Member States are associated to
process of decisions. The structure should not change in a way Member States
should become clients of CEPOL, it is important that they remain partners.

Reach of adequate target audience/groups

Participants are chosen by Member States. The
criteria are set up by Member States. The main problem is the English language
skill and not enough financial resources in police departments to pay for
flight tickets. Before being an expert or cascading, there is a need to speak
English. That is the main issue.

This is a traditional hurdle for all
cooperation.  The choice is left to Member States, but the first selection is
based on language.

In France, training is always organised in at
least two languages: English and French. It would be good to have it in all
Member States: it would not be expensive and would enable all participants to
take part in it. It would be important to have some flexibility. For example to
be able to welcome more people, and to balance between those who demand and
those who do not demand.

They can only be satisfied with the product
which exists today. The issue is more about what it is going to happen tomorrow
with all the changes.

Added value of providing training and other
learning activities at EU level

Networking will enable to acquire an EU vision:
training curricula EU approach and participants will mix and will change
progressively their own approach to the issues, and integrate EU approach. It
is only beneficial: in the content and for the participants (as long as they
meet and mix).

Greece, KRIERIS Dimitrios      128.     Level of
successfulness of implementation of CEPOL’s activities. Main success factors
and main obstacles.

129.     The main obstacles towards the
successful implementation of CEPOL’s activities are: language barriers,
differences in national legislation and differences in culture.

130.     The exchange programme is considered to
be a very successful activity. However, the interviewee pointed out that such
an activity was not financially supported by the EC in 2011. In order to be
more successful, the programme needs to be supported by the EC.

131.     Concerning the research area, in Greece
there are not many science & research correspondents within the police.
There is also a need to improve cooperation with Universities.

132.     As far as the common curricula are
concerned, some serious implementation issues have been identified in some MS.
It is extremely hard to “harmonise” the level of training across the EU. In
some MS, common curricula have been adapted a considered only as “reference” by
the training authorities. However, the implementation of such common curricula
should not become mandatory as this could be counter-productive. The reluctance
of MS might increase in that case.

133.     Main strengths and weaknesses of the
activities developed and delivered by CEPOL

134.     The quality of the activities can be
considered as a strength. The timeliness of the activities varies across the EU
MS.

135.     A weakness of CEPOL’s activities is the
limited visibility in the MS. CEPOL needs more promotion within the national
law enforcement area.

136.     CEPOL’s contribution to the achievement
of the objectives set out in the CEPOL Decision, included in the Stockholm
Programme and included in the ISS

According to the interviewee, CEPOL fulfilled
the objectives set out in the Council Decision.

137.     Added value of providing training and
other learning activities at EU level

CEPOL provides a transnational dimension to
training of law enforcement officers. CEPOL’s activities allow for sharing of
information and best practices across the EU. Also, CEPOL contributed to
strengthening networks between police organisations in the MS.

Hungary, Emese Horváczy        Level of
successfulness of implementation of CEPOL’s activities. Main success factors
and main obstacles.

▪           Training: it is quite
successful. The topics are popular. Good trainers.  However, there is a lack of
participants, and overlap in timing of seminars.

▪           Exchange programme: this is
the most successful activity.  There is good cooperation with the Secretariat.
It is a very useful experience for the participants. Participants can build
good relationships with other colleagues. However, not all the Member States
involved. It is difficult to organise adequate programmes because of the
different structures in Member State.

▪           Research no personal
experience.

▪           Webinars and e-learning are
very popular tools for learning according to her.

Main strengths and weaknesses of the activities
developed and delivered by CEPOL

▪           Quality:

−          Multi-cultural seminar/learning

−          Common standards

−          Seminars are reviewed according
to needs.

▪           Timeliness: CEPOL has a strict
timeline concerning organisation of activities.

▪           Coverage : there could be some
improvements, e.g. focus on cross border phenomena (see above)

Weaknesses are similar to obstacles (see above).

CEPOL’s contribution to the achievement of the
objectives set out in the CEPOL Decision, included in the Stockholm Programme
and included in the ISS

Yes. CEPOL can identify needs and create new
adequate activities.

Reach of adequate target audience/groups

In Hungary, every participant has to write a
report. Can maybe help to cascade the knowledge.

Added value of providing training and other
learning activities at EU level

New knowledge and open-mindness of EU level can
lead to better cooperation within Member State.

Italy, Rossana Farina (on behalf of General
Giuliani)      138.     Level of successfulness of implementation of CEPOL’s
activities. Main success factors and main obstacles.

139.     As far as training is concerned, there
is a need to involve more the MS in the organisation of courses.

140.     There are some improvements to be made
to some of the activities developed such as the exchange programme and the
common curricula. The latter should be more numerous and cover a broader range
of topics. Common curricula should be also produced from training courses
delivered, through CEPOL, by expert trainers.

141.     Concerning the exchange programme,
there is a need to better organise the programme and provide more time to the
MS to involve beneficiaries spread across the country. The organisation of the
exchange programme should also take into account the recommendations provided
by the Council.

142.     Research can be quoted as the less
successful activity. There is a need to see more visible results from research
activities undertaken by CEPOL. Also, there is a need to stimulate the
cooperation with national academic actors.

143.     Moreover, CEPOL should become a centre
of excellence, a database at EU level of all training activities and EU
programmes and projects in the law enforcement area. Also, a database of EU law
enforcement experts and trainers should be established.

144.     Main strengths and weaknesses of the
activities developed and delivered by CEPOL

145.     According to the interviewee, one of
the weaknesses of the activities developed by CEPOL is the limited involvement
of other EU Agencies such as Frontex, Europol and Eurojust. There is a need to
further improve synergies with other EU Agencies and commonly develop and
deliver activities.

146.     Another weakness is the (long) time
needed to prepare training activities in the MS. Some delays are also
experienced in the signature of Grant Agreements between CEPOL and the MS.

147.     A strength is that the visibility and
knowledge of CEPOL’s activities in the MS has now increased.

Reach of adequate target audience/groups

148.     In Italy, there is an obligation, for
all participants in CEPOL’s activities, to prepare a cascading plan. The
participant is asked to share the knowledge gained through such activities with
his/her colleagues.

Lithuania, TOMAS BIKMANAS         Level of
successfulness of implementation of CEPOL’s activities. Main success factors
and main obstacles.

▪           Training and Exchange
Programme: Both training and exchange programme are being implemented
successfully. Participants have the opportunity to enhance and deepen their
knowledge in the appropriate topic related to their daily work. At the same
time they establish new contacts and providing opportunities to improve cross
border cooperation, crime prevention and investigation.

▪           Research: Due to structural
peculiarities of police training in Lithuania, there is a lack of attention to
research in the area of policing in Lithuania. Mainly because the police is not
responsible for higher education and for the civil university organising police
studies, research in the area of policing is not of top priority.

▪           Common curricula: NA

▪           Other Activities: Creating and
implementing e-learning modules gives new possibilities to improve relevant
skills. However, the popularity of this kind of training is not high yet.

Main strengths and weaknesses of the activities
developed and delivered by CEPOL

Quality: The quality of activities mostly
depends on the Member State organising the activity, on the initiative and
interest of staff. Selection of trainers is mainly the prerogative of the
organising Member State. CEPOL Secretariat only takes note of the trainers.
There are no strict requirements regarding  the selection of the trainers.
Therefore, it may result in poor quality of delivered trainings. Issued
certificates confirm participation in courses, but not the quality of gained
knowledge.

Timeliness: Weakness: Too long process to
respond to new needs and challenges.

Coverage: Similarly like quality of organised
activities, its coverage greatly depends on the Member State organising the
activity. During the organization of CEPOL activities, Lithuania places
information about these activities on the Internet. However, the CEPOL website
holds not enough articles from Member States and information about CEPOL
activities organised in these Member States. CEPOL website is not efficiently
used for coverage of CEPOL activities.

CEPOL’s contribution to the achievement of the
objectives sSet out in the CEPOL Decision, included in the Stockholm Programme
and included in the ISS

CEPOL contributes to the achievement of these
objectives successfully.

Reach of adequate target audience/groups

They believe that the right audiences / target
groups are being reached during and after CEPOL activities. However, CEPOL
needs to expand its audiences. Moreover, in some cases target groups should
include not only senior police officers, but also middle ranking police
officers and officers of other law enforcement institutions.

All participants of CEPOL activities are obliged
to write reports from the trainings they participated in. Therefore, as to the
cascading the knowledge acquired during such trainings to others, the system is
rather effective, because reports are usually informative and may be easily
distributed among other related staff. Also, these reports have to hold
proposals of the participant as to the introduction of acquired knowledge into
national practice. These proposals are submitted with approval of the direct
supervisor of the participant to the highest authorities of the police.

Added value of providing training and other
learning activities at EU level

With the increase of various EU law enforcement
cooperation instruments, officers must apply these tools in their daily work.
This results in the need to know legal and practical aspects of application of
these instruments within the EU Member States. Common learning activities at EU
level contribute to a more efficient and training and in-depth analysis of
relevant cooperation instruments and fields. Participants have therefore an
opportunity to acquire and deepen their knowledge in the appropriate topic
related to their daily work.

At the same time officers participating in CEPOL
training and other learning activities establish new contacts and gain the
possibility to improve cross border cooperation, crime prevention and
investigation, as well language skills.

In addition, participants share gained knowledge
with their colleagues and use it in their daily work.

The Netherlands, Mr van Baal  Level of
successfulness of implementation of CEPOL’s activities. Main success factors
and main obstacles.

▪           Training: Overall, was
described as very successful. Success Factor: Development, preparation and
Implementation by MS’s and in cooperation with MS’s.

▪           Exchange programme: The
interviewee considers it has not been that successful because of the difficulty
when matching the participants. The programme relates more not to work
together, but to visit each other – that causes a lot of work for the hosting
party, even with 1 person visiting- , and the administrative workload, which
was huge in the past. Not that much participants participated to the Exchange
Programmes so far (the indication giving in the Stockholm Programme of 600
police officers in the Exchange Programme is not within sight).

▪           Research: quite successful for
the research activities within CEPOL’s mandate (research bulletin, training
activities concerning research, setting up of E-library).

▪           Other activities: Common
Curricula: not that successful in implementation, because the form amongst the
Common Curricula developed differs very much. Some are very elaborated, with
timetables etc. and some are not. This makes it difficult for MS’s to implement
them in their national systems; sometimes the training methodology even
conflicts with national training systems.

Main strengths and weaknesses of the activities
developed and delivered by CEPOL

Quality: quality is high, provided by MS’s.

Timelines: the Annual Programme is planned well
in advance

Coverage: See questionson ‘RELEVANCE’

Others: Main weakness: the activities from
Annual Programme only reach 1 or 2 participants per MS. E-learning products of
CEPOL are a good alternative for some activities.

CEPOL’s contribution to the achievement of the
objectives as set out in the CEPOL Decision, included in the Stockholm
Programme and included in the ISS

See questions under Relevance.

Reach of adequate target audience/groups

The interviewee considers that throughout the
evaluation system (pre- during and post-) it showed that for most of the
courses the right target group are also been reached. But the interviewee
considers that there should be shift the target groups where not only senior
police officers are targeted by also middle ranked police officers, specialists
and researchers. It was highlighted that it would be good to broaden the target
group of CEPOL in this respect and to also broaden it with target groups from
other law enforcement branches (justice, border guards, customs, etc.)

At least for the Netherlands so far the right
target groups are reached.

Regarding the implementation of changes on the
basis of a course of 4 days is difficult to measure. If the activities are
longer, like TOPSPOC and the 3 module course ‘Police Cooperation in Europe’,
more impact on changes in the organisation by the participants will be seen.

Added value of providing training and other
learning activities at EU level

The interviewee explained that criminals do not
take into consideration the borders when it comes to crime, therefore, the EU
police should not take into consideration that borders either, meaning, there
should be a common approach when targeting and fighting against crime.

Therefore, the main added value of the training
at EU level is that the different EU police can work together, be together with
colleagues from different countries, to exchange good practices, knowledge,
experiences; to develop networks.

If the police forces work together, they will
know how the MS work and this will be much more effective in the longer run in
order to fight international crime.

In addition, it was explained that EU
competences should also be educated at EU level; this enlarges the mutual trust
among EU police officers. It will also provide a base to reach an EU police
culture.

Romania,  Radu Todoran          Level of
successfulness of implementation of CEPOL’s activities. Main success factors
and main obstacles.

▪           Training: A big obstacle is
national legislation related to financial matters and weak participation. Apart
from that Mr Todoran never heard any complaints and most training activities
were successful and efficient.

▪           Research: Research is
certainly the weak part of CEPOL where not much work is done. Would be positive
to improve.

Main strengths and weaknesses of the activities
developed and delivered by CEPOL

NA

CEPOL’s contribution to the achievement of the
objectives set out in the CEPOL Decision, included in the Stockholm Programme
and included in the ISS

Cannot say.

Reach of adequate target audience/groups

The main obstacle in Romania to reach the
appropriate target group for CEPOL activities is language. Most of the senior
officers are not proficient in English hence, younger staff has to be chosen.

He is in favour of widening the target group to
middle and young officers due to the cascading effect that could have.

Added value of providing training and other
learning activities at EU level

As a small and rather new country in the
European Union there is a huge added value for Romania to participate in
CEPOL’s activities. The networking of police officers on EU level supports
cross border cooperation, the technical training increases expertise, and for a
country that is undergoing development the expert trainer courses are of
special importance.

Sweden,  Mr.  Bo Åström        Level of
successfulness of implementation of CEPOL’s activities. Main success factors
and main obstacles.

▪           Training: Overall training is
good the topics and the thematic areas are also good. The main obstacles
encountered are the identification of experts (the type of experts) these need
to be very qualified in order for the training to be successful; the timing,
since its time consuming; the target groups, the training should be provided in
the basis of the officers functions and not its ranks. In addition the
interviewee considers that the training could be even more successful if the
regional approach can also be considered

▪           Exchange programme: The
programme has been a success

▪           Research: It is good but could
be further developed.

▪           Seminars and conferences: 
These activities are really good for the participants as they act as meeting
points, gathering people together and they act as meeting point for best
practice exchanges and also for dissemination of knowledge.

Main strengths and weaknesses of the activities
developed and delivered by CEPOL

Quality: will depend on the trainers, experts
and also on the MS commitment

Timelines: the design and implementation of the
activities are time consuming timeliness and coverage are overall good.

Coverage: The target group should be broadened.

CEPOL’s contribution to the achievement of the
objectives as set out in the CEPOL Decision, included in the Stockholm
Programme and included in the ISS

Overall, CEPOL is contributing to the
achievements of the objectives. In addition, the new grant agreements system
for the development of activities specifies within the assessment criteria that
the objectives of the Stockholm programme, in particular the ISS shall be met.

Reach of adequate target audience/groups

The interviewee has previously explained that
the target group shall focus on the function of the officers not on the
ranking. For example, there are several officers that work on cross-border
crime issues and that are not necessarily senior officers, however it is
essential that the officers working in the field receive the training as well.
Also there are certain differences between the ranking systems of the MS. Thus,
the target group should be broadened looking at officers and also to civil
servants and researches involved in the fight against
international/cross-border crime.

Added value of providing training and other
learning activities at EU level

The interviewee explained that, nowadays
criminals do not have any borders neither they respect any borders, thus the
countries more increasingly depend on the police cross border cooperation. In
this context, training delivered by CEPOL is seen as a window of opportunity
where the police officers are able to obtain and meet the different MS police
systems. In addition, CEPOL allows the creation of informal networks between
the participants and the exchange of best practices.

Finally, CEPOL provides the EU dimension and a
common law enforcement culture.

Slovakia, Ladislav Mihalik        Level of
successfulness of implementation of CEPOL’s activities. Main success factors
and main obstacles.

▪           Training: The main obstacle
for a successful activity is the lack of participants, which is due to the
reputation of a certain course in the previous year. There is more cooperation
needed with other EU bodies and an increase in financial resources for experts
helpful for a good training session. Majority of courses have a high standard
already.

▪           Exchange Programme: NA

▪           Research: NA

▪           Common curricula: NA

Main strengths and weaknesses of the activities
developed and delivered by CEPOL

On average the quality is very high, but could
be increased through more skilful experts. In regards to timeliness CEPOL
manages activities very efficiently. What has to be changed is the late
adoption of the budget for next year, which results in poor activities in the
first months of the following year.

CEPOL’s contribution to the achievement of the
objectives set out in the CEPOL Decision, included in the Stockholm Programme
and included in the ISS

NA

Reach of adequate target audience/groups

Most activities deal with real problems at
strategic or operational level and anticipation is needed. Hence, CEPOL should continue
to focus on senior police officers only as they are the ones who have the
strategic oversight and power in their countries to actually change things.
However, often the definition of senior is not very apparent and sometimes also
middle officers could be allowed to take part, as long as they hold a Bachelors
degree.

The process of nomination is not yet transparent
enough and often Member States are confronted with the problem that senior
officers do not have the language ability to participate. There should be a
stricter process within Member States including English language tests.

Regarding the audience per activity it shouldn’t
exceed 25 participants.

Added value of providing training and other
learning activities at EU level

The activities organised by CEPOL at EU level
have a real added value for the development of cross border cooperation, best
practice sharing etc. Especially for smaller countries such as Slovakia such as
training offers opportunities that wouldn’t be possibly without CEPOL.

In order to even improve the added value,
subjects regarding the European dimension should be made mandatory at all
European Police Colleges. Afterwards common curricula can be implemented
effectively.

United Kingdom,  Kurt Eyre     Level of
successfulness of implementation of CEPOL’s activities. Main success factors
and main obstacles.

Overall CEPOL implemented activities
successfully. However there are ongoing risks, such as the duplication of
topics within a short timeframe. In addition Mr Eyre demanded a better
cooperation between CEPOL and other EU agencies such as Frontex in order to
avoid duplication of courses on cross border topics. In regard to the ongoing
Europol vs CEPOL debate: CEPOL should be careful not to develop courses that
duplicate those of EUROPOL. Whether it would be more efficient to merge CEPOL
and EUROPOL he doesn’t know.

Main strengths and weaknesses of the activities
developed and delivered by CEPOL

According to Mr Eyre, the main strength of
CEPOL’s activities are the good standard of experts, the quality of courses
delivered, the increase in networking it achieved, and the strong believe that
CEPOL’s success can be increased.

On the other hand, there are problems with
delivering the annual plan , due to Member State competition. Therefore, it
should be made clearer early on who exactly is supposed to deliver the
training. In order to decrease such tensions between Member States partnership
projects can be implemented where one activity is implemented and organised by
2 Member States that have the relevant expertise.

CEPOL’s contribution to the achievement of the
objectives set out in the CEPOL Decision, included in the Stockholm Programme
and included in the ISS

Reach of adequate target audience/groups

The cascading works really well and participants
learn a lot. National curricula are there to support national needs and do not
necessarily need any support or inputs from CEPOL participants. Regarding the
target group of CEPOL activities, there is a high potential for experts as well.
The scale of the audience is just about right.

Added value of providing training and other
learning activities at EU level

The added value of CEPOL is that it provides a
huge potential to enhance national expertise, and increases cooperation and
operational awareness and efficiency. CEPOL therefore provides a real added
value to cross border police cooperation in Europe.

            149.     UTILITY AND IMPACT

Belgium, Alain Ruelle    Main impacts of CEPOL’s
training and other activities

To assess the impact is quite difficult as it
heavily depends on the topic chosen and organiser of the activity. Impacts on
colleagues could be increased. CEPOL courses are certainly cheaper than those
organised in Belgium, hence cost efficiency is really good.

CEPOL’s ability to adequately anticipate,
identify and respond to new training / knowledge needs resulting from the EU
policy framework and national policy changes. Main success factors and
challenges when identifying and responding to new training needs

See above.

Extent to which CEPOL has been able to ensure
synergies between the different learning activities it offers. Main success
factors and obstacles encountered in ensuring synergies between its activities

In between the courses organised by CEPOL
synergies do occur, in particular in cases where several courses built upon
each other for example step 1, step 2 course etc.

CEPOL’s contribution to increased law
enforcement cooperation across the EU

Yes it does, however, whether it is a great
contribution is questionable. Very difficult to measure the impact of training
in general.

CEPOL’s contribution to a better cooperation
between Member States and relevant EU Agencies (e.g. Europol, Eurojust)

Only by raising awareness of participants about
the existence of such Agencies.

Extent to which CEPOL has contributed to a more
harmonised “European Approach” to the fight against crime, crime prevention and
the maintenance of law and order and public security

Several good examples exist (also including
Frontex and Eurojust etc), where best practice sharing and cross border
cooperation has harmonised the way the police operates (even though on a very
small scale). In some areas of law enforcement more than in others.

Bulgaria, Plamen Kolarski         150.     Main
impacts of CEPOL’s training and other activities

The wider impacts of CEPOL’s, for example
improved cross-border cooperation, need to be considered. According to the
interviewee, the knowledge gained through participation in CEPOL’s activities
contributes to improving the working environment. Personal contacts established
help opening doors to cross-border cooperation.

As mentioned above, CEPOL’s material has also an
impact on national training practices. In Bulgaria, CEPOL’s common curricula
and training helped raising the standards of police training to the EU level.

Moreover. CEPOL’s activities enhanced the
knowledge of police authorities concerning EU Agencies.

Spain, Mr Eduardo Borobio Leon (NCP) on behalf
of Jose Antonio Rodriguez Main impacts of CEPOL’s training and other activities

The main impacts can be identified on the
participants on the knowledge obtained by the exchange of best practices and
also on the networking the participants develop during the curses.

The impact on other colleagues which did not
attend the training is not tangible or evident; usually the participants have
to provide a report describing the activities undertaken explaining which has
been the added value for attending the course. This is a control measure so the
participant describes the learning obtained.

Extent to which CEPOL has been able to ensure
synergies between the different learning activities it offers.  Main success
factors and obstacles encountered in ensuring synergies between its activities

The interviewee explained that the activities
are usually divided between categories and which they are related or linked.
All the categories look for a balance and for complementarity. In addition, the
EC also provides in this case its opinion. Thus overall, synergy between the
activities is pursuit as well as the added value that the activities will
provide.

CEPOL’s contribution to increased law
enforcement cooperation across the EU

CEPOL has contributed to the law enforcement
cooperation across the EU mainly by bringing participants together and the
number of participants has also been increasing over the last periods. In
addition, the number of users of the learning platforms has also increased.

CEPOL’s contribution to a better cooperation
between Member States and relevant EU Agencies (e.g. Europol, Eurojust)

CEPOL has been already contributing with the EU
agencies such as Frontex and Europol. Also they are now developing a mapping
exercise in order to identify the training delivered by MS and EU agencies and
to be able to identify if there are any overlaps.

Extent to which CEPOL has contributed to a more
harmonised “European Approach” to the fight against crime, crime prevention and
the maintenance of law and order and public security

CEPOL has contributed by providing a European
Dimension to the law enforcement training, also a common culture within the law
enforcement training.

In addition, the CEPOL activities provide common
opinions for common problems between the MS. The cooperation the activities
develop is done at EU level which usually is more difficult to achieve, thus
CEPOL has contributed to a great extent to develop a European Approach.

Finland, Kimmo Himberg          Main impacts of
CEPOL’s training and other activities

The strongest impact is the direct impact:
improvement of the knowledge level of the participants themselves. Networking
is useful, even on a personal level.  Very useful impact is the mutual
understanding.

CEPOL’s ability to adequately anticipate,
identify and respond to new training / knowledge needs resulting from the EU
policy framework and national policy changes

Main success factors and challenges when
identifying and responding to new training needs

Mr Himberg is not fully satisfied, because CEPOL
is so strongly dependent on the proposals of the participating countries.

