1. INTRODUCTION

1. Le programme de La Haye (2004)[1] note que «de l'avis du Conseil européen, l'évaluation de la mise en œuvre et des effets de chaque mesure est indispensable pour que l'action de l'Union soit efficace.» Le plan d’action mettant en œuvre ce programme (2005)[2], qui constitue le cadre de référence pour le travail de l’UE en matière de justice, de liberté et de sécurité pour les cinq années à venir, prévoit l'adoption, en 2006, d'une communication de la Commission sur la mise en place d'un mécanisme d'évaluation au niveau de l'UE dans ce domaine[3].

2. Pour les chefs d’État ou de gouvernement, l'évaluation de la mise en œuvre des politiques est un outil essentiel. Il permet de s'assurer que les avancées significatives de l'Union et ses États membres dans la création d'un espace de Liberté, de Sécurité et de Justice sont effectivement mises en œuvre et régulièrement examinées afin de répondre aux attentes des citoyens européens .

3. En soulignant l’importance de l'évaluation, le programme de La Haye visait (1) à améliorer encore la conception des politiques, des programmes et des instruments en identifiant les problèmes et les obstacles rencontrés lors de leur mise en œuvre, (2) à renforcer la transparence et le contrôle des politiques et de l'utilisation du budget européen, (3) à favoriser l'information et les échanges de bonnes pratiques et (4) à contribuer à l' avènement d'une culture de l'évaluation dans toute l’Union.

Eu égard (1) au mandat donné à la Commission par le programme de La Haye et son plan d’action, (2) à la fragmentation des mécanismes existants de suivi et d'évaluation et (3) à la nécessité de bien informer toutes les parties prenantes sur la mise en œuvre et les résultats des politiques, la Commission estime que le moment est venu de travailler à la mise en place d'un mécanisme complet et cohérent d'évaluation des politiques de l'Union en matière de liberté, de sécurité et de justice, dans un esprit de partenariat avec les États membres et les institutions de l'UE.

Un tel mécanisme englobera le suivi de la mise en œuvre (comme détaillé dans la communication «Renforcer la liberté, la sécurité et la justice dans l'Union européenne: rapport sur la mise en œuvre du programme de La Haye pour l’année 2005», ci-après, le «tableau de bord Plus»)[4] et l'évaluation des résultats des politiques.

2. LE CONCEPT D’ÉVALUATION

4. Il convient de distinguer l’évaluation du suivi de la mise en œuvre:

- le suivi de la mise en œuvre consiste à examiner les progrès accomplis dans l’exécution des politiques;

- la communication relative à l’évaluation, présentée par la Commission en 2000[5], définit l’ évaluation comme une « appréciation des interventions (actions publiques) en fonction de leurs résultats, de leur impact et des besoins qu’elles visent à satisfaire. » L’évaluation a pour rôle principal de fournir aux responsables des informations concernant l'incidence et l'efficacité des activités qui ont été prévues et réalisées.

5. La Commission voit dans le mécanisme mentionné dans le plan d’action un moyen d'assurer le suivi de la mise en œuvre et d'évaluer les résultats concrets des politiques menées en matière de liberté, de sécurité et de justice. En l’occurrence, l'évaluation s’appuie sur le suivi, mais va au-delà en examinant les effets de la mise en œuvre, comme indiqué plus bas. Ceci est conforme au programme de La Haye, étant donné que le concept d’« évaluation de la mise en œuvre ainsi que des effets de toutes les mesures » recouvre tant la mise en œuvre elle-même que l’évaluation des résultats des mesures adoptées.

6. Telles sont les raisons pour lesquelles la Commission propose un dispositif cohérent et complet en deux volets: le «tableau de bord Plus» pour le suivi de la mise en œuvre et le mécanisme d’évaluation proposé dans la présente communication.

7. Le mécanisme décrit ici repose sur cette définition extensive qui, de l'avis de la Commission, devrait permettre d'appréhender pleinement les résultats quantitatifs et qualitatifs obtenus en matière de liberté, de sécurité et de justice. Un tel mécanisme fonctionnerait dans le cadre des principes énoncés dans le programme de La Haye. En fin de compte, la formulation des politiques devrait s'en trouver améliorée grâce à la prise en compte accrue des résultats des évaluations dans le processus de prise de décision.

Encadré 1: Évaluation à tous les stades

3. ÉVALUER LES POLITIQUES DE L’UE EN MATIÈRE DE LIBERTÉ, DE SÉCURITÉ ET DE JUSTICE – DIFFICULTÉS À CONSIDÉRER

3.1. Des objectifs et des dispositifs complexes et ambitieux

8. Le domaine des politiques de l'Espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice est l' un des plus divers de l'Union . Les objectifs touchent à certaines des questions les plus sensibles: libre circulation des personnes, terrorisme et crime organisé, coopération policière et judiciaire, politique en matière d’asile et de migration, tout cela en respectant les droits fondamentaux et en promouvant les droits des citoyens de l’Union. Les questions de souveraineté nationale obligent souvent à trouver des compromis au niveau de l’UE ou rendent difficile la mise en œuvre. Par conséquent, tout nouveau mécanisme d’évaluation devra prendre en compte ce contexte politique.

9. Le caractère à la fois complexe et ambitieux des objectifs poursuivis se double d'un cadre juridique (procédures décisionnelles, examen de la conformité) parfois déroutant.

Pour faire face à cette complexité, le mécanisme d’évaluation proposé doit être progressif et prévoir les possibilités d' évolution et de consolidation .

3.2. Calendrier

10. En raison du rôle particulier de la Commission et du processus de prise de décision dans le domaine de la liberté, de la sécurité et de la justice, les différentes politiques ne sont pas mises en œuvre et ne produisent pas leurs effets dans les mêmes délais . Une approche au cas par cas est par conséquent nécessaire, afin de trouver le juste niveau d’analyse pour chaque politique . Les résultats immédiats et intermédiaires seront pris en considération pour toutes les politiques, mais l'analyse de leur incidence pratique sera sans doute plus difficile dans certains cas (par exemple, pour les politiques en matière de drogue ou de migration).

Le mécanisme d’évaluation proposé devra posséder la souplesse nécessaire pour permettre une évaluation approfondie différentiée des diverses politiques en tenant compte de leur degré de développement et de consolidation.

Il paraît donc approprié de se concentrer sur les résultats immédiats et intermédiaires, du moins dans un premier temps. La détermination de l’incidence globale des politiques doit constituer à plus long terme l’objectif ultime du mécanisme d’évaluation.

3.3. Associer les institutions et les acteurs du domaine

11. Les questions de liberté, de sécurité et de justice sont uniques également par l'impact qu'ont les politiques correspondantes sur les acteurs du domaine. Tout mécanisme d’évaluation dans ce domaine doit impérativement tenir compte des attentes et des priorités des différents acteurs et, en particulier, du besoin de confidentialité dans certaines matières telles que le terrorisme et le crime organisé.

12. Dans un esprit de partenariat , la Commission consultera les États membres et les institutions de l’UE et débattra avec eux pendant et après la préparation du rapport d’évaluation. Les États membres et les institutions de l'UE seront invités dans ce but à désigner des points de contact afin de faciliter le dialogue avec la Commission. Le rapport d’évaluation[6] sera public et adressé aux États membres et aux institutions de l'UE.

13. Le Conseil et les États membres seront avec la Commission les principaux acteurs dans le mécanisme proposé. Le Parlement européen sera étroitement associé, conformément à ses prérogatives et obligations institutionnelles. Les parlements nationaux seront eux aussi impliqués dans l'évaluation des rapports réguliers.

