Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2011)759 - For the period 2014 to 2020 the Justice Programme - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2011)759 - For the period 2014 to 2020 the Justice Programme. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2011)759  |
| date | 15-11-2011 |
As confirmed by the Stockholm Programme, the development of an area of freedom, security and justice remains a priority for the European Union. Although significant progress has already been achieved in this field, judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters is still insufficient. In the post-Lisbon era and after the abolition of the third pillar the area of justice develops dynamically in order to respond to all challenges. Legislative and policy measures as well as their coherent implementation are key tools. Funding can contribute to the development of this area through supporting legislation and policy-making and promoting their implementation.
In accordance with the Communication on the EU Budget Review, a fresh look was taken at the existing funding instruments and delivery mechanisms to ensure clear focus on European added value and to cater for rationalisation and simplification of the funding mechanisms. In ‘A Budget for Europe 2020’[2], the Commission identified the need for a simpler and more transparent budget to overcome the problems that arise from the complexity of programme structures and the existence of multiple programmes. The area of justice was mentioned as an example of the existing fragmentation, where action should be taken.
Within this framework and aiming at simplification and rationalisation, the Justice programme is the successor of three current programmes:
- Civil Justice (JCIV),
- Criminal Justice (JPEN),
- Drug Prevention and Information Programme (DPIP).
Whereas DPIP was based on a public health legal basis and therefore covered health considerations, notably the reduction of health harms associated with drug use, the Justice programme approaches anti-drugs policy via the angle of crime prevention. Illicit drug trafficking, which is one of the areas of crime where the European legislator may adopt minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions on the basis of Article 83 TFEU, and other illegal activities related to drugs will be the main focus of drug-related funding under the new programme.
The merge of these programmes, all based on provisions in Part III, Title V of the TFEU, will allow for a comprehensive funding approach in this area and for a more efficient allocation of funds for horizontal issues, such as training.
The general objective of this proposal is to contribute to the creation of a genuine area of justice through promoting judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters. To achieve this general objective, the proposal aims to promote effective, comprehensive and consistent application of Union legislation in the areas of judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters, to fostering access to justice and to prevent and reduce drug demand and supply.
This can be achieved by supporting training and awareness-raising, strengthening networks and facilitating transnational cooperation. Moreover, the European Union needs to equip itself with a sound analytical basis to support policy-making and legislation in the area of justice.
Contents
A public stakeholder consultation on future funding activities in the area of Justice, Fundamental Rights and Equality for the period after 2013 was launched on 20 April 2011. It was available online for two months and was open to all interested stakeholders and individuals. 187 respondents – with an important part of NGOs - from most Member States submitted their contribution.
The respondents evaluated positively the policy objectives of the programmes and confirmed the need for funding in the areas covered. The European added value was acknowledged and no area was identified where funding should be discontinued. The need for simplification and improvement was acknowledged and most of the proposed measures received a positive response, including the reduction of the number of programmes and the simplification of procedures.
The stakeholders were in favour of funding activities such as exchange of good practices, training of professionals, information and awareness raising activities, support to networks, studies, etc. All types of activities which met with approval by the respondents are foreseen explicitly in Article 6 of the proposal. The respondents were in agreement with the Commission's proposals concerning the actors appropriate to receive funding and the types of funding mechanisms that could be used.
One impact assessment was carried out concerning the future funding activities for the whole area of justice, rights and equality, which currently comprises six programmes. This impact assessment is relevant for both the proposal on the Justice Programme, as well as the proposal on the Rights and Citizenship Programme. The impact assessment builds on the interim evaluations of the current programmes, which confirmed the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the programmes, but they also identified some shortcomings and room for improvement. The impact assessment has considered three options:
Option A: to maintain six programmes and to address some of the identified problems through changes in the internal management of the programmes. Improving management and fostering strong synergies between the programmes would address some of the issues. However, the main cause of the problems, i.e. the multitude of programmes would not be directly addressed and consequently the improvements to be achieved by this option would be limited.
Option B: to maintain all measures of option A and additionally to merge the current six programmes into two programmes. This option would allow for flexibility in the use of funds and in addressing annual policy priorities. It would achieve increased simplification (both for the beneficiaries and the administration) and efficiency of the programmes, since significantly fewer procedures would be needed. The effectiveness of the programmes would also be improved as the fragmentation and dilution of funds would be addressed better within two programmes. Human resources could be freed, since fewer procedures would reduce the administrative burden and they would be allocated to activities improving the effectiveness of the programmes (dissemination of results, monitoring, providing information, etc).