Extent to which CEPOL has been able to ensure
synergies between the different learning activities it offers

Main success factors and obstacles encountered
in ensuring synergies between its activities

There is no such synergy. Lack of relevance of
research and weak research inputs from CEPOL network.

CEPOL’s contribution to increased law
enforcement cooperation across the EU

There is no doubt that CEPOL has already
contributed a lot to a successful cooperation; by distributing knowledge and
platform to make connexions and network.

CEPOL’s contribution to a better cooperation
between Member States and relevant EU Agencies (e.g. Europol, Eurojust)

It does not have a very strong role in this, if
any. Europol itself has been more successful in building up cooperation with
always enforcement authorities in Member States.

Extent to which CEPOL has contributed to a more
harmonised “European Approach” to the fight against crime, crime prevention and
the maintenance of law and order and public security

This far CEPOL has not been very well able to
help Member State to take concrete steps to a harmonised approach. However, by
distributing general knowledge and understanding it has contributed to several
steps towards.

France, Mr Emile Pérez            Main impacts
of CEPOL’s training and other activities

The first main impact is on networking.

The impact on colleagues of participants who did
not take part in the training is very low. There are 250,000 policemen and
gendarmes in France, 90 seats are available for training per year. It would
take too much time for all of them to participate. This is not about technical
skills which can be cascaded. All the approach are tailored to a country, and
small pieced only can be inspiring for others but a whole system cannot be
transferred to another system. Not everybody needs to be expert in all the
fields presented during the trainings.

CEPOL’s ability to adequately anticipate,
identify and respond to new training / knowledge needs resulting from the EU
policy framework and national policy changes

It is important to ask the partners.

Main success factors and challenges when
identifying and responding to new training needs

Involvement of the partners in CEPOL.

Extent to which CEPOL has been able to ensure
synergies between the different learning activities it offers

Main success factors and obstacles encountered
in ensuring synergies between its activities

If the offer is global and diversified, it
enables to bring to each Member States a mean to answer to its needs, if the
needs are well identified through consultations with partners.

CEPOL’s contribution to increased law
enforcement cooperation across the EU

The objective is to contribute to a better
cooperation at the EU level in law enforcement. The small input of training is
crucial, even if it is very small.

CEPOL’s contribution to a better cooperation
between Member States and relevant EU Agencies (e.g. Europol, Eurojust)

It does, when enabling Member States to meet and
discuss with each other.

Extent to which CEPOL has contributed to a more
harmonised “European Approach” to the fight against crime, crime prevention and
the maintenance of law and order and public security

The training is obviously contributing but this
is only a very limited portion of the overall cultural change which should happen.

Greece, KRIERIS Dimitrios      151.     Main
impacts of CEPOL’s training and other activities

152.     The interviewee believes that CEPOL’s
activities have a long term impact on cooperation between law enforcement
authorities across the EU.

Hungary, Emese Horváczy        Main impacts of
CEPOL’s training and other activities

Direct impact on participants (e.g. technical
and managerial knowledge):  yes. Mostly. Wider knowledge on the topics.

CEPOL’s ability to adequately anticipate,
identify and respond to new training / knowledge needs resulting from the EU
policy framework and national policy changes

Main success factors and challenges when
identifying and responding to new training needs

It is a challenge to find a good response in a
reasonable time. The network can help to identify the training and knowledge
needs.

CEPOL’s contribution to increased law
enforcement cooperation across the EU

Yes it has

CEPOL’s contribution to a better cooperation
between Member States and relevant EU Agencies (e.g. Europol, Eurojust)

Yes because they have seminar where Eurojust and
Frontex are contributors.

Last exchange programme was different than
before. Could exchange with Europol as well.

Extent to which CEPOL has contributed to a more
harmonised “European Approach” to the fight against crime, crime prevention and
the maintenance of law and order and public security

The most important is that CEPOL is common
knowledge for participants of all Member States.

Italy, Rossana Farina (on behalf of General
Giuliani)      153.     Main impacts of CEPOL’s training and other activities

154.     The interviewee noticed a change of
attitude not only in the participants but also in his/her working environment.
There is more propensity to open up to cross-border cooperation.

Lithuania, TOMAS BIKMANAS         Main impacts
of CEPOL’s training and other activities

Participants gain and deepen their knowledge and
practical skills in the appropriate topic and establish useful contacts with
colleagues abroad.

Established contacts give possibilities to
improve and simplify cross border cooperation, crime prevention and
investigation.

Participants share gained knowledge with their
colleagues.

More effective cross border cooperation, fight
against crimes.

CEPOL’s ability to adequately anticipate,
identify and respond to new training / knowledge needs resulting from the EU
policy framework and national policy changes. Main success factors and
challenges when identifying and responding to new training needs

CEPOL cooperates with Member States and European
institutions and agencies, allowing to anticipate, identify and respond
adequately to new training / knowledge needs.

The success of identifying and responding to new
training needs lies within timely involvement of CEPOL in the development of EU
policy frameworks. CEPOL must follow changes within the EU policy framework and
keep in mind national policy changes, in order to direct its training
activities in the most efficient direction possible.

Monitoring national policy changes may be
challenging for CEPOL, because the availability of this information to CEPOL
depends mainly on Member States. Therefore, CEPOL has to keep close relations
with all Member States.

Extent to which CEPOL has been able to ensure
synergies between the different learning activities it offers. Main success
factors and obstacles encountered in ensuring synergies between its activities

Current CEPOL policy for organising training
activities encourage those activities comprised of several steps, seeking to
ensure continuity and better involvement of participants into training modules.
So far, this initiative is relatively new and it is hard to evaluate whether
Member States have implemented these sequenced trainings properly. For the
purposes of successful implementation and delivery of such trainings, they have
to be organised in close cooperation of the Member States organising individual
steps of sequenced trainings. At the same time, coordination of interests and
understanding of each Member State organising individual steps of sequenced
training may be a challenge, requiring flexibility and enthusiasm of the Member
States.

CEPOL’s contribution to increased law
enforcement cooperation across the EU

CEPOL contributes to law enforcement cooperation
across the EU. During CEPOL activities established contacts help in cross
border cooperation, fight against and prevention of crimes.

CEPOL’s contribution to a better cooperation
between Member States and relevant EU Agencies (e.g. Europol, Eurojust)

Study visits to Europol, OLAF and CEPOL
Secretariat is a part of strengthening cooperation between Member States and EU
bodies.  Representatives from MS and relevant EU Agencies participate in CEPOL
activities as participants, experts delivering presentations.

Extent to which CEPOL has contributed to a more
harmonised “European Approach” to the fight against crime, crime prevention and
the maintenance of law and order and public security

Training and other activities organised by CEPOL
are designed to harmonise and enhance the fight against crime, crime prevention
and the maintenance of law and order and public security. They believe, that
this aim is successfully achieved, which contributed to a European approach in
this area.

Moreover, CEPOL will be the main actor in the
development and implementation of the European Law Enforcement Training Scheme,
which will also provide for more efficient law enforcement cooperation at EU
level.

The Netherlands, Mr van Baal  Main impacts of
CEPOL’s training and other activities

The main impacts can be identified on the
participants on the knowledge obtained, and also on the networking the
participants develop during the curses.

Main success factors and challenges when
identifying and responding to new training needs

The Annual Programme of activities is prepared
two years in advance. So some space should be kept to respond adequately to new
urgent learning needs.

The interviewee considers that the rapid
response for training needs can be hindered by the system of grant agreements,
which is currently used for organising CEPOL activities and was established in
2010. With this system Member States have to apply for grants in order to
organise CEPOL activities and this takes a lot of preparation, effort and time.
Taking into account that (except from some administrative courses) all CEPOL
activities are organised and implemented by the MS’s and that all expertise,
experts, course organisers are delivered by the MS’s, which also have their
national planning and their national yearly budget systems, responding rapidly
and adequately to new urgent learning needs will be hindered by this grant
agreement system.

Extent to which CEPOL has been able to ensure
synergies between the different learning activities it offers.  Main success
factors and obstacles encountered in ensuring synergies between its activities

The interviewee explained that within the WG’s,
under the old structure, common standards were developed for providing the
CEPOL activities. These standards are maintained for implementation of all
activities by the MS’s.

The commitment of the MS’s in providing training
activities within CEPOL context is the main success factor.

CEPOL’s contribution to increased law
enforcement cooperation across the EU

CEPOL has contributed to the law enforcement
cooperation across the EU mainly by enlarging the mutual trust / network
establishment / increased knowledge on each other’s systems and way of working.

CEPOL’s contribution to a better cooperation
between Member States and relevant EU Agencies (e.g. Europol, Eurojust)

CEPOL has contributed to a better cooperation
between MS and EU Agencies especially EUROPOL is an important partner in
activities of CEPOL and in the Common Curricula and Exchange Programme. This
has for sure enlarged the knowledge on EUROPOL.

Extent to which CEPOL has contributed to a more
harmonised “European Approach” to the fight against crime, crime prevention and
the maintenance of law and order and public security

CEPOL has contributed to a more harmonised
“European Approach, mainly by enlarging the mutual trust between the MS police
forces, by establishing new network between the participants, also by
increasing the knowledge on each other’s systems and way of working between MS.
These points were also highlighted as the added value of CEPOL.

Romania,  Radu Todoran          Extent to which
CEPOL has been able to ensure synergies between the different learning
activities it offers. Main success factors and obstacles encountered in
ensuring synergies between its activities

A very good synergy between courses exists where
necessary. CEPOL offers several courses in a step by step approach and
therewith assures continuous learning.

CEPOL’s contribution to increased law
enforcement cooperation across the EU

CEPOL certainly increased law enforcement
cooperation across the EU. Romania now established a center for international
cooperation and there is a measurable increase in cross border police
cooperation due to the exchange program and training activities.

CEPOL’s contribution to a better cooperation
between Member States and relevant EU Agencies (e.g. Europol, Eurojust)

Yes CEPOL heavily contributes to a better
cooperation between both. Most of the activities involve aspects of EU agencies
and increases awareness of the latter.

Extent to which CEPOL has contributed to a more
harmonised “European Approach” to the fight against crime, crime prevention and
the maintenance of law and order and public security

Considering the scope of CEPOL’s activities the
contribution is certainly positive but does not reach enough people to really
contribute to a European approach on a broader scale.

Sweden,  Mr.  Bo Åström        Main impacts of
CEPOL’s training and other activities

Concerning the impact on colleagues of
participants whom did not participate in the trainings, the interviewee
considers there is nothing up to date, that can really assure that there would
be an actual dissemination of the knowledge obtained (cascading plan). In this
context. Sweden has proposed that within their system, the participant is
provided with an “expectation plan” so that the expectations on the results of
the training are set up since the beginning and at the end of the training the
participant would then deliver the result of such expectations.

Main success factors and challenges when
identifying and responding to new training needs

Member States commitment is essential for the
success of the activities and the identification of training needs.

Extent to which CEPOL has been able to ensure
synergies between the different learning activities it offers

Main success factors and obstacles encountered
in ensuring synergies between its activities

Usually, the synergy of the activities is good
but there could be a better synergy amongst the activities, for example to link
or relate the similar topics of the training, this can always be improved.

Also, the interviewee explained that usually the
Member State delivering the training is supported by two other MS, these shall
follow up the activities and give them a continuance to ensure the synergy
between the activities.

CEPOL’s contribution to increased law
enforcement cooperation across the EU

Yes, and it has been highlighted as the added
value of CEPOL.

CEPOL’s contribution to a better cooperation
between Member States and relevant EU Agencies (e.g. Europol, Eurojust)

CEPOL does contribute with other EU Agencies
such as Europol, they have constant cooperation. Europol is also invited to the
GB meetings and they are considered as one of the main stakeholders.

Extent to which CEPOL has contributed to a more
harmonised “European Approach” to the fight against crime, crime prevention and
the maintenance of law and order and public security

As, previously explained, one of CEPOL’s added
values is that it provides the European Approach. Perhaps in the following
years there would be a more harmonised approach and all systems will fight
against the crime in a common way.

Slovakia, Ladislav Mihalik        Main impacts
of CEPOL’s training and other activities

Slovakian participants get access to training
and experiences they would otherwise never had. This has a positive impact on
the personal development of participants but also on a wider scale impact on
the development of the police in general.

Hence, there is a very good cascading process in
place, where participants have to write reports that get published and are
advised to communicate their crucial findings. The only problem is that
Slovakia does not have the technical capability to cascade knowledge about
forensics, IT etc.

CEPOL’s ability to adequately anticipate,
identify and respond to new training / knowledge needs resulting from the EU
policy framework and national policy changes. Main success factors and
challenges when identifying and responding to new training needs

NA

Extent to which CEPOL has been able to ensure
synergies between the different learning activities it offers. Main success
factors and obstacles encountered in ensuring synergies between its activities

NA

CEPOL’s contribution to increased law
enforcement cooperation across the EU

From a Slovakian perspective, CEPOL’s contribution
to law enforcement cooperation in the EU is tremendous. All bilateral police
and training agreements are based on experiences and contacts made through
CEPOL or Frontex.

CEPOL’s contribution to a better cooperation
between Member States and relevant EU Agencies (e.g. Europol, Eurojust)

Yes, CEPOL increases awareness and therewith
cooperation.

Extent to which CEPOL has contributed to a more
harmonised “European Approach” to the fight against crime, crime prevention and
the maintenance of law and order and public security

Again in the case of Slovakia the contribution
made by CEPOL was great as cross border joint teams have been established due
to previous CEPOL cooperation.

United Kingdom,  Kurt Eyre     Main impacts of
CEPOL’s training and other activities

The activities have a great impact on
participants and their colleagues due to successful cascading of the acquired
knowledge.

Extent to which CEPOL has been able to ensure
synergies between the different learning activities it offers. Main success factors
and obstacles encountered in ensuring synergies between its activities

NA

CEPOL’s contribution to a better cooperation
between Member States and relevant EU Agencies (e.g. Europol, Eurojust)

NA

Extent to which CEPOL has contributed to a more
harmonised “European Approach” to the fight against crime, crime prevention and
the maintenance of law and order and public security

Less a European Approach but certainly to an
expending network and cross border cooperation and best practice exchange.

            155.     RELEVANCE

Belgium, Alain Ruelle    The main training needs
in the law enforcement area in the respective country

Depending on the function and rank of our Police
Officer. Nevertheless, nearly all Belgian Police Officers should have a basic
knowledge of the instruments of international police cooperation e.g. SIS,
Prüm, Schengen, Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, Interpol . Taking that into
consideration, Belgium developed a handbook on international police cooperation
that is supposed to be the reference for trainers giving such courses.

Then, according to their function and level of
responsibilities, Police Officers should deepen their knowledge on specific
fields: synthetic drugs, road safety, community policing, police interviews,
public order and crowd management, …

Given that new priorities emerge from both
national and EU level, CEPOL should be flexible enough to integrate new topics
in its Annual Work Programme. The principle of reserve list activities is
therefore an appropriated approach because it allows a better planning and thus
better budgeting of the offer.

The extent to what CEPOL addresses such needs

To what extent are the different types of
training activities delivered by CEPOL (for example courses, seminars,
e-learning, exchanges, etc) appropriate and adequate to the needs of the law
enforcement area?

Globally speaking, CEPOL does address our main
challenges, which is quite logical since CEPOL Annual Work Programme is
supposed to be a balanced mix of EU, stakeholders and Member States priorities.
However, as the national police colleges do manage the implementation of all
CEPOL products, it is not automatically true that even if a topic is a priority
for a MS that the practical approach by the organising institute will be in
line with the MS’s expectations.

The extent to how complementary CEPOL’s training
activities are to national training policy / curricula

By nature, CEPOL activities are more or less
complementary to what Belgium organises at national level.

The perspective chosen by the organising college
and the EU dimension of all CEPOL activities guarantee an orientation never
covered in national trainings.

The way training needs are identified at
national level and the process involved communicating the latter to CEPOL, and
the way CEPOL assesses such needs regarding their relevance for activities.

a)         Cfr. Supra. Point 5.

b)         Each year CEPOL secretariat send out
a questionnaire to all Member States asking for their priorities and new topics
that they would like to be included in the Annual Work Programme.

c)         So far the Secretariat (Director)
proposes the Governing Board with a draft Annual Work Programme  that includes
both national priorities and EU priorities. It is then up to the Governing
Board to agree on the proposal but practically speaking very few changes are
made.

The extent to which CEPOL responses on time to
new / changed training and knowledge needs by adapting its training offer over
the last years

CEPOL has proven its capacity to integrate
quickly new training needs e.g. the development of Sirene operators courses or
the Kynopol seminar. Nevertheless, the adjunction of new activities to the
Annual Work Programme is clearly depending on the available budget.

The relevant future training needs and whether
they would be best addressed at national level or by CEPOL

1.         In its current form, the CEPOL’s
Annual Work Programme covers the most important needs: most of the topics are
so generic that they may integrate most of new challenges e.g. Fighting against
drugs could have as subtitle dismantling synthetic drugs laboratories. As a
disadvantage, such generic denominations make sometimes difficult to anticipate
the content of an activity since you do not have received the detailed
programme.

Finland, Peter Sund      The main training needs
in the law enforcement area in the respective country

- Fight against cross-border crime

- Multi-cultural approach to policing

- Modernisation of Police

- Lean Management

The extent to what CEPOL addresses such needs
and the appropriateness of the different types of training activities delivered
by CEPOL (for example courses, seminars, e-learning, exchanges, etc) regarding
the needs of the law enforcement area

Fight against cross-border crime; CEPOL cannot,
at current state, fulfil all the needs (considering the mandate). Additionally,
CEPOL should not try to address those needs, which are solely focused on
national level. A more clear definition on the responsibilities and division of
labour of CEPOL and MS need to be developed. This study will hopefully serve
this need.

Quite well concerning cross-border issues. There
is a clear added value in organising a certain part of the overall police and
law enforcement training at EU level. However this really should serve a need
and always be able to provide added value.

The way training needs are identified at
national level and the process involved communicating the latter to CEPOL, and
the way CEPOL assesses such needs regarding their relevance for activities.

Training needs are identified by the teaching staff
of the College in cooperation with operational level of practitioners and
partly by different surveys.

NCP-Finland communicates some of the needs in
appropriate forums of CEPOL (not standardised procedure).

The extent to which CEPOL responses on time to
new / changed training and knowledge needs by adapting its training offer over
the last years

Not well at all. An improvement has been noted
this year (concerning 2012) but it is still not very professional development.
The work of the annual program committee has not proven to be the most
effective and proficient way of working. (Reference also to the question 12).

The relevant future training needs and whether
they would be best addressed at national level or by CEPOL

First of all, the training needs should not be
identified by studies or surveys, but by identifying relevant (more broad)
issues from Europol OCTA/SOCTA, EU Policy Cycle, Frontex Threat Assessment and
also from relevant strategic EEAS documents (externalising JHA activities).
Additionally some emphasis should be put on other possible sources of
information relating to, but not necessarily concerning serious/organised
crime, having a cross border dimension of crime.

2.         These training need should definitely
be addressed on EU level (MS have already contributed in forming all documents
mentioned above.

France  The main training needs in the law
enforcement area in the respective country

Les formations sont adaptées en fonction des
objectifs gouvernementaux tenant compte des évolutions de la criminalité et de
la délinquance au sein de la société.

The extent to what CEPOL addresses such needs
and the appropriateness of the different types of training activities delivered
by CEPOL (for example courses, seminars, e-learning, exchanges, etc) regarding
the needs of the law enforcement area

Le CEPOL doit répondre aux besoins des Etats
membres : ceux-ci sont en particulier définis par la gouvernance de l’agence
(Comité annuel des programmes – Annual Programme Committee (APC)), dans le
programme annuel des activités.

Dans le cadre de l’évolution de la gouvernance
du CEPOL, notamment de la suppression de l’APC (1er janvier 2012), le réseau a
identifié le risque d’une moindre prise en compte de ses besoins.

A travers le programme annuel, le CEPOL répond
aux attentes et besoins des Etats membres en termes de formations de leurs
forces de police. Par ailleurs, les activités du CEPOL permettent de parfaire
la connaissance mutuelle des personnels en charge de la sécurité intérieure
dans l'espace européen.

L’évolution de la gouvernance peut laisser
entrevoir une inadéquation entre la formation dispensée par l’agence et les
besoins des Etats membres.

The extent to how complementary CEPOL’s training
activities are to national training policy / curricula

Les activités de formations du CEPOL sont
complémentaires car elles traitent de phénomènes de criminalité
transfrontaliers qui impactent directement les Etats membres en leur sein.

Par ailleurs, ces activités enrichissent la
formation délivrée au niveau national par l’échange d’expérience et des
meilleures pratiques, mais également par l’approche européenne des thèmes de
formation.

Elles permettent enfin aux personnels de mieux
se positionner dans l’espace européen et de développer leurs compétences
linguistiques.

The way training needs are identified at
national level and the process involved communicating the latter to CEPOL, and
the way CEPOL assesses such needs regarding their relevance for activities.

Les besoins de formation sont définis au niveau
central, niveau ministériel, en fonction des priorités nationales en matière de
sécurité intérieure.

Ils sont communiqués au CEPOL par le biais des
points de contacts nationaux au travers des outils de la gouvernance (Conseil
d’administration, comités, groupes de travail).

Il n’existe pas de processus d’évaluation
stricto sensu au sein du CEPOL. En revanche, un processus de travail en réseau
au sein de la gouvernance du CEPOL lui permet d’inclure ces besoins dans
l’offre de formation.

The extent to which CEPOL responses on time to
new / changed training and knowledge needs by adapting its training offer over
the last years

Les activités proposées dans le programme annuel
répondent aux attentes des Etats membres qui en sont les initiateurs. D’une
façon générale, la mise en œuvre des formations s’opère l’année suivant leur
adoption (année N+1). Cependant, une mise en œuvre plus rapide par le réseau
est possible en réponse à certains besoins spécifiques.

The relevant future training needs and whether
they would be best addressed at national level or by CEPOL

Celles qui correspondent aux priorités et
besoins exprimés par les Etats membres et qui doivent être prises en compte par
la gouvernance du CEPOL.

3.         Ces activités de formation, définies
selon les besoins des Etats au sein de la gouvernance du CEPOL, doivent être
initiées par le CEPOL pour une mise en œuvre par les Etats membres.

Germany, Dr. Matthias Klingner            The
main training needs in the law enforcement area in the respective country

Das Lehrgangsangebot in DEU wird jährlich an den
Bedarf der Polizeien des Bundes und der Länder, welcher sich u.a. an der
Kriminalitätslage sowie an politischen Schwerpunktsetzungen orientiert,
angepasst. Fortbildungsbedarf besteht besonders in neuen, sich dynamisch
entwickelnden kriminalpolizeilichen Bereichen, z.B. im Themenfeld Cybercrime.

Weitere exemplarische Ausführungen für die
Bundespolizei: Der Fortbildungsbedarf bei der Bundespolizei ergibt sich aus
deren gesetzlichen Aufgaben. Der Schwerpunkt liegt im Bereich der grenz- und
bahnpolizeilichen Aufgabenwahrnehmung sowie der Luftsicherheit. Flächendeckend
werden die polizeilichen Grundbefähigungen (Situationstraining,
Schießfortbildung, Dienstsport) im Polizeitraining regelmäßig trainiert. Zudem
nimmt die Vorbereitung für Auslandsverwendungen eine prioritäre Stellung in der
Fortbildung ein.