14. Dans les domaines couverts par le traité CE, le Comité des régions et le Comité économique et social européen participeront à l'élaboration et à la mise en œuvre du mécanisme d'évaluation. Les rapports d’évaluation leur seront systématiquement transmis après adoption.

15. Des agences telles que l’Agence de l’Union européenne pour les droits fondamentaux, l’Observatoire européen des drogues et des toxicomanies (OEDT), Europol, Eurojust ou l’Agence européenne pour la gestion de la coopération opérationnelle aux frontières extérieures auront également un rôle important à jouer. Premièrement, elles «alimenteront» l’exercice d’évaluation avec les informations et analyses dont elles disposent et, deuxièmement, la Commission les consultera sur les rapports d’évaluation.

16. Les contributions émanant de la société civile seront très utiles dans ce contexte. La Commission veillera à ce que les opinions exprimées par la société civile soient prises en compte. Elle mettra en place les mécanismes nécessaires afin que la participation de la société civile à l'évaluation de toutes les politiques dans le domaine de la liberté, de la sécurité et de la justice soit assurée.

Le mécanisme d’évaluation proposé devrait inclure des mécanismes de consultation transparents , qui pourraient aussi servir à recueillir et à vérifier les informations.

3.4. Disponibilité de statistiques

17. La disponibilité de statistiques[7] et des moyens de les analyser est essentielle à la mise au point d’un système d’évaluation. Si les statistiques sont déjà bien développées pour certaines activités (par exemple en matière de drogue), il y a encore des progrès à réaliser dans d’autres domaines tels que la criminalité et la justice pénale[8]. Des statistiques sur l’évolution des besoins auxquels répondent les politiques en matière de liberté, de sécurité et de justice seront nécessaires en tant que données de référence pour évaluer si une politique donnée a permis, avec le temps, d’atténuer les besoins existants ou bien les a aggravés au contraire, et, en fin de compte, pour pouvoir tirer des conclusions sur l'impact des politiques. Des améliorations devraient être apportées dans trois domaines: qualité, disponibilité et analyse. Les travaux des agences, parmi lesquelles l’Observatoire européen des drogues et des toxicomanies (OEDT), Europol, Eurojust et la future Agence des droits fondamentaux, joueront un rôle particulier dans ce contexte. Les projets et réseaux de recherche contribueront eux aussi à cet objectif.

Il conviendra par conséquent, parallèlement à la mise en place du système d’évaluation proposé, d’apporter des améliorations à la qualité , la disponibilité et l’ analyse des statistiques en matière de liberté, de sécurité et de justice.

4. ÉVALUER LES POLITIQUES DE L’UE EN MATIÈRE DE LIBERTÉ, DE SÉCURITÉ ET DE JUSTICE – PROPOSITION D’UN MÉCANISME D’ÉVALUATION STRATÉGIQUE

4.1. Description du mécanisme d'évaluation

18. Le mécanisme d’évaluation proposé dans le domaine de la liberté, de la sécurité et de la justice s’appuie sur l'expérience acquise dans d'autres domaines de politique de l'Union. Un tel mécanisme compléterait les pratiques en vigueur , décrites dans l’annexe 2, et, dans le cas précis des programmes de financement, utiliserait les informations résultant des obligations d'évaluation existantes. Dans les autres domaines où des informations sont déjà disponibles, on veillera particulièrement à utiliser les données existantes et à ne pas répéter des travaux déjà effectués .

19. Un mécanisme progressif en trois étapes est proposé:

(1) en premier lieu, il prévoit la mise en place d’un système de collecte et de partage des informations;

(2) en deuxième lieu, il inclut l' élaboration de rapports d'évaluation , qui synthétisent, exploitent et analysent ces informations;

(3) en troisième lieu, il est complété par des évaluations stratégiques approfondies .

Encadré 2: Les trois étapes du mécanisme

20. Le mécanisme sera exhaustif en ce qu’il couvrira toutes les politiques relevant du domaine «liberté, sécurité et justice»[9].

21. Les rapports d’évaluation[10] seront transmis au Conseil et au Parlement européen, ainsi qu’au Comité économique et social européen et au Comité des régions, et diffusés plus largement si nécessaire, y compris à l’occasion de conférences ad hoc.

22. En renforçant la remontée et la dissémination des résultats d'évaluations, le mécanisme vise en définitive à promouvoir l’exploitation pratique de ces résultats au niveau de la prise de décision.

23. Ce mécanisme est cohérent avec les orientations actuelles de la Commission en matière d'évaluation et fonctionnera conformément à leurs principes généraux.

4.1.1. Système de collecte et de partage des informations

24. Le système de collecte et de partage des informations reposera sur des « fiches» (une pour chaque domaine politique) qui seront remplies par les autorités compétentes des États membres. Dans les domaines pour lesquels des informations sont déjà disponibles sous une forme identique, la Commission pré-remplira autant que possible les fiches. Parallèlement, les fiches seront diffusées pour consultation auprès des diverses parties prenantes[11] et de la société civile. Les consultations seront adaptées à chaque domaine politique et se fonderont sur les mécanismes de consultation et réseaux existants , en tenant compte comme il convient des exigences de confidentialité propres à certains domaines.

25. Les fiches mentionneront un objectif global pour chaque domaine et une liste des principaux instruments (législatifs, non législatifs et financiers) servant à atteindre cet objectif. Le mécanisme devrait permettre d'avoir une vue d'ensemble claire des résultats obtenus .

26. Les fiches fixeront en outre une série d’ indicateurs pour chaque politique, qui seront clairement rattachés à l’objectif global du domaine correspondant. Les fiches feront partie intégrante du processus de consultation qui suivra la publication du présent document et seront finalisées en concertation avec les États membres. Des exemples des fiches proposées sont placés en annexe 1 de la présente communication.

27. La Commission envisage d'inviter chaque État membre à désigner des points de contact au niveau national. Ceux-ci joueront un rôle important de coordination des réponses au plan national et travailleront en concertation avec les services de la Commission.

28. En ce qui concerne la législation de l’UE , les indicateurs et le système d'évaluation contenus dans les fiches d'information se concentreront sur les résultats concrets de l’application de la législation et non sur le niveau de transposition en droit national ou sur l’impact du droit communautaire sur les systèmes juridiques nationaux. Ces derniers font partie des principaux objectifs du «tableau de bord Plus», qui évalue la transposition et la mise en œuvre plutôt que le degré de réalisation des objectifs.

29. En ce qui concerne les programmes de financement de l’UE, les fiches d’information se baseront sur les rapports d’évaluation et de mise en œuvre existants qui sont rédigés en application du règlement financier et de la base juridique concernée. Comme les informations sur les programmes de financement requises par les fiches devraient être disponibles, la contribution demandée aux États membres ne devrait être que minimale.

4.1.2. Élaboration de rapports

30. Après réception des fiches et consultation avec les parties prenantes, la Commission validera les données reçues et établira un « rapport d’évaluation » dans lequel elle regroupera et analysera les renseignements fournis. Ce rapport d’évaluation inclura aussi des recommandations politiques concernant les différents domaines traités.

31. Le but de l’exercice est d’évaluer les politiques mises en œuvre au niveau de l’UE en matière de liberté, de sécurité et de justice et d'identifier les domaines devant faire l'objet d’une évaluation stratégique approfondie .

4.1.3. Évaluations stratégiques des politiques

32. À la suite du rapport d’évaluation et après de nouvelles consultations, des évaluations stratégiques approfondies des politiques pourront être effectuées dans des domaines sélectionnés . Ces évaluations viseront à dégager en temps utile des informations pertinentes pour éclairer la prise de décision dans chaque domaine politique.

