DOCSLIB.ORG

Sec(2005)1764

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sec(2005)1764 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 15.12.2005 SEC(2005) 1764 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second annual report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the AGIS programme YEAR 2004 EN EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Second annual report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the AGIS programme YEAR 2004 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 3 2. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2004 BUDGET ................................................ 4 2.1. Projects......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1. Non Budgetary Indicators ............................................................................................ 5 2.1.2. Budgetary indicators.................................................................................................... 8 3. CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................ 12 4. ANNEX I: LIST OF SELECTED PROJECTS IN 2004 ........................................... 14 EN 2 EN 1. INTRODUCTION From January 2003, the former five Programmes established under Title VI (Grotius Criminal, Oisin, Stop, Falcone and Hippokrates) were replaced and brought together into a single Programme - the AGIS Framework Programme. The AGIS Programme, a framework programme that aims to promote police and judicial co- operation in criminal matters, was adopted on 22 July 2002 by a Council Decision1 (hereinafter called AGIS Decision) and it covers not only the same type of activities, but also the same topics included in the former five Programmes. There is, in fact, a great continuity in the action carried out by Grotius, Oisin, Stop, Falcone and Hippokrate Programmes and the AGIS Programme. This latter has also incorporated the activities previously funded under budget heading B5-831 (drugs). The AGIS Programme runs from 2003 to 2007 and it has a total budget of 77 millions euros, increased from the original 65 million euros following the accession of the ten new Member States in May 2004. Given that the new financial perspectives will apply in 2007, the Commission has proposed that the AGIS programme be replaced from 2007 by the new Framework Programme on Security and Safeguarding Liberties. This document constitutes the second annual report on the implementation of the programme prepared by the Commission in accordance with Article 11 of the AGIS Decision and it provides a narrative description and some statistical tables of the actions funded under the 2004 budget. It is important to underline that this report, like the one for 2003, does not replace the more in- depth analysis that will be done under the Evaluation study. During 2004, the call for tenders concerning the “Ex post evaluation of Grotius II, Oisin II, STOP II Falcone and Hippokrates Programmes and interim evaluation of the AGIS Programme” (this latter foreseen in Article 11 of the Council decision establishing the Programme) was launched. The successful tenderer – Ramboll Management A/S – started the work early January 2005, immediately after the signature of the contract. This evaluation study concerns: • the ex post evaluation of the five former Title VI Programmes namely Grotius II, Oisin II, Stop II, Falcone and Hyppocrate; and • the mid term evaluation of the AGIS Programme. The decision to carry both evaluations under the same contract was taken in order to allow the same team to have an in-depth knowledge of the programmes and a better understanding of the developments occurred and, as previously stated, because there is a considerable continuity between the former five Programmes and the AGIS Programme. 1 Council Decision 2002/630/JHA (OJ L 203 of 1.8.2002, p.5). EN 3 EN As regards the former five Programmes, the ex post evaluation is centred in the last 2 years of implementation – 2001 and 2002. The evaluation exercise focuses on STOP II, Oisin II and Grotius II, which are the so-called second generation of Programmes, as well as in Hippokrate (2001/2002) and Falcone (2001/2002). In the case of the interim evaluation of the AGIS Programme, the analysis concerns the 2 first years of implementation – 2003 and 2004. In geographical terms, the evaluation covers all the countries that participated in the Programme - Member States and the former candidate countries (now known as the ten new Member States), and in institutional terms it covers both the Commission and the applicant organizations. The final report of this evaluation study will be available in the last quarter of 2005 and a Commission Staff Working document will be prepared and transmitted to the Council and the Parliament. 2. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2004 BUDGET The Commission adopted the 2004 Annual work programme and published two different Call for proposals on 18 December 20032, one for operating grants and one for co-funding of projects. The total budget available for 2004 was € 15 270 000, of which €14 470 000 was for project grants, € 400 000 for operating grants and 400 000 for evaluation. The deadline for receiving the proposals was 13 February 2004. 2.1. Projects The Commission received a total of 217 proposals (216 in the call for applications for co- funding of projects and one in the call for applications for operating grants). As the only operating grant request was not accepted, the following analysis concerns only the applications related to projects. The proposals were evaluated by the Commission services. This work started with the analysis of formal eligibility criteria (use of budgetary and grant application forms, starting date of the project, indication of the partnership, etc.): 86 proposals did not meet these conditions and were considered ineligible. The eligible proposals (130) were subsequently evaluated on their contents by the Commission services, according to the selection and award criteria laid down in the AGIS Decision, as well as those mentioned in the Annual Work Programme - 112 projects were found of sufficient quality and clarity to be recommended for co-financing and 18 projects were found of insufficient quality. After having received a positive opinion of the AGIS Committee at its meeting on 27 May 2004, the Commission adopted the list of 112 selected projects on 18 June 2004. 2 Commission Decision 2003/C 308/14 and Commission Decision 2003/13 (OJ C 308 of 18.12.2003, p.42 and p. 37). EN 4 EN The table below depicts that situation. Projects * Number % Total received 216 100.0 Total selected for co- 112 51.9 financing** Non selected 18 8.3 Non eligible 86 39.8 *The single operating grant request is not included in this table. ** This total came down to 108 as some promoters withdrew their applications before signature of the contract. A description of the 108 selected projects is annexed to this report (Annex I). In this list, the amounts shown for the total estimated cost and co-financing for each project correspond to the amount included in the budget of each project after the analysis and revision accomplished by the Commission. These “revised” amounts only exist for the selected projects. In the case of the non selected or non eligible projects, there was no revision of the budget proposed by the applicant. Furthermore, this list only contains the projects for which a budgetary commitment was made and the contract was signed – a total of 108 projects. 2.1.1. Non Budgetary Indicators As referred to above, the AGIS Programme replaced the five former Title VI Programmes and it therefore inherited all the different fields of intervention and target-groups that existed in those programmes. An overview of the distribution according to different aspects of the projects received and of those co-financed is presented in the following sections. EN 5 EN a) Distribution of the number of projects per Member State Country Projects received Projects co-financed Total % Total % Belgium 19 8.8 11 10.2 Germany 29 13.4 17 15.7 Greece 5 2.3 1 0.9 Spain 20 9.3 8 7.4 France 24 11.1 9 8.3 Ireland 12 5.6 9 8.3 Italy 33 15.3 17 15.7 Luxembourg 2 0.9 2 1.9 Netherlands 18 8.3 6 5.6 Austria 8 3.7 7 6.5 Portugal 5 2.3 3 2.8 Sweden 5 2.3 3 2.8 United Kingdom 34 15.7 13 12.0 Czech Republic 2 0.9 2 1.9 TOTAL 216 100.0 108 100.0 Out of the total number of 216 proposals received, 55.5% were presented by four Member States (DE, FR, IT and UK). Among the co-financed projects, the share of these Member States is slightly lower – 51.7%. The second most numerous group of applications comes from Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands and Ireland, with 32% of the total of projects received and almost the same share of those co-financed (31.5%). Among the former EU-15 Member States, only Finland and Denmark did not present any application. EN 6 EN b) Distribution of the number of interventions per type of beneficiary Beneficiary Projects received Projects co-financed Total % Total % National Authority 102 47.2 53 49.1 Regional and Local 19 8.8 13 12.0 authority NGOs and Universities 49 22.7 18 16.7 INT/OTHER 20 9.3 9 8.3 NPO (non profit 23 10.6 14 13.0 organizations) COM 3 1.4 1 0.9 TOTAL 216 100.0 108 100.0 National Authorities continue to present the highest percentage of projects – 47.2% of those received and 49.1% of those co-financed. The second most important group includes Universities and NGO’s with 16.7%, followed by Non Profit Organizations -13%- and Regional and Local Authorities -12.0%-, in terms of co-financed projects. c) Distribution of the number of projects per field of intervention Fields of intervention Projects received Projects co-financed Total % Total % Cooperation – Judicial 45 20.8 27 25.0 Authorities Cooperation – Law 51 23.6 25 23.1 enforcement authorities Prevention and fight 100 46.3 46 42.6 criminal groups + Prevention and fight specific forms of crime Victim assistance 19 8.8 9 8.3 Statistics 1 0.5 1 1.0 TOTAL 216 100.0 108 100.0 EN 7 EN In what respects the fields of intervention, “Crime prevention and fight against specific forms of crime” accounts for the largest share of projects received – 46.3% - and of those co- financed – 42.6%.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Educational System of the Netherlands