The extent to what CEPOL addresses such needs
and the appropriateness of the different types of training activities delivered
by CEPOL (for example courses, seminars, e-learning, exchanges, etc) regarding
the needs of the law enforcement area

Die durch CEPOL angebotenen Lehrgänge und
Austauschprogramme dienen in erster Linie der Vermittlung von spezifischem
Wissen für den Bereich der internationalen Zusammenarbeit. Daneben dienen sie
auch dem internationalen Erfahrungsaustausch sowie dem Abgleich von best
practices. Weiterhin werden dadurch europaweit einheitlich Ausbildungsinhalte
über Multiplikatoren an die polizeilichen Fachdienststellen und Aus- und
Fortbildungseinrichtungen vermittelt. Es wird weiterhin auf die Antwort zur
Frage 21 verwiesen.

The extent to how complementary CEPOL’s training
activities are to national training policy / curricula

CEPOL-Veranstaltungen ergänzen nationale Aus-
und Fortbildungsmaßnahmen auf internationaler Ebene (siehe Antworten 8 und 21).
Das Fortbildungsangebot von CEPOL ergänzt insbesondere die
Führungskräftefortbildung der Deutschen Hochschule der Polizei (DHPol). Es
wird weiterhin auf die Antwort zur Frage 21 verwiesen.

The way training needs are identified at national
level and the process involved communicating the latter to CEPOL, and the way
CEPOL assesses such needs regarding their relevance for activities.

Zu Satz 1 der Frage wird auf die Antwort zu
Frage 7 verwiesen.

Im Übrigen richtet sich die Frage in erster
Linie an die DHPol als nationale Koordinierungsstelle von CEPOL (siehe oben die
Vorbemerkung auf S. 2). Die DHPol führt als nationale Verbindungsstelle die
direkte Kommunikation mit CEPOL. Durch sie wird das Jahresprogramm (über die
nationalen Polizeiakademien) an die Bedarfsträger gesteuert.

The extent to which CEPOL responses on time to
new / changed training and knowledge needs by adapting its training offer over
the last years

CEPOL hat sich im Laufe der vergangenen Jahre
immer wieder mit wichtigen aktuellen polizeilichen Entwicklungen befasst und
diese in guten Lehrveranstaltungen und Informationsangeboten behandelt.

The relevant future training needs and whether
they would be best addressed at national level or by CEPOL

CEPOL wird auch zukünftig nur einen kleinen Teil
der notwendigen (Führungskräfte-)Fortbildung abdecken können, während diese
hauptsächlich in den MS erbracht wird. Daher ist es wichtig, dieses ergänzende
Angebote von CEPOL so zu gestalten, dass es bei der nationalen Aus- und Fortbildung
in den MS genutzt werden kann (z.B. mit Common Curricula, beispielgebenden
Checklisten, Verfahrensanweisungen etc.). Weiterhin sollte das CEPOL-Angebot
auch auf Multiplikatoren ausgerichtet werden.

4.         Es wird auch auf die derzeit
stattfindende Arbeit zur Ausgestaltung des European Law Enforcement Training
Scheme verwiesen, wo ebenfalls untersucht wird, wo welche Ausbildungsangebote
am effizientesten erbracht werden sollen (EU-Ebene und/oder nationaler Ebene?).

Greece The main training needs in the law enforcement
area in the respective country

The training needs in the CEPOL environment for
2012, regarding Greece, have been identified following the Decision of the
Greek Police HQ and include the following activities/thematic areas:
Counter-Terrorism, Public Order and Crowd Management, Train the Trainers. For
these activities, applications for grants have been submitted to the CEPOL
Secretariat.

The extent to what CEPOL addresses such needs
and the appropriateness of the different types of training activities delivered
by CEPOL (for example courses, seminars, e-learning, exchanges, etc) regarding
the needs of the law enforcement area

CEPOL is offering a variety of training products
in order to address these needs. Therefore, it is possible to address in an
efficient way the various training needs. Seminars and Courses are the main
core of its activities, and their efficiency is expected to rise even more in
2012, with the implementation of multi – module activities.

The extent to how complementary CEPOL’s training
activities are to national training policy / curricula

CEPOL’s training activities have mainly a
different focus than the national activities, aiming at the exchange of
knowledge, good practises, and the creation of working networks among professionals
from different Member – States. Especially in this area, they have an added
value to the national training system, widening its scope and providing unique
learning opportunities to Greek officers.

The way training needs are identified at
national level and the process involved communicating the latter to CEPOL, and
the way CEPOL assesses such needs regarding their relevance for activities.

Every year, a specific procedure is followed in
order to identify training needs at a national level. CEPOL is issuing and
disseminating a relevant questionnaire. This document is being translated and
disseminated to the Training Division of the Police HQ, which in turn
disseminates this questionnaire to all Divisions of the Police HQ as well as
other competent services. As a next step, the Divisions and services are asked
to express their training needs, which are being collected by the Training
Division, and following the decision of the Chief of the Hellenic Police, these
priorities are communicated to the CEPOL Unit and submitted via this channel to
the CEPOL Secretariat.

The extent to which CEPOL responses on time to
new / changed training and knowledge needs by adapting its training offer over
the last years

CEPOL has been, over the past years, following
the developments in the field of Training and Learning on a European Level,
trying at the same time to adapt to emerging needs. Therefore, various training
programmes and schemes have been implemented under CEPOL’s training umbrella
(the Euromed Project, AGIS exchange programme, TOPSPOC Courses). Additionally,
CEPOL is making wide use of modern methods and technologies in learning, such
as the use of the e-net and the Online Learning Management System. The above
mentioned have been underlined by the fact that most CEPOL activities were in
line with the adopted Stockholm Programme.

The relevant future training needs and whether
they would be best addressed at national level or by CEPOL

In a rapidly evolving European Environment
regarding security and training, CEPOL should address the growing needs of
understanding and taking part in cross border activities, regarding the fight
against crime. Therefore, a wider audience should be reached in order to
achieve this goal. This process should be initiated on a first level, by
offering a basic training regarding European Police Cooperation (EU agencies as
Europol, Frontex, CEPOL etc and other organisations, strategic documents etc)
on a national level. This training should be completed by CEPOL with specific
knowledge on areas of organised cross-border crime as well as the enhancement
of networking and cooperation.

Poland, Piotr Podsiadło            The main
training needs in the law enforcement area in the respective country

Generally, our training needs refer to the same
priorities, which are mentioned at the EU level, especially within the
provisions of the Stockholm Programme and Internal Security Strategy. They
focus on serious and organised crime, combating terrorism, trafficking in human
beings, combating drug related and high tech crime, etc.

The extent to what CEPOL addresses such needs
and the appropriateness of the different types of training activities delivered
by CEPOL (for example courses, seminars, e-learning, exchanges, etc) regarding
the needs of the law enforcement area

Within the Polish Police there is a need to
raise the number of courses in the field of trafficking in human beings, drug -
related crime, organised crime and cybercrime (high tech crime), with
particular reference to financial crime. Moreover, strengthening of training in
the area of language courses is also necessary (in particular, in the aspects
of international cooperation). It refers mainly to traditional courses,
although learning by means of new IT technologies (e.g. e-learning modules,
teleconferences etc.) might be also expanded.

The extent to how complementary CEPOL’s training
activities are to national training policy / curricula

Training activities implemented under auspices
of CEPOL significantly complement the national police training system, taking
especially into account international cooperation (including acquiring language
skills) and the training activities focusing on trans-European crime, where
European dimension is significantly visible.

The way training needs are identified at
national level and the process involved communicating the latter to CEPOL, and
the way CEPOL assesses such needs regarding their relevance for activities.

Training needs within the Polish Police are
identified on a regular basis by the Bureau of Staff and Training in
cooperation with the Bureau of International Police Cooperation (level of
National Police Headquarters). In the consultation procedures also the other
police training units (Police Academy in Szczytno and the rest of police
colleges) are involved. On the request of CEPOL, available data are provided
every year to the CEPOL Secretariat through the national channel (CEPOL
National Contact Point for Poland). It happens at least twice a year, when
preparatory works related to the CEPOL annual work programme start. CEPOL tries
to identify all the training needs arising at the national level, according to
changes of national policies and practices of the Member States, and it is
undertaken in a balanced manner (it is always a kind of a compromise). It is
not possible, of course, to satisfy all the needs of the EU Members States at
the same time, as they may be quite diversified. In general terms, CEPOL
supported by the Governing Board, through the CEPOL National Contact Points, is
able to identify the relevant needs of the Member Stated, being systematically
provided with complementary information. Furthermore, some flexibility is also
necessary in order to meet training expectations of European stakeholders.

The extent to which CEPOL responses on time to
new / changed training and knowledge needs by adapting its training offer over
the last years

         The objectives and tasks of
CEPOL are rather adequate to the needs of the EU Member States and European
stakeholders. Decision on the work programme is taken on the annual basis.
However, if there are some new issues raised by the Council, the EU Commission,
Europol, COSI etc., there is always a possibility to modify the annual work
programme and to cover the new scope by the reserve list. In our opinion it
seems to be a good solution.

The relevant future training needs and whether
they would be best addressed at national level or by CEPOL

o          As for the future needs, the
following issues should be particularly taken into consideration: drug-related
crime, trafficking in human beings, corruption, organised crime, with
particular reference to financial crime, high tech and cybercrime. They are
crucial from the EU perspective as well as from the national level of Poland.

Romania, Todoran Radu           The main
training needs in the law enforcement area in the respective country

The main training needs identified are in the
following areas:

•           Fighting against organized crime
(fighting against terrorism, fighting against trafficking in human beings,
fighting against drug trafficking, cybercrime and money counterfeiting);

•           Economical crimes (smuggling of
goods, copyrights and intellectual property and money laundering);

•           Corruption and public procurement;

•           Serious crime investigations;

•           Criminal proceedings;

•           Firearms and ammunition;

•           Surveillance and protection of
detainees;

•           Training for emergency call-centre
representatives;

•           Public safety and order (for urban
and rural areas);

•           Training of traffic police;

•           Intelligence analysis;

•           Crime prevention;

•           Operational surveillance;

•           Foreign languages.

The extent to what CEPOL addresses such needs
and the appropriateness of the different types of training activities delivered
by CEPOL (for example courses, seminars, e-learning, exchanges, etc) regarding
the needs of the law enforcement area

In our view, CEPOL addresses to a large extent
our needs. In the CEPOL Calendar  for 2011, there were established courses
according to our training needs, and we participated with  police officers in
many courses (for ex: “Northeast Europe Organised Crime Organisations”,
“Counter Terrorism Strategic Course”, „Money Laundering and Asset Recovery -
Bringing investigators, experts and prosecutors together to trace and freeze
proceeds of crime”, “Urban Violence”, "Public Order and Crisis Management
- Train the Trainers”, "English for English Language Trainers”).

Moreover, due to the high interest of the
Romanian Police for „Organised crime” we have organized in Romania the CEPOL
course 19/2011 “Southeast Europe organized Crime Organisations – OCTA Related”.

The extent to how complementary CEPOL’s training
activities are to national training policy / curricula

CEPOL’s training activities are complementary to
national training curricula to a large extent.

At the national level we have included in the
training curricula almost all the topics covered by CEPOL but we need the
European approach of these topics. In this sense, CEPOL offers a common
approach of senior police officers training at European level and introduces
best methods and practices of the European Union police forces.

In addition, in those Member States where
criminality is more pronounced, there are areas of activity. Therefore,
approach in this areas leads to a better understanding of these issues and
increases the role of preventive measures taken in this field.

The way training needs are identified at
national level and the process involved communicating the latter to CEPOL, and
the way CEPOL assesses such needs regarding their relevance for activities.

The training needs are determined after
analyzing the conduct of current activities, the duties and tasks, the results
of periodic inspections as well as data provided by the annual service
assessments.

Training needs and their components are
established annually by specialized training departments. They develop training
needs diagnosis, after consulting with heads / commanders with responsibilities
in the field.

Individual staff training needs are determined
by the heads directly. On this basis, every unit is developing a training plan
for staff.

General Directorate of Human Resources
Management, being a CEPOL partner, is communicating, to CEPOL Secretariat what
topics are considered as training needs and also indicates which training
activities could be organised in Romania under the CEPOL umbrella. All the MS,
considering as a training need a particular topic, can bring into discussion a
training activity and implement it in the CEPOL calendar.

All the proposals (which must follow CEPOL
procedure – must contain a course curriculum, clear objectives and target
group) are analyzed by the experts at the level of CEPOL structures (working
groups and committees) and brought forward for approval to the Governing Board.
After approval the respective activities are included in the CEPOL Annual
Programme and implemented in the training institutions belonging to the Member
States.

 WGs and PGs prepare suggestions and reports
(supported by Sub-groups, where necessary) – Committees discuss and assess
these suggestions/reports and pass them on to the Governing Board, when there
is a need to establish CEPOL policies or issue publications.

The extent to which CEPOL responses on time to
new / changed training and knowledge needs by adapting its training offer over
the last years

Over the last years CEPOL responded very well to
new training needs by adapting its training offer.

Many topics were analyzed and included into the
CEPOL Calendar (e.g. : “High Tech and Cybercrime”, ,,Organised Crime and
European Road Haulage", ,,Social Media and Policing" , ,,Crimes
against Cultural heritage"  and ,,Trafficking in Stolen Artworks”).

The relevant future training needs and whether
they would be best addressed at national level or by CEPOL

In the near future the Romanian police officers
need to participate in Schengen-related and international police cooperation
training activities, but at the same time they should improve their
competencies in their specific field of police work. It is very important to
take into consideration the training of fighting against organized crime,
public order and traffic police units, crime investigation units, firearms, explosives
and dangerous substances units and of emergency call-centre units.

5.         We consider that the training process
will be best organized at international level (CEPOL/Europol), to benefit from
the European approach in this field, or at least it would be very important for
us to bring at national level expertise from outside and learn from other
Member States experience.

Sweden, Bo Åström     The main training needs in
the law enforcement area in the respective country

 The Swedish training needs for police officers
are very well reflected in the annual training and education plans for basic
police training and education program as well as the further training program
such as:

•           Leadership and management issues;

•           Intelligence led policing;

•           Police tactics, including crowd
control at major public events;

•           Handling of conflicts and
communication skills;

•           Investigative techniques;

•           Environmental crimes;

•           Drugs;

•           Handling of informants;

•           Investigation of fraud and
CIT-crimes;

•           International police cooperation.

The extent to what CEPOL addresses such needs
and the appropriateness of the different types of training activities delivered
by CEPOL (for example courses, seminars, e-learning, exchanges, etc) regarding
the needs of the law enforcement area

 The CEPOL annual working program covers the
vast majority of important law enforcement areas, e.g.

•           Community policing;

•           Counter terrorism, terrorism &
extremism;

•           Economic, financial and
environmental crime;

•           Illicit trafficking of goods;

•           Organised crime – regional;

•           Public order;

•           Prevention of crime;

•           Police cooperation within EU;

•           Police cooperation with third
countries;

•           Police systems and instruments
within EU;

•           Strategic management and leadership;

•           Violation of Human Rights;

•           Language development;

•           Learning and Training.

The extent to how complementary CEPOL’s training
activities are to national training policy / curricula

Based on the principals of subsidiary and
proportionality all training on EU level should have an added value and a
European dimension in comparison with programs provided on national level.
CEPOL contributes by creating forum for national experts to gather together
sharing experience and best practices through either traditional methods
(courses, seminars) or by the exchange program within areas reflected in the
work program.

The way training needs are identified at
national level and the process involved communicating the latter to CEPOL, and
the way CEPOL assesses such needs regarding their relevance for activities.

The training needs are defined on the central
level by the Swedish National Police Board taking into account instructions
from the Government, the needs are compiled and handed over to the Human
Resource Department who will order the implementation from the National Police
Academy, the Police Programs at the aforementioned universities or by an
external actor.

The extent to which CEPOL responses on time to
new / changed training and knowledge needs by adapting its training offer over
the last years

First of all the planning process of activities
within CEPOL is slow and the pace has not been speeded-up with the new system
pertaining to Grants. It goes without saying, that the process hampers response
time to new merging phenomena, which should be addressed by training activities
on EU level. Another issue of importance is the limitation following the CEPOL
mandate in the Council Decision 2005/681/JHA, where the main target group for
CEPOL activities is “senior police officers”. Very often the needs for training
are on other levels, e.g. practitioners. The current situation will probably be
addressed in the Commission’s Communication on the European Law Enforcement
Training Scheme (envisaged to be launched during Q 2 2012).

The relevant future training needs and whether
they would be best addressed at national level or by CEPOL

The priority areas for policing are well defined
in the ISS, Council’s Policy Cycle and the Stockholm program. The main
responsibility of providing training within these areas is in the hand of the
Member States. Considering CEPOL as the training provider needs a comprehensive
and coherent assessment on the added value and the European Dimension.
Complementary activities delivered by CEPOL are dependent on the standards of
training programs within the Member States. In this context it is of paramount
importance to establish minimum standards on national level. Today there are
huge differences.

            156.     EFFICIENCY

Belgium, Alain Ruelle    A comparison whether
the costs associated with CEPOL’s training activities are higher than the costs
of delivery of national training activities, their substantial difference, and
cost-effectiveness.

▪           Courses, Seminars and
Conferences

         Due to the fact that the
Belgian Police does not have hosting capacities anymore, our residential
training takes place in hotel facilities as well. So there is no major cost
difference between a one week “pure Belgian” course and an even long lasting
CEPOL activity (per participants, CEPOL courses are even cheaper!).

         Since each Member States may
appoint between 1 and 3 participants to CEPOL courses, the impact is quite
limited for the sending organisation. Nonetheless, a properly implemented
cascading plan is a good way to overcome this. As an example, some Belgian
participants organise “information session” once back and the average
attendance is about 25 persons. In this case, the multiplying effect is really
effective and the cost efficiency of the CEPOL activity very high.

▪           Common Curricula

         Common Curricula should be one
of the most cost efficient products. Unfortunately, their implantation at
national level i.e. within the senior officers training programmes is rather
limited.

▪           Exchange programme

         There is no structural exchange
programme for (Senior) Police Officers in Belgium. The CEPOL EPEP is therefore
a real opportunity and its cost efficiency good.

         Again, only a qualitative
cascading plan may ensure an effective multiplying effect.

The degree of efficiency in terms of
organisation and delivery of the following activities delivered by CEPOL

▪           Courses, Seminars and
Conferences

         Those activities are supposed
to be planned about 6 months in advance (CEPOL regulations). This timing is
crucial not only for obvious quality reasons (course design, speakers,
appointment of participants,…) but also from an administrative point of view
(national legal delay for tenders, local transportation,…).

         According to the EU
regulations, all activities have to be implemented within the agreed budget
(Grant Agreement). The budget and possible budget restrictions have an impact
on the quality of deliveries (preparatory meetings, key note speakers, …).

         Postponement or worse
cancellation of activities is of course regrettable: it has a dramatic impact
on the yearly budget implantation and on the CEPOL image.

▪           Common Curricula

         The long delay in
developing/adapting/updating Common Curricula explains largely the limited use
made of this product in the Member States and consequently their poor
efficiency.

▪           Exchange Programme

         Efficiency : matching procedure
and the general principle ruling the programme i.e. the length and bilateral
principle. Those two last elements should be based on the needs and
expectations of the participants and depending on the topic instead of being
artificially defined.

▪           Other activities, please
elaborate : E-learning

         The newly developed e-learning
modules are supposed to broaden the target audience but also to reinforce the
impact of the other activities of the same topic.

The degree to what CEPOL’s governance structure
and division of powers hamper or favour CEPOL’s ability to execute and deliver
its activities

▪           The role of the Director

         As stated in the council
decision, the Director is responsible for the day to day administration of
CEPOL’s work and has to support the work of the Governing Board, among other
things the implementation of the work programme and of the budget.

         Despite those important
responsibilities, it should be clear that the decision power lays in the GB’s
hands and in GB’s hands only. Any confusion of the roles might lead to
misunderstanding, frustration and consequently to a decrease of CEPOL’s
products quality.

▪           The role of the Governing
Board

         As only decision making body,
the Governing Board does not execute its own decisions. It is up to CEPOL
Secretariat, to the working groups and to the network i.e. Member States to
execute and deliver activities.

▪           The role of the Working Groups

         As circles of experts, working
groups are thus necessary to execute GB decisions or strategy in due time.
Their number, remit and duties (WG are subordinated to the GB and not the
opposite) need to be considered in order to guarantee (cost) efficiency.

▪           The role of Committees

         NA

▪           The role of CEPOL national
actors (NCPs, coordinators, etc.)

         Because of the network
structure, NCP not as individuals but as a group of persons (NCP, e-net
managers, CC coordinators, R&S correspondents,…) are a key element in the
CEPOL business : running of activities, development of the network, promotion
of good practices, diffusion of information.

         Even if it is a national
responsibility, it would be more effective to have those persons centralised in
one unit instead of the split situation that exists in some Member States.

The main strengths and weaknesses concerning the
cooperation between CEPOL and the authorities in the Member State, and
possibilities for improvement

The main weakness is certainly the fact that
international training is not felt as the priority.

CEPOL’s amount of adequate staff, in terms of
competences, in order to manage and implement the foreseen activities

Correctly speaking, CEPOL secretariat does not
implement activities. It supports the implementation of activities by the MS.

6.         About the competences of the staff,
it is up to the CEPOL Secretariat management to select its own personnel
according to the missions of the Agency and to the needed expertise.

Finland, Peter Sund      CEPOL’s success in
reaching the appropriate/relevant target audiences in the Member State, and the
possible need to extent the wider target audience

- The target audiences have been reached very
satisfactorily

- There is a clear need to broaden the scope to

All law enforcement agencies in the EU
(depending on the functions and not the name of the organisation; i.e. crime
prevention, crime intelligence, criminal investigations, public order,
emergency response) as many of the practitioners and professionals work in
different authorities (police, gendarmerie, customs, border guard, prosecution
etc.)

From senior officers to expert level
professionals. It is out-dated to consider public security institutions solely
as descendants of military organisations and therefore restricted by different
ranks. The main goal should be on providing training to national experts on EU
level.

The level to which the knowledge gained through
the participation in CEPOL’s activities was conveyed to third parties (e.g.
other staff) who did not participate in such activities

- To a certain extent. As described in question
19, the idea of only senior officers disseminating and implementing new
knowledge (top-down approach) is absolutely out-dated. Key personnel (including
top-down, bottom-up and horizontal approaches) are potentially much better able
in advancing the newly gained knowledge.

The  added value of CEPOL, compared to other (EU
or national) forms of training and learning activities for law enforcement
authorities

- Bringing personnel from MS together to learn,
share and educate one another

- Serving as a umbrella of all EU level law
enforcement training (coordinating role) in the future

- Maintaining close cooperating network between
MS training institutions

7.         - Supplementing or adding to the
training and education given by and in the MS (incremental learning)

France  A comparison whether the costs
associated with CEPOL’s training activities are higher than the costs of
delivery of national training activities, their substantial difference, and
cost-effectiveness.

Globalement, les activités du CEPOL sont
efficaces. En effet, une large part de leur coût réel (masse salariale et coût
de fonctionnement, etc.) est supportée par les instituts nationaux, véritables
organisateurs de l’activité du CEPOL.

De plus, les Etats membres prennent en charge
les frais de déplacements jusqu’au lieu de la formation.

The degree of efficiency in terms of
organisation and delivery of the following activities delivered by CEPOL

▪           Courses and Seminars: les
Etats membres font preuve d’une grande capacité d’adaptation et de réactivité
pour la mise en œuvre des formations. Ces activités permettent d’assurer un
échange de bonnes pratiques et de connaissances entre les participants, gage
d’efficacité au niveau  européen.