33. Les évaluations stratégiques devraient apporter une valeur ajoutée par rapport aux pratiques actuelles décrites dans l’annexe 2, notamment:

(a) en se concentrant sur les politiques (ou des sous-ensembles cohérents) plutôt que sur des instruments particuliers (par exemple, la politique d’immigration commune);

(b) en analysant la cohérence des différents instruments à l’intérieur d’une politique donnée (par exemple, comment les programmes financiers soutiennent et facilitent la mise en œuvre de la législation de l'UE dans un domaine précis);

(c) en examinant comment une politique donnée contribue à l’ objectif global de mise en place d’un espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice;

(d) en déterminant le taux de réalisation global de cet objectif général; et

(e) en évaluant la réalisation d’un objectif de portée générale en matière de liberté, de sécurité et de justice (par exemple, la préservation des droits fondamentaux).

4.2. Fréquence et suivi

34. La répétition de l’exercice à intervalle régulier permet d'identifier les progrès réalisés et d’effectuer des comparaisons. En ce qui concerne le calendrier, il est proposé de procéder à cet exercice d’évaluation («fiches» et «rapport d’évaluation») deux fois tous les cinq ans . La Commission s’appuiera autant que possible sur les informations disponibles.

35. La proposition tient compte de ce que ce mécanisme:

(a) devrait fonctionner sur une base régulière ;

(b) ne devrait pas être trop lourd;

(c) n’a pas besoin d’avoir lieu chaque année étant donné qu'il porte sur des indicateurs de réalisations et de résultats qui évoluent lentement ainsi que sur des données à moyen terme;

(d) devrait être coordonné avec les plans stratégiques et pluriannuels existants .

36. En particulier, le calendrier proposé permettrait aussi au Conseil et à la Commission d’utiliser les résultats des rapports d’évaluation dans l’appréciation qu’ils feront de la nécessité de préparer un nouveau programme stratégique en 2009, à l’expiration du programme de La Haye.

37. La publication du rapport d’évaluation tous les deux ou trois ans permettra de synchroniser le mécanisme avec le cycle quinquennal. Cela favorisera une utilisation plus poussée et plus stratégique des résultats des évaluations dans la prise de décision. Les années 2006 et 2007 constitueront une période de transition (voir tableau ci-dessous).

38. Pour les besoins de la coordination avec le «tableau de bord Plus», il est prévu de transmettre les fiches aux États membres à la fin de l'année 2006 et de publier le rapport d’évaluation en même temps que la deuxième édition de ce «tableau de bord Plus», c’est–à-dire à la mi-2007.

Calendrier | Tableau de bord Plus (TB) | Mécanisme d'examen | Plan d'action |

2005 | Adoption du plan d’action de La Haye |

2006 | TB + 1 | Évaluation intermédiaire de la mise en œuvre (fin 2006) |

2007 | TB + 2 | Rapport d’évaluation 1 | Premier réexamen des politiques |

2008 | TB + 3 |

2009 | TB + 4 | Rapport d’évaluation 2 |

2010 | TB + 5 | Fin du programme de La Haye |

2011 | TB + 6 |

2012 | TB + 7 | Rapport d’évaluation 3 |

2013 | TB + 8 |

2014 | TB + 9 | Rapport d’évaluation 4 |

(période de transition en grisé)

39. Une évaluation des coûts additionnels pour les États membres est jointe dans l’analyse d'impact annexée. Les États membres sont encouragés à travailler, avec l’appui de la Commission, à la comparabilité et à la précision de leurs données . En effet, l’évaluation d'un certain nombre d'instruments législatifs a montré, récemment, qu’il arrivait que les données de base concernant les politiques ne soient ni harmonisées ni exactes. Les évaluations ponctuelles des politiques en matière de liberté, de sécurité et de justice effectuées par le Conseil ou la Commission constitueront une source d'informations supplémentaire.

40. La présente communication doit marquer le lancement d’un processus à moyen terme . Le mécanisme proposé et les fiches d’information sont présentés pour qu’ils puissent faire l’objet d’observations et d’améliorations durant la période qui suivra la communication. A cette fin un large processus de consultation sera lancé, avec notamment l'organisation d'une conférence pendant l’automne.

41. Le mécanisme donnera lieu à une évaluation après cinq ans, pour décider des ajustements et améliorations éventuels à apporter au système. Les réalisations à prendre en considération seront les fiches et rapports indiqués dans l'encadré 2. L’évaluation se fera par rapport aux objectifs énoncés au paragraphe 3.

5. CONCLUSIONS

42. La Commission estime nécessaire de mettre en place un mécanisme global et cohérent d'évaluation des politiques de l'UE en matière de liberté, de sécurité et de justice, compte tenu de la situation actuelle et du mandat qui lui est confié dans le programme de La Haye. Un tel mécanisme devra être progressif et prendre en considération l’ évolution du cadre institutionnel et juridique pour conduire à un nouveau renforcement des politiques en matière de liberté, de sécurité et de justice et assurer leur efficacité.

43. Le mécanisme permettra de regrouper les résultats d'évaluations ponctuelles dans un cadre cohérent, apportant par là des informations qui aideront la prise de décision politique au niveau approprié. À cet égard, le mécanisme proposé fournira aussi aux responsables des informations pertinentes en temps utile pour décider de la suite à donner au programme de La Haye à son expiration en 2009.

44. Le mécanisme proposé sera mis en œuvre par la Commission et le Conseil, conformément à leurs prérogatives institutionnelles et en association étroite avec le Parlement européen. Une action concertée et un engagement total des institutions de l'UE comme des États membres seront nécessaires pour mener à bien la création et la mise en œuvre du mécanisme d’évaluation, les autorités et administrations nationales jouant à cet égard un rôle capital.

45. Enfin, un tel mécanisme contribuera à rendre plus efficace l’action de l’Union et à réaliser des objectifs stratégiques tels que la simplification de la réglementation et la transparence des activités de l’UE .

ANNEX 1 Factsheet of JLS policies

POLICY AREA: EXTERNAL BORDERS, VISA POLICY AND FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: well established policy area, 1st pillar activities, there is a strong consensus amongst stakeholders for EU level action; there is a mix of instruments (legislative activities, co-operation activities, programme funding, functioning Community Agency, IT systems); possible to construct evaluation indicators, but might be hard to measure outcomes and results and causal links in practice. Methods to evaluate controls at borders are improving, including available administrative information and statistics. Some constraints on fully independent evaluation. There are strong interlinkages between the instruments within the ABB activity and strong potential for ‘thematic’ evaluation examining instruments in parallel. |

Policy sub-area 1: External borders |

Objectives: Develop an integrated external border management system Ensure uniform high standards of border checks and border surveillance at EU external borders Reduce number of illegal cross border movements of people Further ‘burden sharing’ in management of external borders |

Policy sub-area level indicators: The numbers of illegal migrants apprehended that are known to have crossed the EU external border illegally as a proportion of all third country national border crossings into EU (Source: Commission - Eurostat statistics on asylum and migration) The difference between the numbers of illegal migrants apprehended that are known to have crossed the EU external border illegally as a proportion of all third country national border crossings into EU through the most permeable and least permeable border. Note that this indicator would require to define the most and least permeable EU border. The numbers of illegal migrants apprehended that are known to have crossed the EU external border illegally (Source: Commission - Eurostat statistics on asylum and migration) The proportion of all resource commitments to external border management originating in countries without EU external borders (Source: MS) |

Main instruments | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Objectives: Prevent illegal immigration and threats to public order Reduce time taken and costs of acquiring visas for legitimate travellers. Reciprocation with third countries on visa waivers. Reduce number of visas given to travellers who become overstayers and illegal migrants Abolish controls at internal EU borders |