Option C: to implement only one programme. This option addresses all problems caused by the multiple legal instruments and by the increased administrative burden of managing multiple programmes. However, due to legal constraints the scope of this programme would not be able to cover the funding needs of all policy areas. A choice would have to be made between the area of justice and the area of rights and citizenship. Although this solution can deliver maximum impact in terms of management, however it would not be possible to address sufficiently the policy priorities and needs of the whole policy area.
Resulting from the analysis and comparison of the options, the preferred option is the implementation of two programmes which would cover the funding needs of all policy areas (option B). In comparison to the status quo option B presents clear advantages and no disadvantage. Option A is not as beneficial as option B and option C only offers partial coverage of the policy areas, which renders this option unsuitable.
The proposal is based on Article 81 and , Article 82 and Article 84 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
The combination of Articles 81 and 82 allows for a comprehensive approach in supporting the development of judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters, especially in terms of cross-cutting and horizontal issues affecting both justice areas.
Article 84 foresees the establishment of measures to promote and support the action of Member States in the field of crime prevention. The Programme does not intend to cover the whole area of crime prevention, but only the area of anti-drugs policy. It aims to adopt a comprehensive approach to fighting drug demand and supply, covering funding to support Member States’ cross-border cooperation on enforcement.
The funding activities proposed respect the principles of European added value and of subsidiarity. Funding from the Union budget concentrates on activities whose objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States alone, where the Union intervention can bring additional value compared to action of Member States alone. Activities covered by this Regulation contribute to the effective application of the acquis by developing mutual trust between Member States, increasing cross-border cooperation and networking and achieving correct, coherent and consistent application of Union law across the Union. The European Union is in a better position than Member States to address cross-border situations and to provide a European platform for mutual learning. A sound analytical basis for the support and the development of policies will be supported. European Union intervention allows for these activities to be pursued consistently across the Union and brings economies of scale.
The proposal complies with the proportionality principle in that it does not go beyond the minimum required in order to achieve the stated objective at European level and what is necessary for that purpose.
The financial envelope for the implementation of the Justice Programme for the period 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020 shall amount to EUR 472 million (current prices).
The aim of the proposed approach is to combine the simplification of funding procedures, as requested by all involved parties, with a more result-oriented approach. The main elements of this approach are the following:
- The proposal defines the general and specific objectives pursued by the Programme (Articles 4 and 5) and the areas of action where the Programme will focus on (Article 6). The general and specific objectives define the scope of the programme (policy areas), whereas the types of actions are funding-oriented, they are applicable to all policy areas concerned and define in a horizontal way the outputs that can be achieved by funding. At the same time, they define where funding can really be of added value for the achievement of the policy objectives. In implementing this Regulation the Commission will establish annually the funding priorities in the respective policy areas. The Programme can make use of all financial instruments foreseen in the Financial Regulation. The participation is open to all legal entities legally established in the Member States or in a third country participating in the Programme, with no further limitations to the access to the programme. This structure allows for simplification, as well as for better orientation of the programme to the policy needs and developments. Moreover, it provides a stable context for evaluation, as the specific objectives are directly linked to indicators for evaluation, which will remain consistent for the whole duration of the programme and will be monitored and evaluated regularly. It is proposed not to reserve specific amounts per policy area within the programme in order to achieve flexibility and to improve the implementation of the programme.
- The participation of third countries is limited to EEA, accession and candidate countries and potential candidates. Other third countries, notably countries where the European Neighbourhood Policy applies, may be associated to actions of the Programme, if this serves the purpose of these actions.
- The annual priorities of the programme will be defined in an annual work programme. Because this implies policy-driven choices, the adoption of the annual work programme is subject to the opinion of a Committee of Member States under the Advisory procedure.
- The Commission may use, on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis, an existing executive agency for the implementation of the programme, as provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes.
The notion of ‘judiciary and judicial staff'
Judicial training of the judiciary and judicial staff is a key element of Justice policies. Judicial training enhances mutual confidence between Member States, practitioners and citizens and the Commission’s Communication on European judicial training, 'Building trust in EU-wide justice, a new dimension to European judicial training', sets concrete training objectives to be achieved by 2020. Articles 81(2)(h) and 82(1)(c) TFEU explicitly target 'Judiciary and Judicial staff'. In accordance with the Commission's Communication lawyers, while constituting an autonomous profession, are an integral and necessary part of judicial activity and they play a central role in the implementation of Union law. As for notaries in several Member States they have important competence in the judicial field, which also leads them to contribute to the implementation of Union law. Taking into account the spirit and the aims of the Treaty's provisions these provisions are extended to include these two professions.