▪           Conferences  : idem

▪           Common Curricula: actuellement
leur efficacité n’est pas quantifiable et tous les Etats n’en expriment pas le
besoin face à des productions nationales existantes (coût de traduction, délais
de production et de mise à jour).

▪           Exchange Programmes : ils sont
utiles et nécessaires pour assurer des échanges directs et de terrain. Au
demeurant, les délais impartis pour y prendre part demanderaient à être
rallongés.

▪           Research : la recherche
gagnerait en efficacité avec un budget alloué supérieur.

The degree to what CEPOL’s governance structure
and division of powers hamper or favour CEPOL’s ability to execute and deliver
its activities

▪           The role of the Director : il
doit assurer un rôle de contrôle et de coordination afin de s’assurer de la
bonne marche du CEPOL.

▪           The role of the Governing
Board : Il a notamment pour fonction d’adopter le programme annuel. Son rôle
doit se fonder sur la prise en compte des travaux préparatoires des groupes de
travail ou comités.

▪           The role of the Working Groups
: les groupes de travail, composés des représentants des Etats membres, sont
l’un des éléments moteur dans la productivité et l’orientation de l’activité de
l’agence, basant leur action sur les besoins, l’expérience et la connaissance
de ses membres.

▪           The role of Committees : A
l’image des groupes de travail, ils permettaient de préparer de façon cohérente
l’action entreprise au sein du CEPOL après validation par le Conseil
d’administration. Par ailleurs, c’est à l’intérieur des Comités que l’on
pouvait allier les besoins des Etats et les formations mises en œuvre.
Supprimés en 2011, ils participaient à la concertation et à l’écoute des
besoins des Etats membres.

▪           The role of CEPOL national
actors (NCPs, coordinators, etc.) : Le rôle de coordination des points de
contact nationaux est fondamental. Au demeurant, l’évolution de la structure du
CEPOL implique de définir clairement leur rôle et leur composition, sans oublier
que leurs coûts de fonctionnement incomberont toujours aux Etats.

         The way CEPOL’s functioning
structure contributes to the development of synergies and cooperation between
the Agency and the authorities in the Member State

         L’évolution
actuelle de la structure de gouvernance du CEPOL (disparition des comités,
etc.) tend à diminuer la synergie existant jusque-là entre l’agence et les
Etats membres.

The main strengths and weaknesses concerning the
cooperation between CEPOL and the authorities in the Member State, and
possibilities for improvement

L’organisation du CEPOL permettait d’assurer une
bonne adéquation entre les besoins des Etats et les actions entreprises. La
perte du fonctionnement en réseau de l’agence et la diminution du nombre de rencontres
entre les représentants des Etats risqueraient d’affaiblir l’efficacité de
cette agence. Les Etats doivent rester de véritables acteurs et partenaires de
l’agence.

CEPOL’s amount of adequate staff, in terms of
competences, in order to manage and implement the foreseen activities

Actuellement le CEPOL dispose de personnes ayant
des compétences avérées. Au demeurant, s’agissant d’une agence traitant de
sujets policiers, les personnels affectés devraient bénéficier d’une expérience
ou d’une culture policière plus marquée.

8.         De plus, le CEPOL a renforcé
incontestablement sa capacité de gestion et de contrôle, mais n’a pas de
ressources suffisantes pour mettre en œuvre des formations sans l’expertise des
Etats membres. Cela implique donc de poursuivre l’action de l’Agence en
partenariat avec le réseau des Etats membres.

Germany, Dr. Matthias Klingner            A
comparison whether the costs associated with CEPOL’s training activities are
higher than the costs of delivery of national training activities, their substantial
difference, and cost-effectiveness.

Durch die entstehenden Abwesenheits- und
Reisezeiten sowie ggf. anfallende Übersetzungskosten sind die Kosten für
CEPOL-Lehrveranstaltungen oft höher als für nationale Bildungsmaßnahmen. Unter
dem Gesichtspunkt, dass eine EU-einheitliche polizeiliche Aus- und Fortbildung
zu einem Eu-weiten „Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts“ beiträgt
(siehe auch Antworten 8 und 21), sind die Kosten jedoch gerechtfertigt.

The degree of efficiency in terms of organisation
and delivery of the following activities delivered by CEPOL

Diese Frage kann von hier aus nicht abschließend
beantwortet werden: Dazu wäre ein umfangreicheres Bildungscontrolling
einschließlich einer standardisierten routinemäßig durchgeführten Evaluation
erforderlich. Außerdem sollte zu dieser Frage in erster Linie die DHPol als
nationale Koordinierungsstelle von CEPOL Auskunft geben (siehe die Vorbemerkung
auf S. 2). Daneben wird auf die Angaben über die Evaluierung der CEPOL-Angebote
in den Jahresberichten von CEPOL und auf die Angaben im
5-Jahres-Evaluationsbericht für CEPOL verwiesen.

The degree to what CEPOL’s governance structure
and division of powers hamper or favour CEPOL’s ability to execute and deliver
its activities

Diese Frage ist in erster Linie durch die DHPol
als nationale Koordinierungsstelle von CEPOL zu beantworten (siehe oben die
Vorbemerkung auf S. 2).

Aus hiesiger Sicht wurde in der Vergangenheit
von verschiedener Seite zu Recht ein erheblicher Verbesserungsbedarf bei den
Entscheidungsstrukturen von CEPOL und der Effizienz der CEPOL-Verwaltung
aufgezeigt (vgl. etwa CEPOL-5-Jahres-Evaluierungsbericht; Europäische
Rechnungshof, EP – die Feststellungen und Empfehlungen in diesen Berichten
werden aus DEU-Sicht aber nicht durchgängig geteilt). Aus der letzten Zeit ist
auf die Dokumente für die Sitzung des CEPOL-Verwaltungsrates im Oktober 2011 zu
verweisen (Impact Assessment des Direktors, Dok. 12.1. und Vorschlag der
Projektgruppe zur Reform von CEPOL, Dok 12.2.), in denen auf folgende Probleme
zur bisherigen CEPOL-Struktur erneut hingewiesen wurde:

•           kein substanzieller Mehrwert der
Komittee- und vieler WG-Sitzungen (inhaltliche Vorbereitung v.a. durch den
CEPOL-Direktor, Komitees dann anschließend als reine „Durchlaufstellen“ zum
Verwaltungsrat ohne substanziellen eigenen Betrag.

•           Working Group-Besetzung ist
teilweise identisch mit der Besetzung der entsprechenden
Koordinatoren-Netzwerken (z.B. Common Curricula Working Group (CCWG) = Common
Curricula Coordinators // Research and Science Working Group = Research and
Science Correspondents) . Dennoch finden hier gesonderte Treffen in
verschiedenen EU-MS statt.

•           die (z.T.) fehlende Expertise der
Komitee-TN.

Darüber hinaus ist aus hiesiger Sicht die aktive
Mitarbeit der MS im Verwaltungsrat teilweise verbesserungswürdig.

Daher sollte die sich mit der
5-Jahres-Evaluierung und der Reform der Rechtsgrundlage bietende Chance für
deutliche Verbesserungen des CEPOL-Governance genutzt werden. So sollten etwa
unnötige Doppelzuständigkeiten der CEPOL-Gremien, die eine effiziente
Entscheidungsfindung behindern, abgestellt werden.

Es ist daher zu begrüßen, dass unter der neuen
CEPOL-Führung bereits deutliche Verbesserungsmaßnahmen bei der CEPOL-Verwaltung
erreicht werden konnten. So ist etwa die beschlossene Abschaffung der Komitees
und der meisten Working groups auch aus hiesiger Sicht zu begrüßen (auf weitere
Argumente in den Dokumenten 12.1. und 12.2 wird verwiesen).

Bei den Reformen zur CEPOL-Governance ist
allerdings sicherzustellen, dass die Mitgliedsstaaten nach wie ausreichend in
die Entscheidungsfindung bei CEPOL eingebunden sind (Letztentscheidungsrecht
des Verwaltungsrates). Die Entscheidungen des Verwaltungsrats können dabei aber
– ggf. soweit möglich - im schriftlichen Verfahren ergehen.

The way CEPOL’s functioning structure
contributes to the development of synergies and cooperation between the Agency
and the authorities in the Member State

Diese Frage sollte in erster Linie durch die
DHPol als nationale Koordinierungsstelle von CEPOL beantwortet werden (siehe
oben die Vorbemerkung). Aus hiesiger Sicht führt die Netzwerkstruktur von CEPOL
bereits strukturbedingt zu einer Zusammenarbeit des CEPOL-Sekretariats mit den
nationalen Ausbildungseinrichtungen.

The main strengths and weaknesses concerning the
cooperation between CEPOL and the authorities in the Member State, and
possibilities for improvement

Die Zusammenarbeit der nationalen
Ausbildungseinrichtungen mit CEPOL erfolgt nicht unmittelbar, sondern über die
DHPol als nationale Koordinierungsstelle, so dass diese Frage von dort aus
beantwortet werden sollte.

CEPOL’s amount of adequate staff, in terms of
competences, in order to manage and implement the foreseen activities

9.         Da sich CEPOL nationaler Experten als
Dozenten zu den jeweiligen Themen bedient, ist die fachliche Expertise gegeben.
Das System der Auswahl dieser Experten und der Zusammensetzung aus den
EU-Mitgliedsstaaten ist hier nicht bekannt. Es kann daher nicht näher beurteilt
werden, ob das System zur Auswahl der Experten ausreichend transparent ist.

Greece A comparison whether the costs associated
with CEPOL’s training activities are higher than the costs of delivery of
national training activities, their substantial difference, and
cost-effectiveness.

         CEPOL activities are in general
more expensive than national training activities. This is due to the fact that
CEPOL activities include travelling of participants, experts and other involved
actors. We consider these activities cost efficient, taking into account that
they offer an additional training scheme and cooperation opportunity which
otherwise wouldn’t be possible.

The degree of efficiency in terms of
organisation and delivery of the following activities delivered by CEPOL

         For the implementation of CEPOL
activities, specific rules and guidelines apply (mainly described in CEPOL GB
Decision 30/3006). These guiding principles and concrete actions, which are
included in a cohesive timeline, are followed by the Member – States.
Postponements are noticed in some occasions, due to lack of interest from the
Member - States. Finally, over the last years, difficulties regarding the
allocation of budget have been noticed, thus resulting to an important surplus.
This situation seems to be improving in 2011.

The degree to what CEPOL’s governance structure
and division of powers hamper or favour CEPOL’s ability to execute and deliver
its activities

         Following the recommendations
made within CEPOL’s five-year evaluation, its Governing Board has decided the
disbandment of all the Committees, as of 1st of January 2012.  Under the same
light, the various Working Groups’ role and remits has been revised, with the
disbandment of the current ones and the creation of new under new remits.
(CEPOL GB Decision 24/2011 ) Following this recent CEPOL GB decision, with the
enhancement of its structure, CEPOL is able to meet its needs in a more
efficient way.

         CEPOL NCPs’ role, as Contact
Points and not as persons, has been underlined on all levels. Therefore, their
meetings will become more frequent in 2012, while at the same time, standing
meetings will be held. Taking into account that Committees and Working Groups
have been or will be disbanded, the NCPs remit will increase, even at the
decision making process. Therefore, CEPOL NCPs should have adequate resources
and provisions in order to implement their task. Their role is considered to be
crucial in the CEPOL Environment.

         Finally, the Director has to be
given more powers to decide for the Secretariat without the involvement of the
GB voting members. All decisions concerning the staff of the Secretariat should
be given to the Director and he has to just inform the GB.

The way CEPOL’s functioning structure
contributes to the development of synergies and cooperation between the Agency
and the authorities in the Member State

         The focal point for the
dissemination of all information regarding CEPOL is the National CEPOL Unit.
Contact with other Services of the Hellenic Police is only made through this
Unit and subsequently the Police Academy.

The main strengths and weaknesses concerning the
cooperation between CEPOL and the authorities in the Member State, and possibilities
for improvement

The main strength of the above mentioned
cooperation is the fact that the CEPOL Unit has a concrete and clear view on
all CEPOL matters, from strategic issues to training activities. This
facilitates in a more efficient dissemination of concrete information and
proposals. On the other hand, this doesn’t allow for a wide visibility of
CEPOL, a barrier that is being overcome, with the use of marketing strategies
for promoting CEPOL’s role and activities.

CEPOL’s amount of adequate staff, in terms of
competences, in order to manage and implement the foreseen activities

10.       The number of personnel has been
limited in the previous years. This issue created a big shortage of capable
staff, especially regarding management and budget allocation. In order for
CEPOL to implement its tasks and mission and to face the uprising training
challenges, the staff should be increased both in quantity and quality.

Poland, Piotr Podsiadło            A
comparison whether the costs associated with CEPOL’s training activities are
higher than the costs of delivery of national training activities, their
substantial difference, and cost-effectiveness.



         In general terms, costs of the
training activities organised by CEPOL cannot be measured in a quantitative
manner at the national level. Costs are different according to the price range
in the hosting/organising country and the only way of estimation is to base
calculation on the average. Moreover, from the point of view of the sending
organisation, costs of participation may seem to be lower due to the free
tickets granted for participants. Secondly, even if the costs of training at
the national level are lower in comparison to activities organised under
auspices of CEPOL, the added value related to the European dimension and the
exchange of knowledge and good practice must be taken into account. The
efficiency of efforts related to a Common Curricula, which were not implemented
into the national police training systems may be questioned.

The degree of efficiency in terms of
organisation and delivery of the following activities delivered by CEPOL

         In our opinion, as it was
stated above, the costs of training activities of CEPOL cannot be measured in a
quantitative manner for sake of European dimension. Moreover - to be frank and
open - not all of the activities may be implemented according to their planned
budget or time schedule (some of them are postponed or cancelled), but it
results e.g. from insufficient number of participants. The problem of Common
Curricula of CEPOL, which are not implemented by the Member States, as they
need still either updating, or translation into the national languages, is also
worth the stakeholders attention. Exchange programme seems to be rather
successfully implemented, although research activities need better visibility
and promotion.

The degree to what CEPOL’s governance structure
and division of powers hamper or favour CEPOL’s ability to execute and deliver
its activities

In our opinion the current structure of CEPOL
and the division of powers, as accepted by the Governing Board during its
meetings in June and in October 2011, is an important factor. Due to all the
crucial decisions, as just mentioned, which were based on the results of the
5-year evaluation of CEPOL and the Governing Board recommendations accepted in
March 2011, the ability of CEPOL to execute and deliver its activities shall be
significantly strengthened.

In future, prerogatives of the CEPOL Director in
administrative matters might be strengthened to a greater extent, including
also signing of some substantial decisions after having been approved in
written procedure by the Governing Board. In order to help the Director of
CEPOL to execute his power, enlargement of the number of full-time staff
members of the CEPOL Secretariat should be also considered; it is necessary to
meet institutional requirements and needs of European stakeholders.

As far as the Governing Board is concerned, it
should take more decisions by means of written procedure. It might help to
shorten the decision-making process. The Board should also focus on substantial
matters, leaving decisions of minor importance and administrative character in
the competencies of the CEPOL Director.

As the committees and the working groups of
CEPOL will be disbanded in 2012, it is important to raise involvement of the
Member States and to strengthen the role of the CEPOL National Contact Points.

The way CEPOL’s functioning structure
contributes to the development of synergies and cooperation between the Agency
and the authorities in the Member State

         The current CEPOL structure has
rather limited impact on the development of synergies, although it may
influence cooperation between the agency itself and the authorities in Poland.
As for the management issues, taking into account the role of the CEPOL
Director and competences of the CEPOL Secretariat, it should be emphasised that
implementation of CEPOL’s decisions may be delayed due to the limited human
resources (majority of problems is of financial character, as they refer to
financial, administrative and reimbursement procedures). Moreover, disbandment
of committees and working groups of CEPOL in 2012, together with strengthening
of the role of the CEPOL National Contact Points, are expected to accelerate
partly the decision-making process. It is important to avoid overlapping of
tasks and responsibilities between the Governing Board and the other CEPOL
organs, including the Director of CEPOL and the CEPOL Secretariat.

The main strengths and weaknesses concerning the
cooperation between CEPOL and the authorities in the Member State, and
possibilities for improvement

The main strengths of cooperation within the
network of CEPOL from our point of view refer to the CEPOL training offer and
the positive results of the training activities. So, the ability to exchange
knowledge and best practice, to establish direct contacts between specialised
expert groups, increasing efficiency of the police operations and using highly
specialised staff from the Member States shall be underlined. As for the weak
points, some problems with the target group might be concerned, together with
administrative problems related to financial flows, reimbursement procedures,
unclear situation of the civilians working for the police force, which are not
officially entitled to attend the CEPOL courses, complexity of procedures, limited
human resources within the CEPOL Secretariat but also within the EU Member
States.

CEPOL’s amount of adequate staff, in terms of
competences, in order to manage and implement the foreseen activities

The current structure of CEPOL seem to be rather
adequate to the existing needs, but some changes and improvements might be
necessary in future. Enlargement of the number of full-time staff members of
the CEPOL Secretariat should be considered, in order to meet institutional
requirements of the European stakeholders. Today it has significant impact on
the quality of cooperation with the EU Member States. The recruitment
procedures are time consuming and the salary grade is not a motivating factor.
As for future, the EU Commission shall consider enlargement of the CEPOL staff,
if the target group of CEPOL is to cover officers of law enforcement agencies.

Romania, Todoran Radu           A comparison
whether the costs associated with CEPOL’s training activities are higher than
the costs of delivery of national training activities, their substantial
difference, and cost-effectiveness.

         The costs of the CEPOL
activities are higher than the costs of other training activities organised
within the national training institutions, especially because of the
international transport costs.

         We consider that only the
activities (courses, seminars, conferences, common curricula, exchange
programme) organised by CEPOL within the colleges / national training
institutions are cost-efficient, otherwise there is a substantial difference
because of the costs that are very high, taking into consideration the
organisation of the activity in a hotel.

         In the actual context dominated
by a financial macro-crisis, CEPOL provides cost-efficient training activities
related to the implementation of Common Curricula such as very useful
workshops. At the same time, the cost –efficiency resides in very good expertise
and up-dated information. These workshops can be organised only by CEPOL,
because the implementation of Common Curricula is a European problem, not
solely a national one.

The degree of efficiency in terms of
organisation and delivery of the following activities delivered by CEPOL

         From our point of view, not the
entire CEPOL activity is cost efficient.

         We consider that only the
activities (courses, seminars, conferences, common curricula, exchange
programme) organised by CEPOL within the colleges / national training
institutions are cost-efficient, otherwise there is a substantial difference
because of the costs that are very high, taking into consideration the
organisation of the activity in a hotel.

         We did our best for the
activities that we implemented in Romania to be cost-efficient, according to
the allocated budget and planning.

         Common Curricula is a very
efficient tool used for the training process. CEPOL delivers very useful,
cost-efficient activities for its implementation. At the national level, the
implementation of the Common Curricula related to initial training does not
require a specific budget.

The degree to what CEPOL’s governance structure
and division of powers hamper or favour CEPOL’s ability to execute and deliver
its activities

In our view, CEPOL's governance structure is not
sufficiently aligned to ensure the efficient achievement of immediate and wider
objectives. There are too many overlaps in the roles of Committees, Working
Groups and Project Group and it takes too much time until a decision is taken
at the level of the Governing Board.

We consider that the structures must be
reviewed, to better establish the roles and responsibilities in order to avoid
duplication and enhance the coherence and coordination of the structure. Also,
transferring decision making from the CEPOL structures to the Director might
also have positive cost implications, since this might reduce the travel costs
associated with the meetings of Member State representatives.

We believe that the changes which are currently
being implemented to CEPOL will help to increase the agency’s relevance and we
agree with the main recommendations of the Five year evaluation of CEPOL:
clarify the CEPOL intervention logic, streamline governance and rationalise
structures, strengthen the CEPOL Secretariat, merge capacity building for law
enforcement, assess Member State engagement with CEPOL and concentrate capacity
building efforts.

The way CEPOL’s functioning structure
contributes to the development of synergies and cooperation between the Agency
and the authorities in the Member State

The development of synergies and cooperation
between the Agency and the national authorities depends on the organizational
arrangements in each Member State (there are different models in the Member
States).

Romania allocated resources (7 police officers)
for different CEPOL functions and also created a structure at the level of the
General Directorate of Human Resources Management within the Ministry of
Administration and Interior in order to coordinate the participation to CEPOL
activities.

As we mentioned before, this general directorate
establishes the overall needs of continuous training, evaluates the activities
of general training and even coordinates all the national institutions for the
Schengen training.

         In this context, we consider
that the functioning structure of CEPOL assures the best conditions for a good
cooperation between Romania and the Agency.

The main strengths and weaknesses concerning the
cooperation between CEPOL and the authorities in the Member State, and
possibilities for improvement

The General Directorate of Human Management
Resources and the public authorities within the Ministry of Administration and
Interior signed the Grant Agreement with CEPOL in 2010, for four years. In this
respect, we have established rules regarding participation to CEPOL activities,
the personnel involved in CEPOL activities etc. This is one of the strength
points of cooperation between CEPOL and Romanian authorities.

The biggest weakness of CEPOL activities in
Romania is the national financial rules according to the European legislation
and CEPOL decisions. In this respect, despite of the expenditure ceilings
settled down by CEPOL, we cannot use these amounts due to the fact that we must
respect national law. For this reason, it will be better if CEPOL activities in
Romania would be solved directly by CEPOL (hotel arrangements, the purchase of
tickets etc).

         A more powerful approach would
be to think in terms of links and network. There exists a significant cultural
and territorial element to all crime phenomena. Especially the geographical
dimension from local to global crime should be considered.

CEPOL’s amount of adequate staff, in terms of
competences, in order to manage and implement the foreseen activities

         CEPOL has been under new
management since February 2010 and we consider that the work of the Agency is
now conducted in line with all applicable regulations and legitimate
expectations of all stakeholders. The new director has inherited a difficult
situation, posing a real challenge to the new management.

We consider that at present the Secretariat
resources are sufficient, especially since the new Director and management team
seem to be employing personnel more productively.

▪           But, taking into consideration
the fact that CEPOL activities consume significant administrative resources,
for an excellent management and correct implementation of the training
activities, CEPOL Secretariat staff must be filled in with experienced staff,
particularly in member states' police structures.

Sweden, Bo Åström     A comparison whether the
costs associated with CEPOL’s training activities are higher than the costs of
delivery of national training activities, their substantial difference, and
cost-effectiveness.

         The additional costs for CEPOL
activities in comparison with training activities on the national level are
mainly connected to the travel costs. In order to assess the cost-efficiency
one parameter is where the implementation of the activity will take place. On
one hand side it is important to enhance knowledge of different police systems
within EU and to visit different countries is a vital tool in this regard. On
the other hand it is probable that it would have been more cost efficient to
deploy an activity in central Europe instead of e.g. Malta. N.B., travel costs
for the activities is mainly covered by the Member States.

The degree of efficiency in terms of
organisation and delivery of the following activities delivered by CEPOL

         The CEPOL work with Common
Curricula, Exchange programs and Research are assessed to be cost-efficient.
When it comes to courses, seminars and conferences there are some problems. The
main perception in the past has been that EU is a homogeneous geographical area
with mainly the same problems in all corners. As a consequence all
aforementioned activities are planned with the set out offering all Member
States and Associated Countries one seat per activity. The budget
appropriations are set accordingly. However, the number of participants rarely
matches the plan, which will lead to under spending.