Policy sub-area level indicators: The average time taken from application to receipt of (a particular class of) visa (Source: MS, VIS) The average costs (fees) for (a particular class of) visa (Source: MS, VIS) The number of third countries where the visa requirements of nationals to enter the EU match those EU citizens visiting the country in question (Source: Commission) The total population of third countries where the visa requirements of nationals to enter the EU match those EU citizens visiting the country in question (Source: Commission) The number of EU internal border crossings that are subject to controls (Source: MS) |

Main instruments | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: Relatively new policy area in JLS (although the citizenship policy as such is an established area in the EC/Commission activities), 1st pillar activities, a combination of instruments (legislation, funding programmes, new Community Agency). The nature of the instruments and their objectives leads to reliance on qualitative evaluation methods. However, there is scope for further improvements to the information base through surveys and the development of statistics. The objectives within the policy area are wide ranging and the sub policy areas as defined below are not distinct. There is some scope for evaluating sub sets of instruments in parallel. |

Policy sub-area 1: Citizenship of the Union |

Global objectives: Increase awareness of Union citizens of their rights and of the ways these can be enforced Decrease any obstacles for the enjoyment of their rights by Union citizens, in particular of the right to free movement and residence Increase participation of EU citizens in democratic life in the Union Facilitate the diplomatic and consular protection offered to the Union citizens in third countries |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Levels of citizens’ awareness of their rights and mechanisms of redress (Source: Surveys and Eurobarometer reports) Instances of right to free movement and residence hindered (Source: complaints made to Commission) Rates of voting registration and participation – percentage of increase/decrease (Source: Member States) Number of citizens standing for election to public office – percentage of increase/decrease (Source: Member States) Instances of use and complaints from EU citizens over levels of consular protection (Source: Member States) |

Main instruments | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Global objectives: Increase the awareness of fundamental rights amongst citizens. (This concerns the rights as protected on European Union and national level including the relevant regional and international instruments.) Decrease instances of breaches of fundamental rights (including breaches of privacy, personal data protection and protection from violence against children, women and youth) Reduce the instances of racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia Establish a Fundamental Rights Agency (from EUMC) Increase number of participants in and their commitments to civil society |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Levels of citizens’ awareness of fundamental rights (Source: Surveys and Eurobarometer reports) Instances of breaches of fundamental rights, especially as a result of EU interventions (including breaches of privacy, personal data protection and protection from violence against children, women and youth) (Source: Commission and FR Agency) Instances of racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia (Source: FR Agency) Time commitments of population to participation in civil society (Source: MS) Number of civil society organisations in NMS since accession (Source: MS) |

Main instruments | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: Activities in this policy area are cross pillar and cover a variety of areas, including health, police cooperation, information, evaluation and coordination. The EU Drug Action Plan and EU Drug Strategy are very important documents endorsed by the Council as the basic policy framework for all drugs issues within the EU and within the context of the EU's external relations. They cover all activities in this policy area and provide the guidelines for all Member States to implement the objectives and actions they contain into national policy. The Action Plan takes its lead from the objectives of the EU Drug Strategy and translates these objectives into 80 concrete actions. It concentrates on the two major aspects of drug policy, demand reduction and supply reduction, and also covers a number of cross-cutting themes: international cooperation, research, information and evaluation. It includes actions within EU competence (public health, precursor control, money laundering and development aid) as well as close cooperation between Member States and partnerships with international organisations. The Action Plan furthermore covers monitoring and evaluation and includes assessment tools and indicators for each action. The actions covered by the Action Plan are subject to an annual progress review by the Commission's services. Evaluation in this area is already well-established through the methods and indicators developed during the evaluation of the previous EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan. Reliable data is available from the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction, Europol and the Commission. As with other policies relating to complex, global socio-political issues, the evaluation of the impacts of EU drug policy is a problematical and sensitive matter due to the multiple factors that have to be taken into account and for which there may not be reliable data by their very nature (e.g. figures for trafficking in illicit drugs are always rough estimates; corruption caused by trade in drugs is hidden, etc.). |

Objectives: To significantly reduce the prevalence of drug use among the population and to reduce the social harm and health damage caused by the use of and trade in illicit drugs, and to strengthen international cooperation (EU Action Plan on Drugs 2005-2008) |

Policy-level indicators: The EU Action Plan contains the major legal instruments such as the Council Decision on the information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances, or the Framework Decision on penalties for drug trafficking. It also contains the assessment tools and indicators required for the evaluation process of these instruments and all other actions. These have been drawn up in cooperation with the EMCDDA and Europol, who will help the Commission to keep track of implementation. On this basis the Commission will publish an Annual Progress Review and if necessary propose adjustments. Responsibility for implementation of actions and deadlines are clearly indicated in the Plan. To keep implementation on track, targets whose deadlines have passed or are unlikely to be met will be subject to recommendations for their implementation or identification of failure to implement. The Commission will carry out an impact assessment in 2008 in view of proposing a second Action Plan for 2009-2012. A final evaluation of the Strategy and the Action Plans will be carried out by the Commission in 2012. These evaluations will go beyond the strict confines of the Action Plan and will include, on the basis of the work of the EMCDDA and Europol, a general view of the evolution of the drugs situation in Europe. |

POLICY AREA: COMMON IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICIES |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: New policy area. 1st pillar activities. Interventions include legislation, programmes and cooperation activities. Good, comparable data is required and is planned. MS consensus about broad aims but not at individual instrument level. Impacts of these instruments on third-countries, and in particular development countries, to be considered. |