The degree to what CEPOL’s governance structure
and division of powers hamper or favour CEPOL’s ability to execute and deliver
its activities

▪           The role of the Director

         The role of the Director is
defined in the Council Decision 2005/681/JHA accompanied by a number of
Governing Board Decisions. No obstacles.

▪           The role of the Governing
Board

         The role of the Governing
Board is also defined in the Council Decision. One issue to be considered is
the effectiveness and efficiency of having a Board comprising 27 Voting
members, with a policy to reach consensus in the decision making process.
Issues that have been prepared in the CEPOL process (from Working Group –
Committee – Strategy Committee – Governing Board) will not be decided upon
since some Member States feel they have not been involved in the preparatory
work, so the preparation of the basis for a decision will proceed in the
Governing Board meeting. This phenomenon hampers the Governance of CEPOL. In
this regard the review of the CEPOL structure is very welcome.

▪           The role of the Working Groups

         There are to many working
groups and sub-groups within the CEPOL structure. Many of them are not time
bounded and they sometimes have unclear remits. It should be borne in mind that
the members of the working groups are representing themselves in the capacity
of being experts, i.e. they are not representing their member States’ positions
in different issues, which sometimes have led to confusion when the matter
reaches the Governing Board if not screened away at the Strategy Committee
level.

▪           The role of Committees

         Scrutinising the agendas of
the Committees during recent years, it is obvious that duplication and
overlapping are serious matters.

▪           The role of CEPOL national
actors (NCPs, coordinators, etc.)

         The NCP function is very much
dependent on what the individuals are doing and how they approach the
assignments allocated to the NCP level, in particular when it comes to actively
promoting CEPOL and its activities on the national level. Otherwise the
function will be just a sophisticated mail box.

▪           Other please elaborate

         n/a

The way CEPOL’s functioning structure
contributes to the development of synergies and cooperation between the Agency
and the authorities in the Member State

         Our ambitions have been that
experts on the national level also should be our representatives within the
CEPOL structure. In this way, we assume we could contribute to the development
of the CEPOL systems as well as bringing back new knowledge and proficiency.

The main strengths and weaknesses concerning the
cooperation between CEPOL and the authorities in the Member State, and
possibilities for improvement

The main strength is CEPOL functioning as a
network. The main weaknesses are the location of the Secretariat and the rapid
rotation of key players in the Governance structure.

CEPOL’s amount of adequate staff, in terms of
competences, in order to manage and implement the foreseen activities

11.       CEPOL has enough staff to manage and
implement the foreseen activities.

            157.     EFFECTIVENESS

Belgium, Alain Ruelle    CEPOL’s success in
reaching the appropriate/relevant target audiences in the Member State, and the
possible need to extent the wider target audience

To a great extent. Belgium sends participants to
most of CEPOL activities and when no one is attending, it is for planning
reasons and certainly not because of a lack of interest.

Practically speaking, in one hand CEPOL already
addresses non Senior Police Officers e.g. SIRENE courses and on the other hand,
for specialised topics mid-ranking are more concerned than SPOs e.g.
trafficking in stolen artworks.

The level to which the knowledge gained through
the participation in CEPOL’s activities was conveyed to third parties (e.g.
other staff) who did not participate in such activities

Each Belgian participant to a CEPOL activity is
supposed to provide the NCP with a detailed report. Afterwards, the report is
advertised and published on the Police intranet network.

Now, we are promoting the organisation of info
sessions by the participants as mentioned Supra.

The  added value of CEPOL, compared to other (EU
or national) forms of training and learning activities for law enforcement
authorities

The diversity of products (courses, e-learning,
exchange programme etc.);

The topics (police cooperation instruments,
management, operational subjects) and the general quality of the activities;

The networking during activities and the
exchange of good practices;

The development of language skills;

12.       Mutual trust.

Finland, Peter Sund      A comparison whether
the costs associated with CEPOL’s training activities are higher than the costs
of delivery of national training activities, their substantial difference, and
cost-effectiveness.

         Organizing training in hotels
is not something Finland would support (much more expensive). Also all kinds of
domestic transport services provided by CEPOL are unnecessary (please refer to
any other international training or conference, participants are expected to
find and travel to the location of training on their own, assistance should
naturally be available). Therefore CEPOL activities are not as cost-effective.

         Implementation of Common
Curricula is not in followed or documented in a systematic way. The question of
the usefulness of the CC is still relevant, especially if the implementation is
not followed.

         Exchange Programme seems to be
running in a rather efficient way.

         CEPOL eLibrary can be seen as
somewhat waste of money at the current state. First of all, it really is only a
reference database, not a library. Secondly, it consumes a lot of resources
trying to upkeep a real library. Serious efforts of rationalising the eLibrary
should be made.

The degree of efficiency in terms of organisation
and delivery of the following activities delivered by CEPOL

         Organizing training in hotels
is not something Finland would support (much more expensive). Also all kinds of
domestic transport services provided by CEPOL are unnecessary (please refer to
any other international training or conference, participants are expected to
find and travel to the location of training on their own, assistance should
naturally be available). Therefore CEPOL activities are not as cost-effective.

         For the first time (for 2012)
the possible outcome and impact are really evaluated within the grant
agreements. This is a good development. There really should be various forms of
evidence of learning involved in organising CEPOL activities. Not just
quantitave amount of acticvities.

         Implementation of Common
Curricula is not in followed or documented in a systematic way. The question of
the usefulness of the CC is still relevant, especially if the implementation is
not followed.

         Exchange Programme seems to be
running in a rather efficient way.

         CEPOL eLibrary can be seen as
somewhat waste of money at the current state. First of all, it really is only a
reference database, not a library. Secondly, it consumes a lot of resources
trying to upkeep a real library. Serious efforts of rationalising the eLibrary
should be made.

The degree to what CEPOL’s governance structure
and division of powers hamper or favour CEPOL’s ability to execute and deliver
its activities

         CEPOL’s governance structure
and division of powers do hamper CEPOL’s abilities and agility. The director
should have more power on some operational decisions. Governing Board should
focus only on strategic issues. Secretariat should be reinforced and more
preparative work on strategic issues should be put on NCP’s. Committees are not
necessary, but a project-type working groups are justified (limited
life-cycle).

The way CEPOL’s functioning structure
contributes to the development of synergies and cooperation between the Agency
and the authorities in the Member State

         Please refer to question 15.
Additionally the secretariat should have more strong competence for preparative
and also executive competence. Areas of expertise such as project management,
education planning, financial etc. should be better secured. Furthermore, a
short-term employment (project-type) should be possible to the Secretariat from
MS in various subject matters.

The main strengths and weaknesses concerning the
cooperation between CEPOL and the authorities in the Member State, and
possibilities for improvement

Please refer to questions 16-17. In terms of
strengths the structure of a network of MS training institutions is certainly
one of them as it provides a effective platform for cooperation. CEPOL’s
secretariat is potentially very capable of fulfilling a large variety of
different tasks. Secretariat could and maybe should also utilise the capacity
of the MS NCP’s more in preparing, planning and designing different products
and documents.

One of the biggest weaknesses is that the
director should have more power on some operational decisions. Governing Board
should focus only on strategic issues. The basic principle should be that the
GB gives only strategic directions and goals (including initiatives brought by
the Director) and the Director should have more freedom in choosing the methods
of working and reaching the goals.

CEPOL’s amount of adequate staff, in terms of
competences, in order to manage and implement the foreseen activities

No it does not. Improvements have been observed
but the Secretariat may still be currently understaffed and even more in the
future (in reference to the possible future developments of the agency).

France  CEPOL’s success in reaching the
appropriate/relevant target audiences in the Member State, and the possible need
to extent the wider target audience

Les Etats membres ont pu atteindre le public
cible du fait qu’ils désignent les personnels envoyés pour suivre les
formations dispensées par le CEPOL, eu égard aux critères définis pour y
participer et à l’action réalisée par les services en charge de la désignation
des personnels nationaux.

L’élargissement du groupe cible doit être étudié
au cas par cas, en fonction des formations concernées et des besoins des Etats
membres.

The level to which the knowledge gained through
the participation in CEPOL’s activities was conveyed to third parties (e.g.
other staff) who did not participate in such activities

Les connaissances acquises dans le cadre des
formations sont partagées tant dans la pratique quotidienne du service que pour
l’enrichissement des formations dispensées au niveau national.

Il n’y a pas de session de formation générale
mais des interventions spécifiques quand cela est nécessaire.

The  added value of CEPOL, compared to other (EU
or national) forms of training and learning activities for law enforcement
authorities

13.       La principale plus value des
formations du CEPOL réside certainement dans l’échange direct de bonnes
pratiques et de point de vue entre formateurs, entre formateurs et stagiaires
ou entre stagiaires dans les sessions organisées dans les Etats membres.

Germany, Dr. Matthias Klingner            CEPOL’s
success in reaching the appropriate/relevant target audiences in the Member
State, and the possible need to extent the wider target audience

Zur 1. Frage: Die relevanten Zielgruppen für die
jeweilige Lehrveranstaltung werden sehr gut durch die Veröffentlichung des
Lehrgangsangebotes im Intranet der jeweiligen Polizeibehörde und eine
ergänzende zielgruppenorientierte Abfrage erreicht.

Zur 2. Frage: Die Öffnung des CEPOL-Angebots für
den gehobenen Dienst (also über den höheren Dienst hinaus) wird bereits in
Einzelfällen praktiziert und sollte beibehalten werden, sofern dadurch
konkreter Fortbildungsbedarf zu speziellen Fachthemen im Bereich der
grenzüberschreitenden Zusammenarbeit für die zuständigen Spezialisten gedeckt
werden kann und die Möglichkeit zur Multiplikation der Inhalte verstärkt wird
(etwa für Sirene-Mitarbeiter). Dabei ist auch zu berücksichtigen, dass die
Definition von „senior officers“ als Zielgruppe von CEPOL-Angeboten auch in der
Vergangenheit bereits in den jeweiligen EU-MS unterschiedlich ausgelegt wurde.

Daneben sollten sich die von CEPOL angebotenen
Austauschprogramme nach dem Erasmus-Modell nicht nur wie bisher an erfahrene
Polizisten/Führungskräfte richten, sondern auch an jüngere Studenten des
polizeilichen Erst-Studiums an den Polizeihochschulen: Dieser Personenkreis ist
noch dienstlich und persönlich mobiler und die Einbeziehung der jüngeren
Polizisten trägt auch dem Erasmus-Gedanken Rechnung (das Erasmus-Programm
außerhalb des Polizeibereichs richtet sich ebenfalls in erster Linie an
Studenten).

Eine darüber hinausgehende generelle Öffnung der
Zielgruppe von CEPOL für alle Polizeibeamten wäre sorgfältig zu prüfen. Die
Auswirkungen dieser Ausweitung auf die Struktur und den Haushalt von CEPOL
sollten in einer/der vorliegenden Studie näher geprüft werden. Hierbei ist zu
berücksichtigen, dass sich CEPOL nach den Haushalts- und Verwaltungsproblemen
der letzten Jahre in einer Konsolidierungsphase befindet. Es wurden hier
deutliche Verbesserungen erreicht. CEPOL muss die Effizienz der
Mittelverwaltung und Governance aber nachhaltig unter Beweis stellen.

The level to which the knowledge gained through
the participation in CEPOL’s activities was conveyed to third parties (e.g.
other staff) who did not participate in such activities

Von CEPOL entwickelte Common Curricula werden
bei der Weiterentwicklung der Lehrpläne in der Fachhochschulausbildung
berücksichtigt.

Oft werden von den Teilnehmerinnen bzw.
Teilnehmern an CEPOL-Veranstaltungen Erfahrungsberichte erstellt, die z.B. zum
Teil in die Aus- und Fortbildung einfließen. Die Teilnehmer geben ihre
Erfahrungen aus dem Lehrgang auch bei ihrer täglichen Arbeit weiter (vgl. auch
die Antwort auf Frage 21). Ein systematischer und formalisierter Transfer von
Wissensinhalten durch CEPOL-Lehrgangsteilnehmer erfolgt allerdings nicht
(anders aber bei Dozenten als Lehrgangsteilnehmern).

The  added value of CEPOL, compared to other (EU
or national) forms of training and learning activities for law enforcement
authorities

Die EU-weiten Bildungsangebote von CEPOL
schaffen einen Mehrwert und fördern den EU-weiten „Raum der Freiheit, der
Sicherheit und des Rechts“an:

Durch die CEPOL-Maßnahmen werden Kenntnisse über
Systeme und Verfahrensweisen anderer Mitgliedstaaten vermittelt, welche das
gegenseitige Verständnis für Handlungsabläufe der jeweiligen
Kooperationspartner erhöhen. Auch der fachliche und persönliche Austausch von
Vertretern aus unterschiedlichen EU-Staaten ist ein wichtiges Ziel der
CEPOL-Lehrgänge. Dadurch wird das gegenseitige Verständnis vertieft und eine
vertrauensvolle Zusammenarbeit der Polizeien gefördert. Im Vergleich zu
nationalen Fortbildungen bieten CEPOL-Maßnahmen also die Möglichkeit zur
Erweiterung des internationalen und bilateralen Netzwerks, das die
grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit unterstützen kann.

Die CEPOL-Angebote können die Zusammenarbeit der
Polizeien auch durch die Schaffung komplementärer Arbeitsgrundlagen und
Handlungsweisen unterstützen (Common Curricula).

14.       Ferner bietet die Seminarsprache
Englisch die Gelegenheit, fremdsprachliche Fähigkeiten auszubauen.

Greece CEPOL’s success in reaching the
appropriate/relevant target audiences in the Member State, and the possible
need to extent the wider target audience

To some extent. CEPOL’s target group should be
extended in order to address the growing training needs. A systematic use of
CEPOL’s e-net is currently under way, in order to promote CEPOL as much as
possible and reach relevant audiences, especially with the promotion of
webinars and the creation of specific platforms.

The level to which the knowledge gained through
the participation in CEPOL’s activities was conveyed to third parties (e.g.
other staff) who did not participate in such activities

After the participation in a CEPOL activity, the
trainee or the trainer submits a relevant report with the conclusions,
findings, results in order to inform his/her colleagues as well as the
leadership of the Hellenic Police. Material of activities is disseminated
through various channels (use of CEPOL’s LMS being one of them). Finally,
material presented in CEPOL activities, is often being included in training
schemes offered by trainers.

The  added value of CEPOL, compared to other (EU
or national) forms of training and learning activities for law enforcement
authorities

15.       CEPOL is the cornerstone for Police
Training and Learning on a European Level. Over the years, its capacity in
offering learning products has increased and has reached a wider audience. In
addition, its function as a network among the various Police Training
Institutions of the M-S, can guarantee a vast dissemination of learning content
as well as the approach of top-level trainers and experts.

Poland, Piotr Podsiadło            CEPOL’s
success in reaching the appropriate/relevant target audiences in the Member
State, and the possible need to extent the wider target audience

Enhancement of the training target group is of
vital importance, taking into account police officers of all ranks (constable,
middle rank and senior officers), as well as officers coming from the other law
enforcement agencies involved in cross border cooperation on crime matters and
civil servants from those institutions, such as police, customs and border
guard. Actually the legal requirements are not met, as some senior police
officers of decision - making level are not able to attend in the CEPOL courses
due to limited English command and to the time constraints.

The level to which the knowledge gained through
the participation in CEPOL’s activities was conveyed to third parties (e.g.
other staff) who did not participate in such activities

General impact of training provided under
auspices of CEPOL is very important. Training activities of CEPOL constitute
great opportunity to acquire new skills and capacities, which shall be
transferred to other experts in relevant fields. There is a number of means of
cascading, like practical workshops organisation, Internet fora, CEPOL website,
publications on the national level, taking part in other activities as a
lecturer/trainer, etc., although some of them may raise problems for time and
financial constraints. There is a need to develop solutions to reach a wider
target group, and some instruments could also play an important role, it refers
e.g. to e-learning modules and the Common Curricula, as well as to the Exchange
Programme (when implemented on a larger scale).

The  added value of CEPOL, compared to other (EU
or national) forms of training and learning activities for law enforcement
authorities

Exchange of knowledge and experience, as well as
providing information on best practice and solutions implemented by other
Member States constitute the added value. At the EU level, there are important
tools to raise the European awareness. The results of training, however, are
significant only in a longer perspective.

Romania, Todoran Radu           CEPOL’s success
in reaching the appropriate/relevant target audiences in the Member State, and
the possible need to extent the wider target audience

We consider that the participants from our
country to CEPOL activities were, to a large extent, appropriate for the target
group of the respective activities.

The selection of the personnel was strictly made
in accordance with the requirements of the organiser for the target group
audience.

Regarding the extension of the CEPOL`s scope, we
think that is needed to cover not only the senior police officers but also
practitioners in different fields of activity in order to allow  them to share
best practices with other colleagues from the Member States.

The level to which the knowledge gained through
the participation in CEPOL’s activities was conveyed to third parties (e.g.
other staff) who did not participate in such activities

In our country, participation in CEPOL is seen
primarily through the capitalization of knowledge acquired by participants
nationwide. Thus, special attention is given to the multiplication of knowledge
to the officers who did not participate in this training activity.

Regarding the knowledge gained through the
participation to CEPOL’s activities and the ways they are conveyed to third
parties, we could mention the following examples:

Following participation in CEPOL course 76/2011
"European Police Education Systems: Bologna and Bruges / Copenhagen
Process" the following proposals were made: knowledge of procedures to
develop the scope, objectives, results, forms and assessment criteria for
course design, creating a network of police instructors teaching the EU
structures to facilitate the exchange of ideas and best practices in course
design. Also, the information brought back by the participants was embodied in
the design, organization and development of specific courses on international
languages and training missions;

After participating in the meeting of the
Working Group for Education a short article on the content of the document Q13
was elaborated and carried out, with the intention of familiarizing police
instructors on the design and conduct training programs , informing staff about
the harmonization of training programs at European level;

The team of teachers who teach foreign languages
at police school agents „Vasile Lascar” Campina county, reshaped and re-edited
the textbooks used in the educational process;

In December of this year, the same school will
publish informative articles on the issues addressed in the CEPOL training
activities in Minerva magazine, conducted at school level and will also
introduce the obtained materials in the electronic library;

As a general conclusion, the CEPOL participants
disseminate information and materials obtained in meetings held in the central
and territorial units and also for ensuring consolidation of new knowledge and
skills, they will be included in training plans for training next year.

The  added value of CEPOL, compared to other (EU
or national) forms of training and learning activities for law enforcement
authorities

The real value that CEPOL brings compared to
other national forms of training and learning activities for law enforcement
authorities is the networking at the European level which is created between
the police officers participating in CEPOL activities, allowing them after
returning to daily work, to solve the problems in certain cases involving cross-border
cooperation.

Sweden, Bo Åström     CEPOL’s success in
reaching the appropriate/relevant target audiences in the Member State, and the
possible need to extent the wider target audience

The target group of CEPOL activities should be
made broader to also comprise practitioners. Target group should be defined by
functions and not ranks. Frequently participants have been selected due to
their language skills and not what they are working with on daily basis. The
same goes for recruitment and selection of experts taking into account the
aforementioned when it comes to discrepancies on the national level when it
comes to basic knowledge, e.g. in the areas of EU mechanisms and legal
instruments.

The level to which the knowledge gained through
the participation in CEPOL’s activities was conveyed to third parties (e.g.
other staff) who did not participate in such activities

Cascading is a general problem when it comes to
training. There is a perception that training per se and automatically will
increase the capacity within the trainee’s institution. Unfortunately, this is
many times a fallacy dependent on the willingness of the trainee to share, the
willingness of his or her superiors to implement new knowledge and proficiency
and finally assumed the trainee will stay on his or her post for a while. The
problem has been addressed within CEPOL and nowadays draft of cascading plans
is a part of the activity. However, there is no follow-up on whether the plans
have been implemented or not.

The  added value of CEPOL, compared to other (EU
or national) forms of training and learning activities for law enforcement
authorities

16.       CEPOL provides a platform for peers to
meet and share experience.

            158.     UTILITY AND IMPACT

Belgium, Alain Ruelle    The extent to what
CEPOL contributes to the development of a European Approach to the fight
against crime, crime prevention and the maintenance of law and order and public
security. CEPOL’s impact on cooperation between Member States and EU bodies.

Promotion of JITs, joint public order actions,
joint road safety controls etc.

Whether CEPOL’s activities met the training
needs of the law enforcement authorities in the respective Member State or
other EU agencies / national institutions did so to a greater extent.

Yes, mainly because of the topics which are
large enough to cover all our priorities.

No, in Belgium, as far as international police
training is concerned, CEPOL remains the reference.

The level of impact CEPOL’s activities have on
national police training curricula

Since 2008, Belgium implements the Common
Curriculum Europol and plans to implement the one on Police Ethic and Human
Rights in 2012.

17.       Given that the Europol CC has been
integrated in our continuous training portfolio, we did not face any peculiar
difficulties. A contrary, should we have wished to integrate it in the basic
training, we would have had to modify the Royal Decree which would have taken
years.

Finland, Peter Sund      Whether CEPOL’s
activities met the training needs of the law enforcement authorities in the
respective Member State or other EU agencies / national institutions did so to
a greater extent.

Currently the contribution is limited due to the
restrictions by the mandate, but potentially it could have a substantial
contribution if CEPOL’s scope of target audience is widened and is the
identification process of training needs is developed further (see question
12).

CEPOL is able to provide valuable information on
EU bodies and agencies, their functions and working methods. This is very
relevant information to all law enforcement authorities.

The extent to what CEPOL contributes to the
development of a European Approach to the fight against crime, crime prevention
and the maintenance of law and order and public security and the impact of its
activities on the cooperation between Member States

The have met the training needs partially
(please refer to question 12).

No other EU agency has met recognised training
needs better but naturally the Police College of Finland’s curriculas are
designed to serve the identified training needs fully (at least it is the
intention).

The level of impact CEPOL’s activities have on
national police training curricula

18.       Finland strives to make full use of
existing CEPOL training activities and therefore tries to avoid any duplication
in training courses. We include the portfolio of CEPOL activities to our
national in-service training catalogue in order to provide a comprehensive
picture of training available.

France  The main benefits of the activities
organised by CEPOL

Les principaux bénéfices de ces activités sont
la confrontation d’idées et l’échange de bonnes pratiques, contribuant à la
construction de l’espace de sécurité et de liberté européen.

Il n’existe pas d’outils permettant d’identifier
clairement l’impact des formations. Toutefois, il est avéré que les formations
dispensées ont permis d’enrichir l’efficacité professionnelle des personnels
formés et leur ont permis d’apprendre à connaître leurs homologues ainsi que
les instruments de coopération avec lesquels ils pouvaient travailler.

The extent to what CEPOL contributes to the
development of a European Approach to the fight against crime, crime prevention
and the maintenance of law and order and public security and the impact of its
activities on the cooperation between Member States

La vocation même d’une agence européenne œuvrant
dans le domaine des thématiques de sécurité est de contribuer à l’approche
mentionnée ci-dessus.

Le CEPOL remplit pleinement cet objectif. Il y
contribue notamment en prenant en compte les aspirations des Etats membres lors
de la définition du programme de formations annuel.

Le partenariat entre le CEPOL et les
institutions européennes permet aux policiers des Etats membres d’accroître
leurs connaissances et leurs actions en partenariat avec ces institutions.

Whether CEPOL’s activities met the training
needs of the law enforcement authorities in the respective Member State or
other EU agencies / national institutions did so to a greater extent.