Policy sub-area 1: Common European Asylum System |

Objectives: To establish a common asylum procedure and uniform status, To facilitate practical and collaborative cooperation, To address pressures on asylum systems and reception capacities. |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Number of asylum seekers applying for asylum in Member States other than the country of first entry (Source: Eurodac) Instances of MS breaching minimum defined standards (Source: Commission) Differences in standards of reception between Member States (Source: Commission) Differences between Member States with regard to the average time taken to determine the outcome of an application for asylum (Source: MS and Commission) Comparison of asylum acceptance rates among Member States[12] (Source: Commission - Eurostat) Differences in the level of capacity per Member State (asylum systems and reception facilities) relative to needs (Source: Member States) |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Objectives: To establish admission procedures capable of responding to fluctuating demands for migrant labour |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Skill shortages in vocations and professions (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS Labour Force Surveys, EEO) Employment rates amongst migrant groups (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS Labour Force Surveys) Estimation of the numbers of migrants overstaying the duration of their work permits (Source: MS) |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Objectives: To prevent the isolation of certain groups and achieve successful integration of Third Country Nationals and their descendents To fight discrimination against legally residing Third Country Nationals To promote the exchange of experience and information |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Instances of discrimination (Source: FR Agency, MS) Employment rates of third country nationals (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS) Employment rates of second generation migrants (Source: SOPEMI Report, MS) Relative income levels of third country nationals (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS) Proportion of third country nationals living in poverty (Source: Commission - Eurostat, MS) |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Objectives: Assist third countries in migration management, intensify MS cooperation to manage migration flows and prevent humanitarian crises, integrate migration into third country relations, develop policies that link migration, development cooperation and humanitarian assistance, intensify cooperation with third countries on southern and eastern border of EU |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Increase/decrease over a 5-year period of: Numbers of legal migrants by third country (Source: Commission - Eurostat) Numbers of illegal migrants by third country intercepted crossing an external border (Source: Commission – Eurostat) Numbers of visa overstayers by third country intercepted (Source: MS) Numbers of asylum applications by third country (Source: Commission - Eurostat) Numbers of failed asylum applications by third country (Source: Commission - Eurostat) Numbers of failed asylum seekers returning to country of origin /other third country (Source: MS) Number of victims of trafficking from third countries (Source: MS) |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Objectives: To establish an effective removal and repatriation policy based on common standards for persons to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their human rights and dignity. |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Increase/decrease over a 5-year period of: Proportion of failed asylum seekers (and illegal migrants) who are repatriated (Source: MS) Numbers returned to countries subsequently deemed unsafe within a period of two years (Source: MS) Numbers (of labour market age) in employment in country of origin 12 months after being subject to return |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: The policy area includes both first pillar (civil justice) and third pillar (criminal justice) matters. The main instruments are legislation including the introduction of new legal instruments and activities to stimulate judicial cooperation. Evaluation should cover the implementation of mutual recognition instruments and the various flanking (confidence building) measures that make mutual recognition possible. The potential to identify the causal links between the interventions and the achievement of objectives is greater within civil matters than criminal matters. Information on the scale and nature of the relevant (cross border) civil and criminal matters is however poor. The instruments in both sub policy areas are potentially reinforcing. The classification of the instruments within the civil matters sub policy area relate to both process (cooperation and procedures) and to substantive problems addressed by the instruments (cross border disputes and breakdown of international marriages). There is also a miscellaneous sub category. The achievement of a European area of justice in criminal matters may be constrained by continued variations in definitions of crimes and penalties. Several of the instruments mentioned under civil matters are ‘forthcoming’. They are included however because they illustrate aspects of the evaluation challenges in this policy area. The Judicial training instrument is relevant to both sub policy areas. There are close links between the instruments and objectives of the policy sub area 2 Criminal matters, and the objectives and activities in the policy area: law enforcement cooperation, prevention and fight against organised crime. Also, it should be noted that adjustments to the indicators put forward in criminal matters may take place in light of the implementation of the forthcoming Action Plan on statistics in the field of crime and criminal justice (see more expanded reference on page 49). |

Policy sub-area 1: Civil matters |

Objectives: To increase mutual recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions To establish clear rules on jurisdiction and applicable law To reduce the costs of resolving cross border disputes To increase the likelihood that cross border disputes are resolved To reduce the likelihood of cross border disputes arising To reduce the negative consequences of breakdowns in ‘international’ marriages and prevent child abduction |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Number of mutually recognised judicial decisions Average costs (of different types) of cross-border disputes Number of cross-border cases not resolved Spouses’ (perceptions of) costs of international divorces The number and amount of cross-border maintenance claims not paid Source: MS |

Main instrument | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Horizontal cooperation activities |

Objectives: To promote mutual recognition To increase confidence and other conditions leading to mutual recognition To reduce differences in the definition of crimes. In particular, to explore common definitions and procedures for human trafficking and cross border crimes To reduce differences in detention and trial procedures To improve taking of evidence To reduce differences in penalties To speed up cross border arrest and surrender procedures To facilitate cross border management, freezing and confiscation of criminal assets To protect victims of crime |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Number of mutually recognised judicial decisions Extent of mutual confidence: proportion of officials in national administrations who have high confidence in other MS systems (measured by surveys of national authorities) Level of awareness of judicial actors of other MS systems Number of definitions of crimes approximated Number of reduced differences in detention and trial procedures and definition of penalties Length of cross-border arrest and surrender procedures Size of criminal assets frozen and confiscated in cross-border cases Source: MS |

Main instrument (and type of instrument) | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Factors influencing evaluation mechanism: Policy based on the TEU Title VI (third pillar). Activities include legislation, including the approximation of crimes and penalties and cooperation measure. Establishing causal links between the EU interventions and the ultimate objective of reducing crime is always likely to be problematic. The current factsheet intends to facilitate the assessment of the implementation of EU instruments in this area. Full fledged evaluation will require substantial improvements in the quality and availability of statistical information in the field of crime and criminal justice. The forthcoming Action Plan in this field (to be adopted by the Commission in July 2006) will address these issues and put forward concrete proposals, including carrying out an inventory and setting-up an expert group. In this context, this factsheet and the indicators included therein will necessarily be adjusted and improved in the light of the implementation of the Action Plan, and could be used as a starting point for discussions in this field. |

Policy sub-area 1: Crimes and Sanctions (i.e. legislation to fight organised (cross border) crime and terrorism) |

Objectives: To combat: Terrorism Smuggling and trafficking of human beings, Sexual exploitation, racism and xenophobia, Financial and economic crime, Environmental crime, Illicit trafficking in goods, Organised crime and cyber crime. To reduce the financial resources available to those involved in organised crime To criminalise active and passive corruption |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Numbers and trends of successful prosecutions for (Source: UN crime and criminal justice trends surveys, European sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, Commission crime and criminal justice statistics): Smuggling and trafficking of human beings, Sexual exploitation, Financial and economic crime, Environmental crime, Illicit trafficking in goods (including firearms), Numbers of successful prosecutions for organised crime (Source: UN crime justice and crime trends surveys, European sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, Commission crime and criminal justice statistics) Numbers of prosecutions for active and passive corruption (Source: UN crime justice and crime trends surveys, European sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, Commission crime and criminal justice statistics) Perception of levels of active and passive corruption (Source: Transparency International survey) Numbers of crimes subject to EU interventions and instruments (Source: UN crime justice and crime trends surveys, European sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, Commission crime and criminal justice statistics) |

Main instrument | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Terrorism |

(The architecture of the instruments in this sub policy area is such that the instruments should be reinforcing. Capturing these synergies in evaluation work would be of value) |

Objectives: To increase cooperation between police and customs authorities of MS To increase cooperation of MS police and customs authorities with Europol To develop and improve use of ‘intelligence led law enforcement’ and Joint Investigation Teams To encourage exchange of experiences on best practice on investigative techniques To improve the quality of Member States law enforcement data with the assistance of Europol |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Number of formal joint investigations Number of informal joint investigations Number of successful prosecutions resulting from joint investigations (formal and informal) Number of successful prosecutions resulting from the adoption of best practice investigative techniques Extent of mutual confidence: proportion of officials in national administrations/law enforcement authorities who have confidence in other MS systems (measured by surveys of national authorities) Periods of time (person days) on (trans-national) exchanges of staff Source: MS |

Main instrument | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Objectives: To reduce instances of (cross border organised) crime To establish European instruments for collecting, analysing and comparing information on crime and victimisation. To provide better information on trends in crime in Member States |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Numbers of successful prosecutions of cross border organised crime The frequency with which EU level statistics are collected (benchmark: annually) The level of reliability of data (for example, number of definition changes), also indicated by the levels of confidence in data by key actors (source: regular surveys) Consistency of data between Members States (for example, numbers of definition variations), indicated the levels of confidence in data by key actors (source: regular surveys) Source: Commission, MS |

Main instrument | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Objectives: Reduce detrimental cross border impacts of crises |

Policy sub-area level indicators: Number of cross border crises reported in press/media Number of cross border crises involving EU crisis management |

Main instrument | Objectives | Implementation at national level | Indicators/evaluation questions | Specific issues /comments |

Immediate results | Outcomes | Impacts |

Setting up of integrated and co-ordinated EU crisis-management arrangements in the Commission and the Council |Increase the level of preparedness to tackle cross-border crises within the EU |Active participation from MS in the structures to be established |Establishment of integrated and co-ordinated structures at the EU level

Measured by:

Assessments of MS capacities

Training and joint exercises conducted

Operational plans established

(Source: MS administrative records) | Increased level of preparedness for cross border crises

Measured by:

Actual responses to crises

Results of ‘Exercises’ undertaken.