Oui, dès lors que le mode de gouvernance du
CEPOL permet de prendre en compte les aspirations des Etats membres dans
l’élaboration et la mise en place des activités de formations à venir.

Tout dépend des thématiques traitées.

The level of impact CEPOL’s activities have on
national police training curricula

Les formations du CEPOL permettent le
développement d’une culture policière européenne.

19.       Dans ce domaine, l’impact du CEPOL est
quasiment inexistant.

Germany, Dr. Matthias Klingner            The
main benefits of the activities organised by CEPOL

Vgl. Antwort zu Frage 21.

The extent to what CEPOL contributes to the
development of a European Approach to the fight against crime, crime prevention
and the maintenance of law and order and public security and the impact of its
activities on the cooperation between Member States

Vgl. Antwort zu Frage 21.

Inhalte aus Common Curricula, wie z.B. “Police
Ethics”, “Money Laundering”, oder “Trafficking in Human Beings” bilden wichtige
Anregungen für die Weiterentwicklung des nationalen Bildungsangebots hinsichtlich
einer EU-weiten Angleichung der polizeilichen Arbeit, während „z.B. Domestic
Violence“ aufgrund der Kulturspezifität eher kein typisches Bildungsthema für
CEPOL darstellt.

Whether CEPOL’s activities met the training
needs of the law enforcement authorities in the respective Member State or
other EU agencies / national institutions did so to a greater extent.

Zu Satz 1 dieser Frage wird zunächst auf die
Antwort zu Frage 21 verwiesen. CEPOL kann nur einen kleinen Teil der
notwendigen (Führungskräfte-)Fortbildung abdecken. Das Fortbildungsangebot von
CEPOL ergänzt die Führungskräftefortbildung der DHPol sowie das
bund-/länderspezifische Fortbildungsangebot der jeweiligen polizeilichen
Bildungseinrichtungen. Die jeweilige nationale Aus- und Fortbildungseinrichtung
kann sich im Gegensatz zu CEPOL ausschließlich auf den Bedarf und die
Bedingungen der eigenen Behörde einstellen.

The level of impact CEPOL’s activities have on
national police training curricula

20.       Vgl. Antworten zu den Fragen 20, 23
und 24.

Greece The main benefits of the activities
organised by CEPOL

CEPOL’s main benefits are the dissemination of
good practices, knowledge and methods, the enhancement of cooperation and the
creation of networks. The accumulated training material and knowledge is
transferred at a national level at the relevant services and applied where
possible. The major benefit for the organisation itself is the addition of new
contacts and cooperation partners in the common effort of fighting
transnational crime.

The extent to what CEPOL contributes to the
development of a European Approach to the fight against crime, crime prevention
and the maintenance of law and order and public security and the impact of its
activities on the cooperation between Member States

One of CEPOL’s objectives is the creation of
networks, among Law Enforcement officers of the Member – States, officers from
EU Agencies, Services and Organisations. This is one of the main impacts
regarding cooperation between Member States and EU Bodies. The involved
officers, have the chance to learn and identify all these means of cooperation.

It is profound, that the cooperation in a
learning environment, underlines the European Approach regarding fighting
against crime, crime prevention and maintenance of law, not only with the
creation of the above mentioned networks but also with the possibility offered
to each officer to understand the differences from one Member – State to the
other and therefore implement more efficient ways of cooperation.

Whether CEPOL’s activities met the training
needs of the law enforcement authorities in the respective Member State or
other EU agencies / national institutions did so to a greater extent.

Yes, they have met the training needs, an
element which is more than obvious from the high evaluation rates.
Additionally, there seems to be an impact at the participants’ services as
well, not mainly on operational issues but on widening their scope and
cooperation capabilities.

Frontex and Europol are EU Agencies that offer
specific training as well. Nevertheless, the danger of overlapping exists and
because of that, extended synergies are necessary as well as the gathering of
the training and learning scheme regarding law enforcement officers, under the
coordination of one single Agency (CEPOL).

The level of impact CEPOL’s activities have on
national police training curricula

21.       Most of the national Curricula where
already including the main themes dealt with CEPOL’ s CC. In any case, the long
procedure for the finalisation of CEPOL’s CC, has created many barriers in
their complete implementation, as well as the different duration of educational
training in our Police Schools. Nevertheless, and with the efforts of the
relevant services, changes have been introduced where deemed necessary

Poland, Piotr Podsiadło            The main
benefits of the activities organised by CEPOL

Participation in the training activities of
CEPOL is an important factor, if we consider practical conditions for exchange
of knowledge and best practise, direct contacts established between the group
of experts, possibility of implementation of new solutions and possible
increase of effectiveness of the police operations. Nevertheless, it depends on
the thematic scope. Taking part in the CEPOL activities, the police officers
are able to look at their every day work from the European perspective, which
is impossible on the national level. However, there is a need to improve the
evaluation ex post, made by the CEPOL Secretariat, and to enhance the cascading
process.

The extent to what CEPOL contributes to the
development of a European Approach to the fight against crime, crime prevention
and the maintenance of law and order and public security and the impact of its
activities on the cooperation between Member States

For the time being, there is no tool for
rational estimation of the European Approach development in the field of fight
against crime, crime prevention and the maintenance of law and order and public
security, or for the main impact of CEPOL’s activities on cooperation between
the EU Member States and the EU bodies. In general terms, training offer of
CEPOL certainly fulfils its task. It shall be underlined that the future range
of CEPOL’s competences should be constructed in such a way, that the training
offers not only constitute completion of the police education system in the
Member States, but also refers to the Bologna and Brugge-Copenhagen process.
Moreover, it shall refer to specific crime areas, such as those indicated by
the OCTA report, the COSPOL programme, expectations of the EU Commission, the
Council, COSI, Europol etc. Last, but not least, it shall comply with the
demands of the European Law Enforcement Training Scheme, whilst coordination
takes part on the European level.

Whether CEPOL’s activities met the training
needs of the law enforcement authorities in the respective Member State or
other EU agencies / national institutions did so to a greater extent.

For sure, there is a number of activities
regarding highly specialised target group and in that case other agencies, like
Eurojust or Frontex shall stay the sources of the expertise, good practise and
knowledge. For the other thematic areas, related with combating different kinds
of crime, under the new legal framework, CEPOL might overtake responsibility
and become organiser of training for the EU officers, coming from different law
enforcement institutions. It might require more cooperation between the
agencies themselves. Actually, there are some areas in which CEPOL is the best
solution, although in some cases the other agencies have to be considered. The
existing co-operation between the agencies, like training courses on Europol or
visits to Europol Headquarters in Hague may improve the functioning of the
Europol National Units. Strengthening of the inter-agency cooperation could
have a positive far-reaching effect in future.

The level of impact CEPOL’s activities have on
national police training curricula

Unfortunately, the CEPOL Common Curricula have
neither been finalised, updated and translated nor implemented into the
national training systems in the Member States. According to the CEPOL rules,
there is no obligation to implement the Common Curricula. Actually, some
improvement works have been undertaken, in order to change CEPOL attitude and re-define
implementation of the common curricula in such a way, that it refer rather to
incorporation of the CC  into the national systems. In practical terms, parts
of some common curricula may be used, but it is not common that they are
officially implemented.

Romania, Todoran Radu           The main
benefits of the activities organised by CEPOL

         In our view the benefits of the
activity organised by CEPOL is the increasing knowledge of the national police
systems and structures of other Member States and the contribution to law
enforcement cooperation across the EU.

CEPOL’s training activities have a direct impact
on participants (e.g. technical and managerial knowledge) and also an Impact on
further networking of participants.

The main advantage of CEPOL activities is the
exchange of experience between police forces in EU member states and the
creation of a framework for identifying solutions for quality training, in
other words, the antechamber, for an institutionalized cooperation between
official factors involved in police forces training.

Also, a great advantage for all police officers
is the electronic platform - CEPOL e-net – which offers access to a database
established to disseminate research findings, good practice and research
projects in order to support police learning and the promotion of a European
approach to police science.

The extent to what CEPOL contributes to the
development of a European Approach to the fight against crime, crime prevention
and the maintenance of law and order and public security and the impact of its
activities on the cooperation between Member States

In our view, CEPOL contributes to a better
cooperation between Member States and relevant EU Agencies (e.g. Europol,
Eurojust). Firstly, every CEPOL activity contains a presentation regarding the
role and functioning of the EU Agencies and secondly, in many courses experts
from Europol, Eurojust (e.g. JIT courses) are invited and participate as
lecturers.

Whether CEPOL’s activities met the training
needs of the law enforcement authorities in the respective Member State or
other EU agencies / national institutions did so to a greater extent.

In our view, the different activities offered by
CEPOL met the training needs of the law enforcement authorities in all Member
States.

We also must mention the training activities
organised by Frontex for the police officers working within the National Border
Police.

The training tools promoted by Frontex Agency
came to support joint operations, helping to ensure an integrated management of
external borders. The optimization of the training system at European level for
the structures with responsibilities in Schengen external borders is of
particular importance.

The level of impact CEPOL’s activities have on
national police training curricula

CEPOL activities complement the information
already contained in the national curricula, the information novelty, by the
networking taking place between participants of these activities.

In recent years many teachers from our police
training institutions have participated in CEPOL activities (ex. „Train the
trainers”, „English Language”, „Q13 Courses”) and when they returned they
applied the new learned training methods in the national training system.

Also, the Common Curricula was translated from
English into Romanian language at the level of the Ministry of Administration
and Interior, and parts of the CEPOL Common Curricula have been implemented
very easily since 2010 in national police training curricula according to
training needs (app. 80% of the content).

Sweden, Bo Åström     The main benefits of the
activities organised by CEPOL

CEPOL provides a platform for experts to meet
and share experience. An added value is that all CEPOL activities create a
platform for informal networks to be established. There are many examples of
operational advantages based on contacts between participants in previous CEPOL
activities.

The extent to what CEPOL contributes to the
development of a European Approach to the fight against crime, crime prevention
and the maintenance of law and order and public security and the impact of its
activities on the cooperation between Member States

CEPOL activities have contributed to the
development of a European Approach mainly by increasing awareness of the
problems we share, e.g. Italy’s problems with illegal migration from North
Africa is a concern for all Member States, drug trafficking through the Balkan
Route the same etc.

Whether CEPOL’s activities met the training
needs of the law enforcement authorities in the respective Member State or
other EU agencies / national institutions did so to a greater extent.

 The question has already been answered. In
addition, there are a lot of training programs provided by EU mechanisms, e.g.
CEPOL, Frontex and Europol. I assume there are some overlapping and/or
duplication pertaining to both content and target groups. If the assumption is
correct, it calls for a strong coordination mechanism on the EU level. Since we
have one EU Agency explicitly established to address training needs a
coordination mechanism could or should be established at CEPOL.

The level of impact CEPOL’s activities have on
national police training curricula

22.       The outcome of the CEPOL work
regarding Common Curricula has been compared with our National Curricula and
whenever applicable adjustments have been implemented.

Table 1.1          Overview of interviews with
CEPOLS  evaluation conference (Dec 2011 Prague)

159.     NECs   160.

161.     The interviews during the evaluation
conference were all conducted face-to-face, despite Netherlands (written)

162.     Country and name        163.     ROLE

Austria, Sandro FRANK (NEC)          Could you
please briefly describe your role as a National Exchange Coordinator?

Which are your main responsibilities as a
National Exchange Coordinator?

A GB decision is listing all the tasks of NECs
in the MS. The interviewee follows all the tasks indicated.

The interviewee is the only person working on
the Exchange Programme in the Austrian Ministry of Interior.

Are there other people/institutions involved in
the organisation and implementation of the Exchange programme in your country?

No.

Finland, Minna Rantama (representing the NEC)           Could
you please briefly describe your role as a National Exchange Coordinator?

Which are your main responsibilities as a
National Exchange Coordinator?

In Finland the NEC (and NCP) is the head of the
External Relations department of the national police college of Finland. Mrs
Rantama is his assistant and mainly responsible for training coordination.
CEPOL is covering the majority of their responsibilities.

Are there other people/institutions involved in
the organisation and implementation of the Exchange programme in your country?

In Finland there are no other institutions
involved in that process.

Germany, Volker Laib (Deputy NEC)   Could you
please briefly describe your role as a National Exchange Coordinator (in this
case Deputy)?

Mr Laib is working in his position (Police
international cooperation) since 2-3 years.

He himself is responsible for several
international training cooperation including the USA, Afghanistan etc

The NEC however, is mainly concerned with CEPOL.

Are there other people/institutions involved in
the organisation and implementation of the Exchange programme in your country?

No other institutions in Germany are involved in
the organisation. His own unit consists of 3 people.

Besides, your role as a National Exchange
Coordinator, what are your daily responsibilities within your organisation?

Coordinating cooperation regarding bilateral
training schemes, Europol coordination etc

Lithuania, RASA SERAPINIENĖ (NEC)         Could
you please briefly describe your role as a National Exchange Coordinator?

She is a Senior Specialist in the Training
Division of the Human Resources Board at the Police Department under the
Ministry of the Interior. She has been working in this position since 2006.
Since June 15th 2011 she is the National Exchange Coordinator of
Lithuania.

She is responsible for facilitating and
coordinating the sending and hosting of exchangees, and acts as the link for
communication with the CEPOL Secretariat.

Training Division of Human Resources Board at
the Police Department is the CEPOL National Contact Point. All the activities
under the Exchange Programme are developed and planned by the staff of this
Division. The final decisions regarding planning and content of the Programme
at national level are made by the Police Commissioner General, taking into
consideration the proposals of the Training Division.

Are there other people/institutions involved in
the organisation and implementation of the Exchange programme in your country?

Whereas the Training Division is CEPOL’s
National Contact Point, every officer of this Division is partially involved in
the organisation and implementation of the CEPOL activities including the
Exchange Programme. No persons from other units or institutions are involved in
these processes.

Besides, your role as a National Exchange
Coordinator, what are your daily responsibilities within your organisation?

Organisation and implementation of the Programme
is not her main activity. It is just a small part of her responsibilities
(about 10 percent of duties).

            164.     RELEVANCE

Austria, Sandro FRANK (NEC)          n/a

Finland, Minna Rantama (representing the NEC)           n/a

Germany, Volker Laib (Deputy NEC)   What are, in
your view, the main training needs in the law enforcement area in your country?

The major training need in Germany would be
Management and leadership training.

German police officers are supported by
superiors to take part in Cepol’s training activities

In your view, to what extent CEPOL/Exchange
programme addresses such needs? To what extent the Exchange Programme is
appropriate and adequate to the needs of the law enforcement area?

Only certain needs are generally covered by
CEPOL, but if covered then CEPOL has implemented the activities successfully.

To what extent is Exchange programme
complementary to national training policy / curricula?

Cannot say

In your view, which training / knowledge needs
should be addressed in the future?

Do you consider that such training needs would
be best addressed at a national level or by CEPOL?

From his own perspective the major subjects that
need to be addresses in the near future are cybercrime, human trafficking and
financial crimes. In that respect, Cepol is very much up to date and ahead of
time

Lithuania, RASA SERAPINIENĖ (NEC)         What
are, in your view, the main training needs in the law enforcement area in your
country?

Confiscation of assets, corruption prevention,
language courses, cross-border cooperation, managing major events and organized
crime.

In your view, to what extent CEPOL/Exchange
programme addresses such needs? To what extent the Exchange Programme is
appropriate and adequate to the needs of the law enforcement area?

In general the exchange topics proposed by the
Programme meet their needs.

To what extent is Exchange programme
complementary to national training policy / curricula?

Prompt: are there any overlaps? Does the
Exchange programme provide training that cannot be obtained provided anywhere
else at the national level?

There are several topics in the Programme
related to their national training curriculum. Nevertheless, the Programme
provides additional training and possibilities to gain practical experience in
these topics. In some cases there is no possibility to obtain specific
knowledge and skills, while participating in the national training schemes.
Hence, the Programme is a very important part of practical training of law
enforcement officers.

In your view, which training / knowledge needs
should be addressed in the future?

Do you consider that such training needs would
be best addressed at a national level or by CEPOL?

In the future EU policy will extensively
influence law enforcement training needs both at national and EU levels. But
all the needs will not be covered by national training institutions and CEPOL
will play a very important role in ensuring these needs are met.

            165.     EFFICIENCY

Austria, Sandro FRANK (NEC)          Would you
consider that Exchange programme is cost-efficient?

YES

Please comment on the degree of efficiency in
terms of organisation and delivery of the Exchange programme.

Very efficient

Concerning the cooperation between CEPOL and
your organisation, what would you highlight as the main strengths and
weaknesses of such cooperation? What could be improved?

The cooperation between Cepol and the Finnish GB
office is excellent. Cepol replies to all inquiries by FI immediately and
effectively.

Finland, Minna Rantama (representing the NEC)           Would
you consider the Exchange programme is cost-efficient?

From the experience so far she would consider
the Exchange programme as very cost efficient.

Please comment on the degree of efficiency in
terms of organisation and delivery of the Exchange programme.

Finland had only excellent experiences with the
organisation of the Exchange programme.

Concerning the cooperation between CEPOL and
your organisation, what would you highlight as the main strengths and
weaknesses of such cooperation? What could be improved?

The cooperation between Cepol and the Finnish
NEC office is excellent. Cepol replies to all inquiries by them immediately and
effectively.

Germany, Volker Laib (Deputy NEC)   Would you
consider that Exchange programme is cost-efficient?

The cost efficiency of the exchange program can
be improved a lot, in particular the costs of evaluation programmes as well as
the concerns with application deadlines and costs of Hotel accommodation.

Please comment on the degree of efficiency in
terms of organisation and delivery of the Exchange programme.

Biggest criticism of CEPOL in general and the
exchange program in particular: too bureaucratic (also in comparison to bilateral
training exchange programs)

Concerning the cooperation between CEPOL and
your organisation, what would you highlight as the main strengths and
weaknesses of such cooperation? What could be improved?

As mentioned in 9. it is heavily over
bureaucratised but communication works very well between both

Lithuania, RASA SERAPINIENĖ (NEC)         Would
you consider that Exchange programme is cost-efficient?

In general the budget is cost-efficient. It
would be possible to include more activities into the Programme such as study
visits to European institutions and agencies, exchanges with neighbouring
countries and etc.

Please comment on the degree of efficiency in
terms of organisation and delivery of the Exchange programme.

The Programme was organised and delivered
efficiently.

Concerning the cooperation between CEPOL and
your organisation, what would you highlight as the main strengths and
weaknesses of such cooperation? What could be improved?

One of the advantages is that the CEPOL Exchange
Programme Project team booked flights for participants directly and NEC’s did
not need to send additional documents regarding reimbursement of the flight
costs.

One of the disadvantages is the lack of staff in
the Secretariat involved in the Programme organisation, which causes slower
problem solving.

            166.     EFFECTIVENESS

Austria, Sandro FRANK (NEC)          How many
exchange program participants does your Member State have annually? Is the
number of participants increasing or decreasing over time?

See presentation slide

To what extent the appropriate/relevant target
audiences have been reached in your Member State by the Exchange Programme?

Not yet managed to reach all people interested
(in the case of Finland)

Junior staff should also be included in study

Good matching by Cepol

No language problem

What are the main strengths and weaknesses of
the Exchange Programme? What are the main obstacles in the organisation of the
EP?  How can the weaknesses be overcome?  How can the Exchange programme be
improved?

A main problem for the NEC is that he
increasingly needs to make applicants aware about their responsibility as
applicant and participant. May be better rules and agreements needed.

What is, in your view, the added value of the
Exchange programme compared to alternative (EU or national) forms of training
and learning activities for law enforcement authorities?

European Approach to law enforcement training,
necessary cooperation between related institutions, widening the participants
horizon, improving the ability of the police in cross border cooperation, best
practice sharing

Finland, Minna Rantama (representing the NEC)           How
many exchange program participants does your Member State have annually? Is the
number of participants increasing or decreasing over time?

Not exactly sure.

To what extent the appropriate/relevant target
audiences have been reached in your Member State by the Exchange Programme?

They did not yet manage to reach all people that
might be interested in such an exchange programme and further plea for an
inclusion of junior staff in that programme. They are very satisfied with the
matching of participants and have not encountered any language problems.

What are the main strengths and weaknesses of
the Exchange Programme? What are the main obstacles in the organisation of the
EP?  How can the weaknesses be overcome?  How can the Exchange programme be
improved?

The NEC sees an increasing need to make the
applicants and participants aware of their responsivilities and would like to
see an implementation of better rules and agreements regulating the pre and post
participation.

What is, in your view, the added value of the
Exchange programme compared to alternative (EU or national) forms of training
and learning activities for law enforcement authorities?

European Approach to law enforcement training,
necessary cooperation between related institutions, widening the participants
horizon, improving the ability of the police in cross border cooperation, best
practice sharing

Germany, Volker Laib (Deputy NEC)   How many
exchange program participants does your Member State have annually? Is the
number of participants increasing or decreasing over time?

Not sure about the exact amount of participants
but there is certainly an increasing interest among police officers to
participate.

To what extent the appropriate/relevant target
audiences have been reached in your Member State by the Exchange Programme?

The matching works really well from a German
perspective.  Amongst the police departments there is a high acceptance to send
people to Cepol for training purpose but a better long term planning by CEPOL
would be desirable.

What is, in your view, the added value of the
Exchange programme compared to alternative (EU or national) forms of training
and learning activities for law enforcement authorities?

It is much easier to implement such a program
through an agency with a European approach than bilateral cooperation. Such
programs can only be implemented by CEPOL.

Lithuania, RASA SERAPINIENĖ (NEC)         How
many exchange program participants does your Member State have annually? Is the
number of participants increasing or decreasing over time?

12 Lithuanian officers participated in the
Exchange Programme in 2010, 31 officers participated in this Programme in
2011.

To what extent the appropriate/relevant target
audiences have been reached in your Member State by the Exchange Programme?

The decision-makers of every Lithuanian law
enforcement institution assess their needs and decide upon target audience to
participate in the Programme. The NEC collects the data about all nominees and
sends the application forms to the CEPOL Secretariat. CEPOL matches
participants mostly according to the requests of the participants, indicated in
their application forms, except for some special topics, when it is difficult
to find an appropriate partner.

What are the main strengths and weaknesses of
the Exchange Programme? What are the main obstacles in the organisation of the
EP?  How can the weaknesses be overcome?  How can the Exchange programme be
improved?

Strengths: the Programme provides an opportunity
for the participants to create a network of colleagues and get acquainted with
the work methods of other EU countries. The idea to organise study visits to
Europol, OLAF and CEPOL Secretariat provided a possibility to get more insights
about these institutions and their daily work. Continuity of the Programme
ensures steady interest of appropriate target audiences and possibilities for a
larger number of the participants to apply. Moreover, using CEPOL LMS provides
What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the Exchange Programme? What are
the main obstacles in the organisation of the EP?  How can the weaknesses be
overcome?  How can the Exchange programme be improved?

Strengths: the Programme provides an opportunity
for the participants to create a network of colleagues and get acquainted with
the work methods of other EU countries. The idea to organise study visits to
Europol, OLAF and CEPOL Secretariat provided a possibility to get more insights
about these institutions and their daily work. Continuity of the Programme
ensures steady interest of appropriate target audiences and possibilities for a
larger number of the participants to apply. Moreover, using CEPOL LMS provides
opportunities to extend the contacts and share information.

Weaknesses:  The periods (stage I and II) of the
Programme aggravate the organisation of participation at the national level. It
is complicated for Lithuanian officers to be off duty for 1 month (to be a
tutor for 12 days and to visit the other country for another 12 days). The
period of the programme should not be subdivided into two phases.