(Source: MS Potential stakeholder surveys) | Reduced impacts of such crises |There are likely to be particular difficulties in establishing the counter factual with respect to this instrument. Impacts may only be assessed sometime following emergencies. Some scope for peer review | |

ANNEX 2Current practice for monitoring and evaluating EU policieson freedom, security and justice

1. MONITORING

1.1. The Tampere scoreboard

The Tampere European Council in 1999 invited the Commission to compile a scoreboard to keep implementation of policies on freedom, security and justice under continuous review. The scoreboard would specifically keep track of progress made with implementation of the measures and compliance with the deadlines set in the Amsterdam Treaty, the Vienna Action Plan and the Tampere programme. In response, the Commission produced its first scoreboard in March 2000, followed by regular updates every six months taking into account the objectives set by the European Councils in Laeken (2001), Seville (2002) and Thessaloniki (June 2003). The last Tampere scoreboard was presented in June 2004, marking the end of the first five-year period (1999-2004).

The scoreboards indicated the objectives and deadlines set at Tampere and in each case the responsibilities assigned to launch, advance and complete the process. To provide a clear view of the progress made in each area, the scoreboard showed the outstanding proposals and initiatives presented, progress in Council and European Parliament proceedings and the work planned. A specific section of the scoreboard focused on transposition of the instruments adopted.

1.2. Reviewing implementation of EU legislation

1.2.1. Instruments adopted under the EC Treaty

Implementation by the Member States of Community legislation concerning free movement of persons, visas, asylum, immigration, judicial cooperation in civil matters and citizens’ rights adopted under the European Community Treaty is monitored by the Commission. If a Member State fails to comply with its legislative obligations, the Commission can then initiate infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty and may bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

Apart from normal application of the monitoring mechanism under Articles 226 of the EC Treaty, monitoring implementation of the instruments adopted under Title IV of the EC Treaty is not systematic, although it is usual practice. For example, none of the four directives adopted on illegal migration provides for a monitoring report by the Commission.

Some reports, such as the evaluation of the derogation for issuing visas to members of the Olympic family[14], go beyond mere analysis of implementation and contain information on results. There are other examples concerning instruments adopted under Title II of the Treaty, such as reports[15] relating to free movement of Union citizens or reports[16] on their electoral rights in municipal and European Parliament elections.

1.2.2. Instruments adopted under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union

In the case of instruments adopted under Title VI of the EU Treaty concerning police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, there is no equivalent compliance mechanism allowing the Commission to exercise its institutional powers as guardian of the Treaties.

For all Framework Decisions adopted by the Council, it is compulsory for Member States to transmit a detailed set of national implementing measures to the Commission and to the Council. Based on this information, the Commission then issues a report (e.g. 2002 Framework Decision on combating terrorism[17]). allowing the Council to debate the need for further measures in the field concerned. The Council generally expresses its position in a final report.

For some Framework Decisions, the Commission repeats or updates its monitoring exercise (e.g. “Victims” Framework Decision[18]).

Similarly, the Commission systematically monitors common positions and issues a monitoring report on national implementing measures. The Commission has also taken the initiative to issue specific reports on certain Council Decisions imposing no monitoring obligation such as those relating to Eurojust[19]

This monitoring exercise deals only with the legal transposition aspect and rarely includes details on the practical implementation of instruments . Such assessments of legal transposition answer the following questions: are the implementing measures effective, correct and in line with the Framework Decision? Are they clear and do they provide legal certainty? Do they fully apply the instrument and comply with the time limit for transposition?

In some cases this exercise has been backed up by an initial assessment of practical implementation in the Member States and of the tangible results of the national legislation. For example, in the case of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant[20], some of the practical results of the implementing measures were included in the monitoring report, such as the question of effectiveness and rapidity of surrender. The Commission’s report also included some preliminary figures, such as the number of warrants issued or the average time taken to execute a warrant, which mainly illustrated the difficulty of obtaining adequate statistics in this field.

1.3. Information-gathering mechanisms on policy implementation

1.3.1. Existing mechanisms

Following the call by the 2001 Laeken European Council to set up an enhanced exchange of information in the field of immigration and asylum, the Commission launched an information and consultation procedure with a “Committee on Immigration and Asylum” (CIA) at its heart. The CIA is made up of experts from the Member States but also frequently provides a forum for representatives of civil society, such as European social partners and the UNHCR, to present their views on pertinent immigration and asylum issues.

In the field of integration, the " National Contact Points on Integration " (NCP) play an important role in monitoring progress across policy fields and in ensuring that integration efforts at national and EU level support each other. They convey key results to the CIA.

A European Migration Network (EMN) was set up in 2002 as a preparatory measure in response to the need to improve exchanges of information on all aspects of migration and asylum. Its primary objective is to provide the Community and the Member States with objective, reliable and comparable information in these fields by systematically collecting and storing existing data and information from Member States and carrying out national and European level analysis. At present, the EMN consists of national contact points designated by the Member States.

1.3.2. Mechanisms in preparation

In the field of asylum, a Communication[21] on strengthened practical cooperation proposed bringing into operation a system for sharing expertise , resources and knowledge between key stakeholders, as a tool for strengthening common approaches to implementation of the first-stage legislative instruments of the European asylum system, building - amongst others - on existing mechanisms, such as the EURASIL group.

In September 2005 the Commission tabled a proposal for a Regulation on Community statistics on migration and international protection . The Regulation will improve statistical knowledge of migration-related phenomena by specifying the data to be collected, the timetables to be applied, the definitions and the quality standards.

In October 2005 the Commission tabled a proposal for a Council Decision on the establishment of a mutual information procedure on national measures taken in the areas of asylum and immigration which could affect other Member States. The proposal is based on the recognition that the absence of border checks in the Schengen area and the gradual development of common EU immigration and asylum policies require timely exchanges of information and discussion of national measures taken on asylum and immigration.

1.4. Monitoring implementation of The Hague Programme

The Hague Multi-Annual Programme (2005-2009) and the Action Plan implementing it invited the Commission to present an annual report on implementation of these two instruments to the Council (the “Scoreboard plus”).

The Scoreboard plus will aim predominantly at assessing proper and adequate transposition of the legislative acts adopted and effective implementation of the measures agreed. In concrete terms, The Scoreboard plus will assess the outcome of both (a) the significant political progress achieved at the point of adoption at EU level and (b) implementation at national level of measures related to freedom, security and justice.

This structure will bring visibility to monitoring and provide a comprehensive overview of implementation of the Action Plan, meeting the requirements of the European Council in The Hague Programme. It will increase transparency and visibility and improve and facilitate implementation. The first Scoreboard plus is presented in parallel to this Communication, one year after adoption of the Action Plan implementing The Hague Programme .

2. EVALUATION

This section briefly describes the state of play with evaluation in the field of freedom, security and justice, depending on the subject-matter: (1) programmes, (2) legislation or (3) policies[22]. Evaluations on freedom, security and justice mainly focus on individual policy instruments , be they legislative or financial. As in other areas, evaluation of policies (defined as a coherent set of instruments serving the same coherent objective) is still developing . As a consequence, evaluation activities are currently very diverse (internal or external evaluations, annual progress reports, peer reviews, etc.) and very different in scope. This results in a lack of comparable evaluation results across policies and of a true overview of the results achieved in establishing an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

The evaluation mechanism put forward in this Communication aims at tackling this issue. It provides a platform for exhaustive presentation and comparability of existing evaluation results, and identification of any information gaps. Whilst taking into account the fact that evaluation is more advanced for some activities than others, it will allow the establishment of a common set of minimum evaluation requirements across the different policies.