What is, in your view, the added value of the
Exchange programme compared to alternative (EU or national) forms of training
and learning activities for law enforcement authorities?

Participants have the opportunity to acquire
knowledge and deepen the possessed knowledge in the appropriate topic related
to their daily work. At the same time they establish new contacts and it gives
possibilities to improve cross-border cooperation, crime prevention and
investigation as well language knowledge. Besides, the participants share the
gained knowledge with their colleagues and use it in their daily work.

            167.     UTILITY AND IMPACT

Austria, Sandro FRANK (NEC)          To what
extent is the knowledge gained through the participation of the Exchange
Programme conveyed to staff that has not participated in such activities? To
what extent the activities have a multiplier effect?

The participants have to write extensive reports
about their experience which is that published and circulated inside the
college.

To what extent the Exchange Programme has an
impact on national police training curricula?

None as it is not meant for students but only
senior officers

Finland, Minna Rantama (representing the NEC)           To
what extent is the knowledge gained through the participation of the Exchange
Programme conveyed to staff that has not participated in such activities? To
what extent the activities have a multiplier effect?

The participants have to write extensive reports
about their experience which is then published and circulated inside the
college.

To what extent the Exchange Programme has an
impact on national police training curricula?

None as it is not meant for students but only
senior officers

Germany, Volker Laib (Deputy NEC)   What are, in
your view, the main benefits of the Exchange Programme?

Participants learn new methods or approaches
which they can implement back home. Cultural and social understanding improved.
Better knowledge of how partners operate essential.

To what extent the Exchange programme
contributes to the development of a European Approach to the fight against
crime, crime prevention and the maintenance of law and order and public
security?

What are the impacts of programme regarding the
cooperation between Member States and EU bodies?

Not so much

To what extent is the knowledge gained through
the participation of the Exchange Programme conveyed to staff that has not
participated in such activities? To what extent the activities have a
multiplier effect?

The reports of participants are published in the
Police magazine and circulated. Because they are senior police officers they
have the ability to implement the newly learnt

Lithuania, RASA SERAPINIENĖ (NEC)         What
are, in your view, the main benefits of the Exchange Programme?

Participants have opportunity to acquire
knowledge and deepen the possessed knowledge in the appropriate topic related
to their daily work. At the same time they establish new contacts and it gives
possibilities to improve cross-border cooperation, crime prevention and
investigation as well language knowledge. Besides, the participants share the
gained knowledge with their colleagues and use it in their daily work.

To what extent the Exchange programme
contributes to the development of a European Approach to the fight against
crime, crime prevention and the maintenance of law and order and public security?

What are the impacts of programme regarding the
cooperation between Member States and EU bodies?

Since the Programme is a multilateral exchange
of senior officers, experts and trainers, it helps to promote mutual trust
between training staff and senior officers, provideing a possibility for the
participants to establish a network and to improve cross-border cooperation,
crime prevention and investigation, both at national and international level.
Study visits to Europol, OLAF and CEPOL Secretariat is one of the ways of
strengthening the cooperation between Member States and EU bodies.

To what extent is the knowledge gained through
the participation of the Exchange Programme conveyed to staff that has not
participated in such activities? To what extent the activities have a
multiplier effect?

Lithuanian participants have to report to the
Police Commissioner General about their visits. They also notify the line
manager of the participant, the head of police law enforcement institution. The
respectful units of the Police Department receive copies of the reports, they
are published on police website. In addition, officers share information,
experience of other countries and contacts with their colleagues. Dissemination
plan plays a very important role in the Programme. There must be a continuation
of exchange processes and feedback of visits. The participants are responsible
for the dissemination of information.

To what extent the Exchange Programme has an
impact on national police training curricula?

It is very important that the programme provides
police trainers with the opportunities to familiarize with the training methods
and knowledge delivering modes in other EU countries and to compare the
training systems and methods. Moreover, they can improve the national police
training curriculum in accordance with the gained experience and implement it
in further police training. Participants improve both their personal and
professional skills.

168.     ExPro’s

169.     Country and name        170.     BACKGROUND
INFORMATION

Germany, Thomas Bastian (ExPro)       How did
you find out about the European Police College (CEPOL)?

▪           Through newsletter that were
circulated in the Police College

a)         How did you get involved in CEPOL’s
exchange programme?

▪           Proactively acted upon the newsletter
by applying for the program.

In addition to the exchange programme, have you
ever participated in other learning activities organised by CEPOL?

YES:

23.       He participated in 4 different
training activities organised by CEPOL (with different subjects) since 2007.

Italy, Mario Imparato (ExPro)   How did you find
out about the European Police College (CEPOL)?

▪           CEPOL website;

▪           CEPOL NCP; and

▪           His line manager.

Information on CEPOL is disseminated by the
General Headquarters in Rome to all local police districts.

b)         How did you get involved in CEPOL’s
exchange programme?

It was suggested to him by his line manager, who
received the information on the Programme by the central NCP.

Poland, Luiza Zamorska (ExPro)          How did
you find out about the European Police College (CEPOL)?

Information  provided by policy corps

c)         How did you get involved in CEPOL’s
exchange programme?

It was advertised in the participant’s
organisation

The interviewee participated in an English
course organised by CEPOL in Ireland and might take part in future activities.
However, budgetary constraints need to be taken into account.

The Netherlands, Jan Herm Lenters (ExPro)     How
did you find out about the European Police College (CEPOL)?

         The CEPOL National Contact
Point/ /National  Exchange Coordinator

d)         How did you get involved in CEPOL’s
exchange programme?

▪           Other, please specify

         He got a request from a Swedish
colleague who he met because of a rogatory  letter  he send to the Swedish
authorities. The colleague in Sweden was very interested in his way of working
and in their legislation. He asked CEPOL Sweden if there were possibilities to
go to the Netherlands as a trainee. The Swedish colleague asked him to be the
tutor in this exchange, because they already knew each other.

In addition to the exchange programme, have you
ever participated in other learning activities organised by CEPOL?

Yes, a few years ago he participated in a
learning activity regarding money laundering and asset recovery. It was held in
Templemore Ireleand.

24.

            171.     PARTICIPATION IN THE
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

Germany, Thomas Bastian (ExPro)       e)         In
which of the following exchanging programmes have you participated:

▪           He took part in CEPOL’s newly
self funded exchange program in 2011

f)          In which country did you follow the
exchange programme?

g)         Sweden

h)         He was also once a host for the
exchange program for a participant from Latvia

i)          Please comment on the following
statements with regard to the relevance of the CEPOL exchange programme you
have participated in (strongly agree, agree, cannot say, disagree, strongly
disagree):

▪           The CEPOL exchange programme
was relevant for me in order to improve my performance at work:

         YES he learned new teaching
methods and developed common standards, which he was able to implement back in
Germany and gained new insights for his current research work.

▪           I have gained new knowledge
through the CEPOL exchange programme:

         YES

▪           Learning activities organised
at national level (not developed / delivered through CEPOL), are sufficient in
order for me to improve my performance at work

         No, as he is already familiar
with the national approaches and needed a new and fresh perspective

j)          Please comment on the following
statements with regard to the quality of the CEPOL exchange programme you have
participated in (strongly agree, agree, cannot say, disagree, strongly
disagree):

▪           My exchange was generally well
organised

         Strongly agree

▪           Sufficient material was
provided to me before the exchange in order to prepare myself

         Strongly agree

▪           I was satisfied with the
concept of developing a cascading plan before the exchange

         Strongly agree and good
communication with NEC in Sweden

▪           I was satisfied with the
hosting plan developed

         Strongly agree

▪           I was satisfied with CEPOL’s
match of participants

         Agree

k)         Please comment on the following
statements with regard to the learning element of your exchange period
(strongly agree, agree, cannot say, disagree, strongly disagree):

▪           My work experience abroad made
me learn new things

         YES

▪           The level of difficulty of the
police tasks I performed during my stay abroad was similar to the level of
those that I perform when working in my own country

         YES/NO YES: The actual work
undertaken as well as the people he worked with  NO: Sweden has only Bachelor
curricula for the police but he was a tutor for a Master program

▪           During the exchange, I had the
opportunity to exchange ideas/good practices with colleagues from other
countries

         YES he presented his findings
and experience during a meeting of the German police tutor network

▪           The host plan was a useful
tool to make my stay more effective

▪           The learning gained during an
exchange is complementary to learning activities organised at national level
(not developed / delivered through CEPOL)

         YES

l)          Please comment on the following
statements with regard to the utility of your exchange period with regard to
your job (strongly agree, agree, cannot say, disagree, strongly disagree):

▪           I have improved my
understanding of police practices and training in other European countries

         YES but focused on teaching
only

▪           My participation in the
exchange programme has improved my performance at work

         NO

▪           My participation in the
exchange programme has been beneficial to my career

         NO

m)        Have professional/informal networks
developed as a consequence of your participation in the exchange programme? If
yes, are these networks still ongoing?

n)         YES He established really good
relations with a Swedish Research Institute (VTI) and is about to implement a
shared cooperation between them and the German Police College

o)         Have you been able to share and apply
the knowledge you gained during your exchange with other colleagues/organisations/institutions?

p)         YES through reports and personal
communication

q)         Has the participation in the exchange
programme led you to engage in other nationally/internationally organised
learning activities?

r)          NO

s)         Has the participation in the exchange
programme led you to engage in further networking or cooperation with other
institutions or EU agencies? If yes, is this networking still or cooperation
still ongoing?

t)          NO

u)         What is in your view the added value
of participating in the exchange programme compared to nationally organised
learning activities such as those provided by your own organisation/institution
and/or by training institutes in your Member State?

v)         Mentioned above

w)        Was the factor ‘language’ in any way
an obstacle in successfully participating in the exchange program?

x)         In 2007 language was an issue. This
time in Sweden not anymore.

Italy, Mario Imparato (ExPro)   y)         In
which of the following exchanging programmes have you participated:

▪           He took part in CEPOL’s newly
self funded exchange program in 2011

z)         In which country did you follow the
exchange programme?

aa)       Belgium

bb)       He was also a host for the exchange
program for a participant from Belgium

cc)       Please comment on the following
statements with regard to the relevance of the CEPOL exchange programme you
have participated in (strongly agree, agree, cannot say, disagree, strongly
disagree):

▪           The CEPOL exchange programme
was relevant for me in order to improve my performance at work:

         YES – the exchange programme
allowed him to get a better understanding of the Belgian Police system. Such
information was beneficial for preparing a paper on the reform of the Italian
police. Also, the participant has been able to apply new policing methods in
his daily work.

▪           I have gained new knowledge
through the CEPOL exchange programme:

         YES – new knowledge concerning
policing methods

▪           Learning activities organised
at national level (not developed / delivered through CEPOL), are sufficient in
order for me to improve my performance at work

         Such exchange programme is not
available at national level

dd)       Please comment on the following
statements with regard to the quality of the CEPOL exchange programme you have
participated in (strongly agree, agree, cannot say, disagree, strongly
disagree):

         My exchange was generally well
organised Strongly agree

         Sufficient material was
provided to me before the exchange in order to prepare myself Cannot say

▪           I was satisfied with the
concept of developing a cascading plan before the exchange Agree

         I was satisfied with the
hosting plan developed Strongly agree

▪           I was satisfied with CEPOL’s
match of participants  Agree

ee)       Please comment on the following
statements with regard to the learning element of your exchange period
(strongly agree, agree, cannot say, disagree, strongly disagree):

▪           My work experience abroad made
me learn new things Strongly agree

▪           The level of difficulty of the
police tasks I performed during my stay abroad was similar to the level of
those that I perform when working in my own country Agree

▪           During the exchange, I had the
opportunity to exchange ideas/good practices with colleagues from other
countries Strongly agree

▪           The host plan was a useful
tool to make my stay more effective Strongly agree

▪           The learning gained during an
exchange is complementary to learning activities organised at national level
(not developed / delivered through CEPOL) Strongly agree

ff)         Please comment on the following
statements with regard to the utility of your exchange period with regard to
your job (strongly agree, agree, cannot say, disagree, strongly disagree):

▪           I have improved my
understanding of police practices and training in other European countries
Strongly agree

▪           My participation in the
exchange programme has improved my performance at work agree

▪           My participation in the
exchange programme has been beneficial to my career The participant might be assigned
to a more “international” post in the future

gg)       Have professional/informal networks
developed as a consequence of your participation in the exchange programme? If
yes, are these networks still ongoing?

hh)       The tutor of the exchange programme in
Belgium will become reference point for any future request for police
cooperation. The participant was also able to network and establish good
relations with a broader group of Belgian policemen.

ii)         Have you been able to share and
apply the knowledge you gained during your exchange with other
colleagues/organisations/institutions?

jj)         YES. Upon return, the participant
organised an internal meeting to explain the experience to his colleagues and
to disseminate the knowledge to his direct working environment. The participant
is also planning to organise another debriefing after the evaluation meeting in
Prague.

kk)       Has the participation in the exchange
programme led you to engage in other nationally/internationally organised
learning activities?

ll)         Not yet

mm)     Has the participation in the exchange
programme led you to engage in further networking or cooperation with other
institutions or EU agencies? If yes, is this networking still or cooperation
still ongoing?

nn)       Not yet. The participant might be
assigned to a more “international” post in the future

oo)       What is in your view the added value
of participating in the exchange programme compared to nationally organised
learning activities such as those provided by your own organisation/institution
and/or by training institutes in your Member State?

pp)       The added value of participation in
learning activities involving contacts with foreign colleagues allows the
application of different approaches to same or similar problems. The experience
allows to open the mind to the international perspective. In the end, such
experience contributes to the creation of a common approach to police
cooperation

qq)       Was the factor ‘language’ in any way
an obstacle in successfully participating in the exchange program?

rr)        No, the language was not an obstacle.
According to the interviewee, a fluent knowledge of at least one EU language is
an essential criteria for selection to participate in the exchange programme.

Poland, Luiza Zamorska (ExPro)          ss)        In
which of the following exchanging programmes have you participated:

▪           She took part in CEPOL’s newly
self funded exchange program in 2011

tt)         In which country did you follow the
exchange programme?

uu)       Sweden

vv)       Please comment on the following
statements with regard to the relevance of the CEPOL exchange programme you have
participated in (strongly agree, agree, cannot say, disagree, strongly
disagree):

▪           The CEPOL exchange programme
was relevant for me in order to improve my performance at work:

         YES – the interviewee was sent
to a very similar office in Sweden (Siena contact point - Secure Information
Exchange Network Application). Therefore the experience was very relevant to
her work.

▪           I have gained new knowledge
through the CEPOL exchange programme:

         YES – new knowledge concerning
police structure. Such knowledge was useful as the participant was able to
compare the Swedish system with the Polish system

▪           Learning activities organised
at national level (not developed / delivered through CEPOL), are sufficient in
order for me to improve my performance at work

         Cepol’s exchange programme is
considered as a very useful complementary activity to those organised in Poland

ww)     Please comment on the following
statements with regard to the quality of the CEPOL exchange programme you have
participated in (strongly agree, agree, cannot say, disagree, strongly
disagree):

         My exchange was generally well
organised Strongly agree

         Sufficient material was
provided to me before the exchange in order to prepare myself Agree
(information about the host information and hosting plan were received)

▪           I was satisfied with the concept
of developing a cascading plan before the exchange Agree

         I was satisfied with the
hosting plan developed Strongly agree

▪           I was satisfied with CEPOL’s
match of participants  Agree (same organisation/position)

xx)       Please comment on the following statements
with regard to the learning element of your exchange period (strongly agree,
agree, cannot say, disagree, strongly disagree):

▪           My work experience abroad made
me learn new things Strongly agree

▪           The level of difficulty of the
police tasks I performed during my stay abroad was similar to the level of
those that I perform when working in my own country Agree

▪           During the exchange, I had the
opportunity to exchange ideas/good practices with colleagues from other
countries Strongly agree

▪           The host plan was a useful
tool to make my stay more effective Strongly agree

▪           The learning gained during an
exchange is complementary to learning activities organised at national level
(not developed / delivered through CEPOL) Strongly agree

yy)       Please comment on the following
statements with regard to the utility of your exchange period with regard to
your job (strongly agree, agree, cannot say, disagree, strongly disagree):

▪           I have improved my
understanding of police practices and training in other European countries
Strongly agree

▪           My participation in the
exchange programme has improved my performance at work agree

▪           My participation in the
exchange programme has been beneficial to my career Cannot say

zz)        Have professional/informal networks
developed as a consequence of your participation in the exchange programme? If
yes, are these networks still ongoing?

aaa)      YES. Contacts are still ongoing on a
daily basis.

bbb)     Have you been able to share and apply
the knowledge you gained during your exchange with other colleagues/organisations/institutions?

ccc)      Yes, the participant was able to
cascade the knowledge gained to the 20 colleagues working in her unit.

ddd)     Has the participation in the exchange
programme led you to engage in other nationally/internationally organised
learning activities?

eee)      Not yet

fff)        Has the participation in the
exchange programme led you to engage in further networking or cooperation with
other institutions or EU agencies? If yes, is this networking still or
cooperation still ongoing?

ggg)      Yes, regular contacts have been now
established between the Siena offices in Sweden and Poland

hhh)      What is in your view the added value
of participating in the exchange programme compared to nationally organised
learning activities such as those provided by your own organisation/institution
and/or by training institutes in your Member State?

iii)         The added value of participation in
the exchange programme are as follows:

jjj)        New technical knowledge

kkk)     Enhanced knowledge of English

lll)         Possibility to compare police
systems and be able to contribute to debates about national reform of the
police sector

mmm)   Was the factor ‘language’ in any way an
obstacle in successfully participating in the exchange program?

nnn)      The programme provided an opportunity
to improve the language skills

The Netherlands, Jan Herm Lenters (ExPro)     ooo)     In
which of the following exchanging programmes have you participated:

▪           Other; Cepol Expro  2011

ppp)     In which country did you follow the
exchange programme? Sweden

qqq)     Please comment on the following
statements with regard to the relevance of the CEPOL exchange programme you
have participated in (strongly agree, agree, cannot say, disagree, strongly
disagree):

▪           The CEPOL exchange programme
was relevant for me in order to improve my performance at work. Cannot say

▪           I have gained new knowledge
through the CEPOL exchange programme. agree

▪           Learning activities organised
at national level (not developed / delivered through CEPOL), are sufficient in
order for me to improve my performance at work . Not agree.

rrr)       Please comment on the following
statements with regard to the quality of the CEPOL exchange programme you have
participated in (strongly agree, agree, cannot say, disagree, strongly
disagree):

▪           My exchange was generally well
organised. Agree

▪           Sufficient material was
provided to me before the exchange in order to prepare myself. Agree.

▪           I was satisfied with the
concept of developing a cascading plan before the exchange. Agree.

▪           I was satisfied with the
hosting plan developed. Agree.

▪           I was satisfied with CEPOL’s
match of participants. Strongly Agree.

sss)      Please comment on the following
statements with regard to the learning element of your exchange period
(strongly agree, agree, cannot say, disagree, strongly disagree):

▪           My work experience abroad made
me learn new things. Strongly Agree.

▪           The level of difficulty of the
police tasks I performed during my stay abroad was similar to the level of
those that I perform when working in my own country. . Agree.

▪           During the exchange, I had the
opportunity to exchange ideas/good practices with colleagues from other
countries. . Agree.

▪           The host plan was a useful
tool to make my stay more effective. . Agree.

         The learning gained during an
exchange is complementary to learning activities organised at national level
(not developed / delivered through CEPOL). . Agree.

ttt)        Please comment on the following
statements with regard to the utility of your exchange period with regard to
your job (strongly agree, agree, cannot say, disagree, strongly disagree):

▪           I have improved my
understanding of police practices and training in other European countries.
Strongly Agree.



▪           My participation in the
exchange programme has improved my performance at work. Agree.

▪           My participation in the
exchange programme has been beneficial to my career. . Agree

uuu)      Have professional/informal networks
developed as a consequence of your participation in the exchange programme? If
yes, are these networks still ongoing?

vvv)      Yes, in his opinion it is very
important to have a good network. This network is still on going. He is in
contact with his colleagues abroad on a regular base.

www)   Have you been able to share and apply the
knowledge you gained during your exchange with other
colleagues/organisations/institutions?

xxx)      Yes, he gave a presentation at EBM in
Malmo (Sweden) to investigators and prosecutors. (1 ½ hour) Next month he will
give a presentation to his colleagues at Twente CID about his experiences
abroad.

yyy)      Has the participation in the exchange
programme led you to engage in other nationally/internationally organised
learning activities?

zzz)      Not yet, but he is interested.

aaaa)    Has the participation in the exchange
programme led you to engage in further networking or cooperation with other
institutions or EU agencies? If yes, is this networking still or cooperation
still ongoing?

bbbb)   In the past he was in contact with OLAF
in Brussels. They helped him with gaining information in a case.

cccc)    What is in your view the added value of
participating in the exchange programme compared to nationally organised
learning activities such as those provided by your own organisation/institution
and/or by training institutes in your Member State?

dddd)   You get a wider view, you experience
what you already do well and were you can improve and of course it’s a personal
enrichment.

eeee)    Was the factor ‘language’ in any way an
obstacle in successfully participating in the exchange program?

ffff)       No, it was not a problem from both
side

Table 1.2          Overview of interviews with External
Experts

172.     Name   173.     PRELIMINARY REMARK

174.     The interviews with external experts
were all conducted by telephone.

Peter Ijzerman  There are some obstacles to the
effective development of CEPOL:

-           There is no EU law enforcement

-           The national law enforcement
training systems are still very rooted in the MS and independent from the EU
level

Therefore, there are no conditions for the
establishment of a real EU police academy (a purely EU body not a network)

Piet van Reenen            There is a
proliferation of European instruments on police cooperation. The whole process
of EU policy making is distant/detached from the reality and police practices
in the Member States. The EU policy making is too political/bureaucratic.

There is a need to bring such instruments closer
to the police word. EU police training can be a good step towards this
approach.

CEPOL can be a key actor in this process.
However, CEPOL is struggling with some shortcomings. Some of them related to
its status of an EU Agency. EU Agencies are not goal-oriented. They have to
deal with EU regulations and their complexities and this reduces the extent to
which they can be operational and focus on outputs and outcomes.

Willy Bruggeman          CEPOL is not enough
future-oriented as it does not take into account the newest EU policy
developments such as for example the 2012 Council Framework decision on
cooperation between law enforcement authorities, the project “Harmony”
establishing an intelligence model for the whole EU. CEPOL could play a role in
this project as it could be responsible for the training of analysts around the
EU.

CEPOL is too much focussing on the past. There
is a need for this Agency to be more proactive.

Moreover, there are not enough synergies between
the JHA Agencies. The cooperation between CEPOL and Europol or Frontex should
be more intense. This would lead to a better coordination of training
activities in the laws-enforcement area.

The governing members of such Agencies should
cooperate more also at MS level. In some countries, there is no communication
between the decentralised contact points of such bodies.

The relationship between CEPOL and COSI is
under-developed. CEPOL is not actively involved in decision-making within the
Council Working Group.

CEPOL should become a “centre of excellence”,
taking on an advisory role in the development of EU policies on law enforcement
training. CEPOL should be an active actor in EU policy-making.

            175.     RELEVANCE

Peter Ijzerman  In order to identify the most
relevant training/knowledge needs, there is a need to have with stakeholders at
EU level (Commission, Council, main JHA Agencies, etc.). Very important are
also meetings with key stakeholders at national level such as for example 
chiefs of police in the MS. The latter are the persons responsible for the
identification of training needs at national level.