2.1. Evaluation of Community programmes

Evaluation of programmes is well developed within the Commission, including in the area of freedom, security and justice, where major programmes such as the European Refugee Fund, AGIS and DAPHNE are regularly evaluated[23]. Available evaluation results demonstrate that whilst the immediate results of funding programmes are easily identified and measured, their longer-term effects are sometimes more difficult to grasp. In this context, the Commission proposals for the 2007-2013 programmes on freedom, security and justice establish a better link between the programmes' specific objectives and the overall political objectives. This will have an impact on the evaluation framework for these programmes, in particular through assessment of their consistency with other instruments (legislative or other) in the same field.

2.2. Evaluation of legislation

Contrary to the evaluation of programmes, evaluation of legislation is a more recent development in the case of freedom, security and justice. Recent examples include the evaluation of the European Arrest Warrant[24] (2005), the economic evaluation of the Data Protection Directive[25] (2005) and the on-going evaluations of the Directive on minimum standards for the reception of asylum-seekers[26] and of the Brussels I Regulation[27]. Also, the introduction of impact assessments of EU legislation has led to systematic ex-ante appraisal, which should greatly facilitate further interim and/or ex-post evaluation. In this context, systematic scrutiny of legislative proposals and other draft instruments to ensure that they are compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights should serve the same purpose[28].

2.3. Evaluation of policies

2.3.1. Mechanism for Schengen evaluation

The Schengen evaluation system, first established in the intergovernmental Schengen framework and then integrated into the European Union framework[29], assesses correct implementation of the Schengen acquis by participating Member States through a peer review mechanism, including visits to Member States . It has issued restricted reports, given details of cases of non-compliance with existing rules and practices and made further recommendations. This mechanism applies to both Community and third pillar measures.

When internal border controls with and between new EU Member States are lifted, the Commission will submit a “ proposal to supplement the existing Schengen evaluation mechanism with a supervisory mechanism ”, as requested by The Hague Programme.

2.3.2. Mechanism for the fight against organised crime

Joint Action 97/827/JHA, adopted by the Council on 5 December 1997, established a mechanism for evaluating the application and implementation at national level of international undertakings in the fight against organised crime [30]. Two rounds of evaluation have already been completed and two others are ongoing. The first round focused on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, on which a report was subsequently released on 1 August 2001[31]. The second assessed instruments dealing with law enforcement and drug trafficking. Finally, the third and fourth rounds, not yet completed, are evaluating exchanges of information and intelligence between the Member States and Europol and the European Arrest Warrant respectively. The 1997 mechanism is operated by teams of experts designated by Member States, assisted by the General-Secretariat of the Council, with the involvement of the Commission. It is based on study visits and allows an in-depth examination of how instruments or policies are working in practice.

The Commission believes that although this mechanism has proved useful and effective , it nevertheless has some shortcomings , in particular the total duration of the process, the scope limited to only matters related to organised crime and the limited dissemination of the evaluation results.

2.3.3. Mechanism for the fight against terrorism[32]

Following the conclusions of the extraordinary meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 20 September 2001, the Council set up a procedure for peer assessment of national anti-terrorist arrangements in the framework of international cooperation between Member States. The first round of evaluations started in 2003 and focused on exchanges of information. Evaluation teams are made up of national experts and their reports are confidential.

2.3.4. Evaluation of the EU Action Plan on Drugs

In 2004 the Commission carried out the final evaluation of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan on Drugs for 2000-2004[33], in cooperation with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and Europol. The evaluation exercise provided an overview of the drugs situation in the European Union over the reference period. The Strategy and the Action Plan included a wide range of drug-related measures, mainly within the competence of the Member States. Their impact on the drug situation in the European Union could not be considered, mainly because the EU Strategy and Action Plan failed to establish impact indicators.

The EU Action Plan on Drugs for 2005-2008 takes into account the evaluation of the preceding Action Plan and has been designed from the outset to facilitate full evaluation. Accordingly, it clearly allocates responsibilities for each action and includes specific assessment tools, indicators and schedules for implementation. The Action Plan provides for the Commission to present annual reviews of implementation of the Plan plus a final evaluation in 2008, with a view to preparing the next Plan. The first annual progress review will be presented in autumn 2006.

2.3.5. Mechanism for evaluating respect of fundamental rights

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia studies the extent and development of the phenomena of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism and analyses their consequences and effects. Its findings are presented in annual reports. Once established, the Agency on Fundamental Rights, with its wider mandate, is expected to play a key role in evaluating respect of fundamental rights.

The network of fundamental rights experts was created by the European Commission in 2002 in response to a recommendation in the European Parliament's report[34] on the state of fundamental rights in the European Union. The network assesses the fundamental rights situation through an annual report, on the basis of an analysis of the legislation, the case-law and the administrative practice of the national authorities of the Member States and in the institutions of the Union. The reference points for the evaluation are the rights set out in the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights. The results are published annually (so far, in 2003, 2004 and 2005).

ANNEX 3 Glossary

Activity : A coherent area of action with objectives and resources. In other words, "Activities" consist of well-defined and delimited measures to which inputs are allocated and converted into outputs.

The policy for the development of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice has been divided into different Activity-Based Management (ABB) activities such as:

- Activity 1802 “External borders, visa policy and free movement of persons”,

- Activity 1803 “Common immigration and asylum policies”,

- Activity 1804 “Citizenship and fundamental rights”,

- Activity 1805 “Law enforcement cooperation and prevention of and fight against general organised crime”,

- Activity 1806 “Establishing a genuine European area of justice in criminal and civil matters”,

- Activity 1807 “Coordination in the field of drugs”.

Evaluation : “Judgement of interventions according to their results, impacts and the needs they aim to satisfy”[35]. It is a process undertaken by the Commission in order to identify what can be learned for policy and planning.

Ex ante/ex post evaluation

Ex ante evaluation: Evaluation performed before implementation of a measure. For the purposes of the Commission, ex ante evaluation is defined as a process that supports the preparation of proposals for new or renewed Community activities. Its purpose is to gather information and carry out analyses that help to define objectives and to ensure that these objectives can be met, that the instruments used are cost-effective and that reliable subsequent evaluation will be possible.

Intermediate (or mid-term) evaluation: Evaluation performed during implementation of a measure. If the evaluation extends throughout the period of implementation, this is also called "on-going evaluation". This type of evaluation critically appraises the first outputs and results, in order to assess the quality of monitoring and implementation of the measure. The main focus is to help to prepare adjustments and reprogramming and to provide input for the preliminary deliberations on the future of the measures.

Ex post evaluation: Evaluation conducted either on or after completion of a measure. The main interest is overall assessment of the measure, in particular by analysing the impact achieved and examining its efficiency. The objective is to understand the reasons for success or failure and the sustainability of the results and impact. It also tries to draw conclusions that can be applied generally to other measures.

Impact: A general term used to describe the effects of a measure on society. Impact can be either positive or negative and foreseen or unforeseen. Initial effects are called outcomes/results, whilst impact is usually longer-term.

Impact assessment: Impact assessment is about examining the likely economic, social and environmental impact of the Commission's proposals. It identifies and assesses the issue at stake and the objectives pursued. It identifies the main options for achieving the objectives and analyses their likely impact. It outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each option as well as synergies and trade-offs.

Indicators : A characteristic or attribute which can be measured to assess an activity in terms of its outputs or impacts. Output indicators are normally straightforward. Impact indicators may be more difficult to obtain, and it is often appropriate to rely on indirect indicators as proxies. Indicators can be either quantitative or qualitative.