Training needs should be directly identified by
CEPOL with the support of EU working groups.

Concerning the objectives and tasks of CEPOL as
set out in the 2005 Decision, there is a need to enlarge the scope of CEPOL’s
activities to other target groups, namely to cover all police forces working in
international cooperation. However, the objectives are perceived to be still
relevant.

There is a need to refer/ to the harmonisation
of police training across the EU. At the moment there are too many differences.
CEPOL could certainly contribute to the harmonisation of the approach to law
enforcement training and this should be recognised in the legal basis.

To improve relevance, CEPOL should not focus on
too many activities. Moreover, training should focus on no more than five or
six “strategic topics”.

Piet van Reenen            Currently, it is not
clear what the Council wants from CEPOL and what is the future vision of CEPOL.

At the moment, CEPOL cannot be “operationalised”
adequately as there as some structural obstacles (the fact that CEPOL is an EU
Agency) and some obstacles created by the detachment of EU policies from the
police reality in the Member States.

This creates some obstacles related to the
relevance of CEPOL to Member States training and knowledge needs.

Senior police officers in the Member States
should define the training and knowledge needs. This could be also done through
peer reviews (as presently done in other thematic areas). A bottom-up approach
should be established, otherwise there is a risk of failure.

There is also a lack of trust from national
stakeholders. In the Member States, Police Academies are deeply rooted in the
police system and police officers “trust” such institutions. CEPOL is not
rooted in the national reality. The bottom-up approach in the identification of
needs can partially solve this problem.

In order to improve the relevance of the Agency,
there is a need to think about longer term activities. An idea, which is
already in place, is to develop a Master Course in European policing. Such
master course of the duration of two years, would be implemented by three
European Universities with the support of CEPOL.

Concerning the objectives and tasks of CEPOL as
set out in the Council Decision, the interviewee indicated that these are too
broad and too superficial. There is a need to have more operational objectives.

Also, there is a need to move away from the
short-term perspective/approach. This should be somehow reflected in the
Decision.

As far as the target group is concerned, there
is a problem with including “senior police officers” within the coverage of
CEPOL’s activities. There are many differences in the Member States concerning
who can be included in such a category. There is a need to further define
“senior police officers” by providing some criteria/standards.

There is also a need to broaden the scope of the
activities to other types of police officers, for example to middle level
police officers (provided that criteria/standards to define those are provided
too).

The interviewee also agreed on the fact that
there are significant differences as to the reach of CEPOL in the Member
States. The level of participation of Member States in CEPOL’s activities depends
on different factors such as: specific training needs (CEPOL is more relevant
in certain countries compared to others) and the budget of Member States
dedicated to law enforcement training (some MS have more resources to send
participants to training courses or other activities).

The interviewee indicated that, currently, CEPOL
focuses on too many thematic areas and types of activities. There is a need to
ensure consistency and coherence of themes covered and activities developed.

Willy Bruggeman          It is important that
CEPOL does not “reinvent” what has been discussed in other fora. The knowledge
about training need is already there. There a need for CEPOL to make an
inventory and take stock of what is discussed at EU level. There is no need to
send a questionnaire to the Member States to gather new information about
training/knowledge needs. The priorities of CEPOL should be organised based on
the OCTA reports.

There is a need to update the objectives as set
out in the Council Decision. The role needs to be further clarified (after
careful reflection on the future of CEPOL). Moreover, the target group of
CEPOL’s activities should be extended for example middle class police officers
and operational police officers should be included.

The different reach of CEPOL in the MS depends
to a great extent on the organisation of police forces within the countries. In
some MS, there are several different police forces in place and therefore the
reach of CEPOL is very limited as some of the police forces are excluded from
the activities organised. That’s why it is important to extend the scope of
CEPOL’s activities. In Belgium, for example, only the federal police has been involved
in CEPOL’s activities.

According to the interviewee, there are too many
activities organised by CEPOL and their reach is still limited. There is also a
need to improve synergies and coherence between all activities organised.

In order to increase the relevance of the
Agency, there is a need to make an inventory of all police functions in the MS
and design a list of themes to be covered for each of these functions. All
police forces should be covered by the activities of CEPOL.

Possibly, such activities should be also
extended to participants from third countries.

            176.     EFFICIENCY

Peter Ijzerman  25.       It is very hard to
answer about the efficiency of CEPOL.

26.       There are differences in the costs of
delivery of training in the MS. Moreover, there are big differences concerning
the quality of training provided. Common standards need to be developed
concerning not only the quality of courses organised in the MS but also linked
to the costs of organising such training.

27.       Under-spending has been a problem in
the past as the training is not demand-driven. Many of the training courses
planned in the MS were not achieved.

28.       Some problems concerning the
efficiency were also triggered by the governance structure of CEPOL (i.e. too
many components and too many GB representatives).

29.       The staff within CEPOL should have
more competences and powers. The Director should have more powers concerning
the administrative processes and the content of the activities delivered by
CEPOL.

The Secretariat should play an important role in
the preparation of the topics/proposals to be discussed and voted by the GB.

Piet van Reenen            30.       As stated
above, CEPOL focuses on too many thematic areas and types of activities. This
limits the efficiency of the Agency. There are some activities that should be
eliminated, for example research.

31.       Another factor limiting the efficiency
of CEPOL is/was its structure: too many components (committees, working
groups). A reform is however going on to improve this.

32.       There is still no adequate staffing
within the Secretariat. However, a strengthening of the Secretariat can be only
performed if there is a clarification of/reflection upon the future role of
CEPOL.

The powers of the Director should be
strengthened. At the moment the role of the Director is limited (as there is
mistrust from the Member States) and this leads to efficiency problems.

Willy Bruggeman          33.       The
efficiency of CEPOL’s activities depends on the country organising the
activity. Under the Belgian presidency, some activities were co-funded by the
government while in other MS co-funding is not possible and therefore training
activities rely exclusively of CEPOL’s funding.

The GB members should be the same national
representatives of other EU Agencies. This would strongly contribute to the
strengthening of synergies between the JHA Agencies.

            177.     EFFECTIVENESS

Peter Ijzerman  CEPOL’s activities do not reach
a broader audience. Also, the cascading of knowledge from direct participants
is very limited.

The exchange programme is not considered to be
very successful by the interviewee. There are some language problems
constituting an obstacle to the effective implementation of such activity.

Overall, the added value of CEPOL consists in:

▪           More effective cooperation on
a personal level

▪           Increased technical knowledge

CEPOL can be considered as a first step towards
a common police culture

Piet van Reenen            34.       The reach
of the target audience in the Member States is partial. This is due to the fact
that, currently, CEPOL is not appealing/attractive for police officers.

35.       Also, the quality of courses organised
in the Member States can vary to a great extent. Some Member States have highly
developed Academies, other not. Moreover, the effectiveness of the courses is
limited by the fact that the courses are too short term (it is not possible to
learn about EU instruments in police cooperation in only 5 days).

On the other hand, the exchange programme is
considered to be an extremely effective activity.

The effectiveness of CEPOL could be increased by
improving its relevance and rationalising the themes covered and activities
developed.

The added valued of CEPOL relies in the exchange
of experiences/ the fact that personal contacts are created rather than in the
quality of the courses and seminars.

Willy Bruggeman          See comments on reach
of CEPOL above.

The added value of CEPOL is providing an EU
dimension to police training. However, in order to enhance such added value,
more synergies between JHA Agencies should be created as also explained above.

            178.     UTILITY AND IMPACT

Peter Ijzerman  The evaluation of CEPOL’s
activities should not be exclusively based on individual feedback. There is a
need to assess how the knowledge gained has been put into practice. In some MS,
proficiency tests have been developed (see information sent by the
interviewee). CEPOL could follow that model.

Piet van Reenen            Currently there is
too much focus/pressure for evaluating results. This is due to the fact that
CEPOL is an EU Agency and has to comply with EU requirements and regulations.
However, the focus should be on the quality more than on users’ satisfaction.

According to the interviewee, the contribution
of CEPOL to the development of an EU approach to the fight against crime is at
the moment limited.

Moreover, the impact on national curricula is
almost nil in many Member States. However, the contribution on common curricula
might be higher in newer Member States, where there is a need to align the
national standards to the EU standards. That’s where common curricula might
have a greater impact.

Willy Bruggeman          There is a need for
better evaluation of CEPOL’s results.

CEPOL should also have an evaluative function –
the Agency should be responsible for evaluating what is being done by the
Member States in the area of police training

The training of police officers contributes to
the strengthening of mutual recognition in police cooperation. However, there
are some improvements to be made to CEPOL in order to achieve this result to a
major extent.

Finally, according to the interviewee, CEPOL has
not been able to influence/impact on national police training curricula.

Table 1.3          Overview of interviews with
CEPOLS  Secretariat

179.     Country and name        180.     RELEVANCE

181.     The interviews with CEPOL’s Secretariat
were conducted face-to-face in Brumshill, UK

Director, Mr Banfi

1.         2.                     In order to
assess training needs across the EU, CEPOL takes part in inter agency
cooperation and the formulation of action plans. It consults Member States and
other stakeholders regarding their training needs and established annual
meetings that prepare a 2 years strategy for training activities. In addition,
CEPOL also cooperates with COSI and several other Working Groups and is taking
part in meetings of the EU troika and bilateral consultations.

A scorecard system was implemented with
performance indicators (4 key indicators/ in total 28).

CEPOL is missing a mandate to do a strategic
training need assessment at EU level. CEPOL could become a coordinator for
several sectors.

EU has 8 priorities for this year: THB,
cybercrime, illegal migration, etc. and with accordance to the priorities the
Agencies are responsible to develop an action plan. CEPOL was invited to
elaborate the plan. Training is considered as key element of the strategy.

3.                              According
to Banfi the Council Decision inadequately addresses the objectives and tasks
that would be relevant to successfully govern CEPOL and to challenge current
and future law enforcement training needs. Several components, especially
CEPOL’s exact role, its status as a Secretariat and numerous definitions are
not at all described or in fact misleading. It should refer to CEPOL not as a
Secretariat or Network but an Agency/College instead.

         In practice, the role of
CEPOL’s director might be similar to other Agencies; however, it is legally
different. Particularly inefficient is the GB’s right to make decisions on
micro level, including specific budgetary posts which should be done by the
Director of CEPOL instead.

         The Council decision is also
misleading in its definition of the target group. In some articles it refers to
senior police officers in others to middle officers. In addition, the term
senior police officer is never properly defined and it was suggested by Banfi
that the definition should be rather linked to the officers’ function (and
cross border activity) instead of rank.

         There is a limitation for the
Director to deal with other matters of the organisation such as HR due to legal
bases.

         It would also increase CEPOL’s
effectiveness and quality, if the Decision would allow for a Research Mandate.
Until now CEPOL has to rely on external scientific expertise which is
expensive, inefficient and often lacking a European dimension and, therewith,
useless for CEPOL’s training activities.

         Regarding the strategic need
assessment – CEPOL can identify the needs from an EU perspective and identify
respective gaps.

         CEPOL should be able to provide
training for different kinds of law enforcement forces and not only police
officers.

         JITS is not offered as it
should be and CEPOL should improve training on JITS to members, including
e-learning modules.

         A need to further integrate
CEPOL with other EU stakeholders and events, such as COSI, other working group
parties, CATS, Council of ministers, ministerial conferences, cooperation with
incoming presidencies etc. The relevance of CEPOL being integrated in the law
enforcement area is increasing.

         To sum up, there is a need to
update the Decision to achieve coherence in purpose, objectives and tasks, to
provide CEPOL with the rights and mandates it needs to effectively provide training
activities, and to change its status from Secretary/Network to Agency/College.

4.                              Streamline
governance and rationalise structures

-           Organisational processes have
improved to make CEPOL more responsive

-           All 12 committees will be closed at
the end of 2011

-           Reforming Working Groups towards a
temporary mandate (June 2012, current WG will be closed)

-           8 thematic areas reduced from 16 and
a policy cycle with 8 priorities (In 2011, 25 training activities were
organised and in 2012 only 20 training activities planned)

-           Directors role:

-           The Director gives monthly activity
reports (according to the balance scorecards and with the aim to improve
organisational transparency)

-           The team Mr Banfi reports to is
composed of UK/NL/COM and additionally to the Council

-           Legislative change is needed so
individual reports of other members of the Secretariat according to their responsibilities
can be exchanged

         Strengthen the CEPOL
Secretariat

-           The Secretariat is originally
understaffed:  2010 out of 26 permanent Staff only 14 remained

-           There is a general need to have more
senior staff

-           The Secretariat would like to have
senior/head positions for finance and project management in 2012 and offer
instead  to pay for such positions with the use of the current budget

-           At the moment CEPOL has a lot of
seconded staff working for them especially as legal advisers but in the long
term the goal should be to get more contractual staff.

         Merge capacity building for law
enforcement

-           There is a need for more
coordination on EU level regarding law enforcement training.

-           CEPOL now plans capacity building
measures and training programmes 4 years ahead.

         Measure results and impacts

-           The EU has 1.9 million law
enforcement officers; hence, it is very difficult to assess the broader impact
with only 2.300 participants.

-           Immediate feedback is provided after
the course and post course evaluation is provided by participants and line
managers 6 months after.

-           For exchange programme participants
questionnaires are provided

-           First evaluation meeting for the
exchange program in December and its planned to institutionalise it on an
annual bases

Deputy Director, Mr Schroeder

1 – 2

            Cepol has several bottom-up
measures, how  to identify new training  and knowledge needs on EU and MS
level:

Member State level:

-           In cooperation with the Commission,
Cepol is undergoing an extensive mapping of the need and existence of training
in the EU

-           Member States are regularly
consulted to express their needs for training and to propose topics for
seminars and courses

-           Participants of Cepol activities
have to fill out a questionnaire directly after the activity took place and
again 6 months later to assess in how far the training was helpful for daily
operations.

EU level:

-           Cepol also takes into account
Council decisions, which are mediated during the active participation of Cepol
in law enforcement working groups

-           A frequent cooperation is also in
place with Europol, Eurojust and other agencies to identify training needs

-           Once a year there is a systematic
stakeholder review including amongst others Member States, NGOs, EU Agencies,
International Organisatations, APC etc (also in written form)

The involvement of the Directors is a rather
unified action. Considering the size of Cepol they usually sit together and
make decisions. The role of the Director is more strategic in nature (COSI
etc), whereas the Deputy is responsible for the operational site.

Regarding the Secretariat there seems to be a
problem of definition, on the one hand Member States see the entire agency as a
secretariat just serving the police network and on the other hand there is the
secretariat of the Agency with its administrative tasks.

3                   In “general” Mr
Schroeder believed that the objectives and tasks set out in the Cepol decision
are relevant to address law enforcement training and knowledge needs.

         However, what has to be changed
is Cepol’s target group. So far, Cepol is solely focusing on senior police
officers, but it is a matter of fact that in an increasingly integrated and
globalised Europe even middle and standard officers have to deal with
international aspects whether during sport events or cybercrime.

         Hence, in future, Cepol’s
objectives have to focus on a wider target group.

4                   Most of the
recommendations were implemented and according to Mr Schroeder they have
improved the agency’s effectiveness and therewith relevance. Under the old
management the internal procedures were highly ineffective and slow, due to the
following reason. Any decision had to go from working groups to the committees
and then to the Governing Board, which could have taken up to 1 ½ years. At the
end of 2011 all committees will be dismantled entirely.

         Another improvement that is due
to be implemented until June 2012 is the temporary establishment of working
groups, which will be set up only when certain business needs or projects
arise, therewith decreasing deficiencies and increasing effectiveness.

         Nevertheless, the major
obstacles of implementing certain recommendations are based with legal
problems, because some items cannot be reformed under the current legal base of
Cepol.

            182.     EFFICIENCY

Director, Mr Banfi

7.         -           The role of the
Secretariat (e.g. lack of staff with key competencies, etc)

From a current point of view the balance
according to law enforcement staff in CEPOL is right, but there is still a
strong need for more senior staff.

-           Financial resources available to
CEPOL

There is an opportunity for private investment
for specific activities but so far there are no legal opportunities for CEPOL
for developing private – public partnerships.

-           Other issues

CEPOL cannot cooperate with other non training
institutions such as OSCE, UNODC or NGOs, which would improve CEPOL’s
activities.

Deputy Director, Mr Schroeder

                     5 Past: The old management
made clear mistakes regarding reporting and budgeting and the misuse of money.
Not all planned activities were implemented and not the entire budget used (30%
annually).

Present: The system has improved after the
implementation of a system of grant procedures to ensure spending stability. As
a supportive measure a budget monitoring system was introduced.

Important to note that 80-90% of all activities
are operationalised within the Member States and with that the Member States
have complete responsibility for implementation. (Problem in the past: due to
minimising risks they always asked for more money than needed).

Another measure to increase budget accuracy is
the use of set historical figures, meaning that Cepol tries not to spend more
money on an activity than in the previous year.

Regarding the exchange program, the Commission
decided not to give any money for this program. This year Cepol still went
ahead and financed the program by itself (without reimbursement from the Member
States).

The Member States propose a list of participants
and topics for the program and Cepol reviews the CVs of those listed. They
compare them with the participant from the possible partner country to find the
right match (a systematic procedure).

Regarding the e-learning program, Cepol develops
all programs by itself, which are web-based seminars. So far this is done very
successfully and MS are consulted to find out training needs.

The common curricula of Cepol is developed by
expert teams from the Member States, written down by another expert and
implemented by Cepol. The expert system now also functions through a grant
procedure system.

6          There seem to be no obstacles for
Cepol to achieve the milestones set out in the Multi-Annual Plan 2010-2014.

7          -           The role of the Executive
Director has to be clarified.

-           No micro decision should be taken
within the GB (However, the GB has already improved as from next year on it
will only meet twice a year instead of four times) (General note to cost
efficiency: GB held in English – no translation costs)

-           Need for more staff in the
Secretariat and a different set up: A need for more in-house law enforcement
expertise (officers with different profiles)

-           No career path development offered
at Cepol, due to low grade staffing. If a qualified young professional starts
working at Cepol he/she will likely leave after 2 years to work somewhere else
for a much better salary. Cepol has to keep them for a matter of
sustainability. (One step forward: Commission agreed to extend contracts for
permanent and temporary staff to 9 years instead of 2)

-           So far seconded Member State
nationals are organising the exchange program, which is difficult for planning
and unsustainable in the future, hence, a need for staff in this area.

8          On average 3 weeks and for budgets 1
– 1 ½ years

One example this autumn Cepol reacted to a
training need asked for by the Council within 2 months.

All training needs that were requested by the
Council in the first half of 2011 were implemented by Cepol during the second
half.

10        As a general example for one training
activity:

Participants 25-28/ Total costs: 21.000 – 23.000
Euros / Time frame 1 week

According to Mr Schroeder this is more cost
effective than any offer from the private market.

-           Most experts do not take money

-           Admin costs are usually paid for by
the Member States

-           Using police facilities is usually
really cheap

The activities are implemented on lower budget
compared to the private sector. Using the existing facilities of Police
academies in the member States reduces the cost extensively.

There is however a need for a research mandate.

            183.     EFFECTIVENESS

Director, Mr Banfi

12.       Success factors / obstacles for
implementation:

-           Training

No process description for activities only a
handbook

-           Exchange programme

Very successful

-           Research

Mandate needed

              16.     -           Offering
training cooperation across Europe

-           Providing best practice sharing to
improve efficiency/effectiveness

-           Harmonisation of standards and
practices

-           The promotion of EU instruments and
policy agendas

-           Preparation of officers to take part
in EU missions

-           Confidence building

-           Network building

Future perspective:

-           There is a need for an organisation
that plans long-term

-           Quality: EU must have a competent
law enforcement training that is globally competitive / same level as FBI
training

-           Need for change of attitude and need
of a new police elite

-           Need to understand policies and
putting it into practice

-           Current law enforcement training
fits the operational needs, but for the long term CEPOL can ensure capacities
for the law enforcement in 15 years.

-           Need to have a database of trainers
on EU level

Deputy Director, Mr Schroeder

12        Obstacles:

-           Training activities mainly
implemented by Member States but if they have more important things to organise
than Cepol has to take over the activity without having the appropriate
facilities. In 2011 Cepol had to take 17 activities on board.

-           The approval procedure for
participants is in some Member States counterproductive as it has to go through
the office of the Finance Minister.

-           Often Member States have no money,
therefore Cepol now offer 15 free flights per MS per year.

-           The need of a research mandate and a
better last minute back up plan for cancelled activities

Mr Schroeder acknowledged the strong commitment
of Member State NCP’s, however, noted the importance of backup plans.

13        The main strength is that Cepol brings
together all the expertise from all Police Colleges in Europe, therefore
strengthening cooperation, best practice exchange and an integrated police
system for the long-term.

16        -           Need of a European
dimension

-           Development of a European
enforcement culture

-           Exploring the meaning of policing in
a democratic society (long-term)

-           Many partners in Europe would not
have the financial ability to train their staff themselves.

-           Considering that many police
officers work across European borders it makes only sense to also train them
together on how to operationalise such missions.

            184.     UTILITY AND IMPACT

Deputy Director, Mr Schroeder

17        -           Evaluation scheme to ask
tutors and participants during and 6ms after an activity took place about their
feedback.

-           After 6ms a questionnaire is send to
the respective line manager to ask for his assessment of the participants
performance increase related to the training

-           A collection of success story is
accumulated

-           However, it is difficult to measure
the impact of personal cooperation etc

21        -           There are on a permanent
basis meetings with other agencies and scorecards for cooperation exist.

-           Cooperation with Europol exist often
related to the content of training activities, including shared
responsibilities

-           With Europol they work on the
content side of things using  Europol’s experts

-           EUROJUST training on JITS and OLAF
visit

            185.     EXTRA COMMENTS

Director, Mr Banfi        Europol:

-           Europol deals with very sensitive
data/information and is outside of democratic control

-           Within Member States
data/intelligence institutions are also not merged with training institutes

-           Mr Banfi agreed that CEPOL is too
expensive but noted that reallocation is anything than cost effective either,
also considering the EU’s aim of zero growth for Agencies.

-           Europol has no established training
system and no education background

-           CEPOL mandate much broader than
Europol

Grant system:

-           Decisions are taken annually by the
grant committee which is constituted of Member State representatives with the
director as observer. The secretariat is wants to have the Commission as well
as independent experts as additional observers.

-           The Grant agreements are introduced
with Police Colleges and external experts for the development of activities

Evolution of CEPOL:

-           Started as a decentralised network

-           Then decided to establish a
secretariat + admin director

-           When CEPOL transformed to an Agency
its nature wasn’t clarified, ignoring the change in legal environment

-           CEPOL has achieved certain
fundamental changes over the last 2 years but still faces some reluctance

The Harmony project:

-           To elaborate on the security threats
and identify priorities to counter act them.

-           Council approved a new Policy cycle
based on threat assessment

Action Plan:

-           Scorecard with other Agencies

-           Need to invest in the codification/
description of processes and procedures

His recommendations (short term / long term);
Need to:

-           Change the Council Decision

-           Streamline governance and network
structure: short term, reduce number of committees and working groups – only if
needed

-           New legal framework, EC having
voting mandates and associated countries should have observer status –
according to Mr Banfi the GB members are in favour

[1]               Unlike agencies responsible for decision-making,
information collection, etc, CEPOL provides services such as learning
activities for national beneficiaries: see Commission's classification in its
2008 Communication.

[2]              MEDA is a EU programme of cooperation between the EU
and MEDA countries (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Syria and Tunisia).

[3] 2010 European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics

[4] UK statistics

[Top](#document1)