Monitoring: A continuous process of examining delivery in terms of adoption and implementation of different measures, especially legislation. It is not to be confused with programme monitoring, which consists of examining the delivery of programme outputs to the intended beneficiaries. Evaluation, on the other hand, is carried out at a discrete point in time, and consists of an in-depth study. Monitoring generates data which can be used in evaluations.

Outcomes/results: The intermediate effects of a measure.

Policy: A set of activities, which may differ in type (programmes, measures, procedures, laws or rules) and beneficiaries or target groups, directed towards common general objectives or goals. Unlike projects and programmes, a policy is not usually delimited in terms of time or budget.

Policy area : Within the EU the concept policy may designate various scope and levels of complexity, ranging from an overall Commission strategy or objective over a policy area to an ABB-activity. In this context, a policy will normally embrace a range of instruments At Commission level, the ABB-activities (215 altogether) have been grouped into some 30 policy areas, closely identifiable with Directorates-General. This Communication deals with policy area 18: Freedom, security and justice.

Policy instruments : A set of techniques by which public authorities attempt to ensure support and to effect or prevent social change. In this sense, there is a strong emphasis on the dynamic evolving nature of policies, with individual policy instruments being added, withdrawn or redesigned over time. The variety of available policy instruments includes, for example, legislation such as regulations or directives and may involve resource commitments, for example in the form of operational programmes; they also include Communications, action plans, etc. However, policy instruments differ significantly in the way in which they bring about results and impacts and the timescales over which these can be expected.

Programme : A set of organised but often varied actions (a programme may encompass several different projects, measures and processes) directed towards achieving specific objectives, often with a definite time schedule and budget.

[1] Annexe I aux conclusions de la présidence, Conseil européen de Bruxelles, novembre 2004.

[2] Plan d'action du Conseil et de la Commission mettant en œuvre le programme de La Haye visant à renforcer la liberté, la sécurité et la justice dans l'Union européenne (JO C 198 du 12.8.2005, p. 1).

[3] Le plan d’action appelle aussi à l’élaboration d’une communication sur l’évaluation systématique, objective et impartiale de l’application des politiques de l’Union dans le domaine de la justice en vue de renforcer la confiance mutuelle tout en respectant pleinement l’indépendance de l'appareil judiciaire. Plus tard dans l’année, la Commission présentera donc une autre communication qui traitera en détail de cette question conformément aux principes généraux énoncés dans la présente communication.

[4] COM(2006) 333.

[5] SEC(2000) 1051.

[6] Cf. paragraphe 30.

[7] La production de statistiques communautaires est régie par les dispositions du règlement du Conseil relatif aux statistiques communautaires, et les actions liées à l’établissement de ces statistiques sont réalisées conformément au programme statistique communautaire et à ses programmes annuels, en respectant les principes énoncés dans le code de bonnes pratiques de la statistique européenne.

[8] À cet égard, la Commission prévoit d'adopter un plan de l'UE pour l’élaboration d'une stratégie européenne cohérente et globale de mesure de la criminalité et de la justice pénale, l’objectif ultime étant de disposer de statistiques communautaires fondées sur des définitions et des mécanismes de collecte et de compte rendu harmonisés.

[9] Durant la troisième étape du mécanisme proposé, le mécanisme d’évaluation par les pairs décrit dans l’annexe 2, au point 2.3.2, pourrait continuer de fonctionner. Selon la manière dont évoluera le cadre institutionnel actuel, la Commission pourrait gérer ce mécanisme dans un stade ultérieur. En tout état de cause, elle lui apportera le soutien des évaluations stratégiques approfondies auxquelles elle-même procède dans les domaines couverts par le titre VI du traité sur l'UE.

[10] Voir le paragraphe 30.

[11] Voir le point 3.3.

[12] Asylum acceptance rates can at the moment only be roughly estimated with the data currently available, as asylum decisions in one year often relate to applications made in earlier years.

[13] With particular regard to preparedness and response to terrorist attacks.

[14] Report on the functioning of the derogation system introduced by Regulation 1295/2003 regarding measures envisaged to facilitate the procedures for applying for and issuing visas for members of the Olympic family taking part in the 2004 Olympic or Paralympic Games in Athens (SEC(2005) 1051). This report was written by the Commission on the basis of information provided by the Greek authorities.

[15] Reports from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 93/96 (Right of residence), COM(1999) 127 final and COM(2003) 101 final.

[16] Reports on the application of Directive 93/109/EC: Right of EU citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals to vote in European Parliament elections, COM(97) 731 final and COM(2000) 843, or Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Directive 94/80/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections, COM(2002) 260 final.

[17] Report from the Commission based on Article 11 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism, COM(2004) 409 final, 8.6.2004.

[18] Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings.

[19] Report from the Commission on the legal transposition of the Council Decision of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime, COM(2004) 457 final, 6.7.2004.

[20] Report from the Commission based on Article 34 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (COM(2005) 63 final), p.2, paragraph 2: “The evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission for this report are, firstly, the general criteria normally used nowadays to evaluate the implementation of framework decisions (practical effectiveness, clarity and legal certainty, full application and compliance with the time limit for transposal), and, secondly, criteria specific to the arrest warrant, principally the fact that it is a judicial instrument, its effectiveness and its rapidity.”

[21] COM(2006) 67 final.

[22] Evaluations of agencies and external bodies have not been included, for example the evaluation of the draft Council Decision transforming the European Police College (CEPOL) into an EU body, the evaluation of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and the evaluation of the functioning of the European Judicial Network (EJN) in civil and commercial matters.

[23] The results of these evaluations are available online at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/justice_home/evaluation/dg_coordination_evaluation_annexe_en.htm.

[24] Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States.

[25] Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.

[26] Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum-seekers.

[27] Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

[28] SEC(2001) 380/3, COM(2005) 172.

[29] Decision 26 DEF 1998 of the Schengen Executive Committee.

[30] For further information see: http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33053.htm.

[31] Final report on the first evaluation exercise - mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (2001/C 216/02).

[32] Council Decision 2002/996/JHA of 28 November 2002 establishing a mechanism for evaluating the legal systems and their implementation at national level in the fight against terrorism.

[33] COM(2004) 707.

[34] 2000/2231(INI).

[35] Communication on Evaluation (SEC(2000) 1051):http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/evaluation/keydocuments_en.htm.

Évaluation de la mise en œuvre ainsi que des effets de toutes les mesures (rapport général d’évaluation)

1

Adoption de la mesure à l’issue du processus de prise de décision

Exemple: directive du Conseil sur l'exercice du droit de vote et de candidature aux élections parlementaires européennes pour les citoyens de l'Union résidant dans un État membre dont ils ne sont pas ressortissants

2

Mise en œuvre de la mesure par les États membres

Législation nationale transposant la directive conformément aux dispositions de celle-ci

4 Résultat/impact de la mesure

Résultat: nombre de citoyens de l’UE résidant dans un État membre dont ils ne sont pas ressortissants qui exercent leur droit de vote/de candidature aux élections parlementaires européennes.

Impact: participation électorale accrue; légitimité accrue et représentativité du PE.

Contrôle de l’état d’avancement de l’adoption et de la mise en œuvre des mesures (tableau de bord)

3

Résultat immédiat de la mesure

Mise en œuvre au niveau national de la mesure, par exemple par l’établissement de listes électorales, etc.

Évaluation des résultats des mesures

Mandat politique: programmation pluriannuelle

Évaluations stratégiques des politiques

Système de collecte et de partage des informations

Mécanisme de compte-rendu

Série de fiches d’information

Rapport d’évaluation

Rapport d’évaluation spécifique approfondi

3 étapes

Résultats concrets