    The educational system of the Netherlands Ruud Luijkx and Manon de Heus1 1 Short historical overview The first act on compulsory education got implemented in 1900. This act made primary education of six grades compulsory to all children between 6 and 12 years of age. Repeatedly, there had been made adjustments to this act, but in 1969 it was completely replaced. According to the new act, all children aged 6 to 16 were obliged to fully attend daytime classes. In 1985, the lower limit was adjusted to the age of 5, and since then, full‐time edu‐ cation is compulsory for at least 12 complete school years. Students who have reached the age of 16 in the past school year are not obliged to attend education full‐time anymore. However, they are compelled to attend part‐time education (that is, at least 1 or 2 days a week) for at least another year. This is known as the act on partial compulsory education (partiële leerplichtwet). At the end of the school year in which the student turns 17, the student is not obliged to attend part‐ time‐education anymore (Eurydice, 2005a). Since the start of compulsory education in the Netherlands, the educational system has changed in many respects. However, there is one very important characteristic of the Dutch educational system that has stayed intact since the beginning of the 20th century. That is, since 1917, public and private education have been treated equally by law. This so‐called freedom of education (article 23 of the Dutch consti‐ tution) refers to the right of all Dutch citizens to found schools or follow education based on certain religious, ideological, or educational persuasions.
    [Show full text]
  • Gricard-Nihoul-Note Europeanelections.Indd
    EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY IN ACTION EUROPEAN ELECTIONS: FIVE REFLECTIONS FOR DISCUSSION GAËTANE RICARD-NIHOUL JULY 2009 GAËTANE RICARD-NIHOUL IS SECRETARY GENERAL OF NOTRE EUROPE. SHE HOLDS A DEGREE IN POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE AND AN MPHIL AND A DPHIL IN EUROPEAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY FROM OXFORD UNIVERSITY. HER RESEARCH FOCUSED ON POLICY FORMATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION, AND MORE PARTICULARLY ON EDUCATION POLICY. SHE IS THE AUTHOR OF SEVERAL STUDIES: « THE FRENCH ‘NO’ VOTE OF 29 MAY: UNDERSTANDING, ACTION » AND «THE REVISION OF THE EUROPEAN TREATIES: THE CONVENTIONMOMENT». EUROPEAN ELECTIONS: FIVE REFLECTIONS FOR DICUSSION - 1 1. Is abstention intractable? the progress made by this idea since 1998. But given the fall in turnout, we can only regret that once again the idea has not been put into practice. Average turnout across the EU for these elections of June 2009 was assessed at 43.2%. It was 45.5% in 2004 and 62% in 1979. The paradox Of course, the situation is not entirely gloomy. Participation increased in 8 of European elections persists: for 30 years participation has fallen with member states and remained stable in 7. But such increases or stability are each election, while in parallel the European Parliament’s competencies relative to 2004 figures which were somewhat low – or in certain cases very have grown significantly. The Parliament was already a major winner of the low. It is interesting to note the rising participation in two Scandinavian treaties of Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam; if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified it countries where opinion has seemed increasingly favourable to European will become co-legislator, with the Council, in a large majority of the Union’s integration in recent years (59.52% against 47.89% in 2004 in Denmark; policy areas, and will have blocking power throughout the budget negotia- 43.8% against 37.85% in Sweden).
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2004
    NETHERLANDS HELSINKI COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2004 This report was compiled by Carien Westerveld English Revision by Peter Morris Print: Krips Repro Meppel P.O. Box 93132 2509 AC The Hague The Netherlands Telephone: +31 (0)70 3926700 Fax: +31 (0)70 3926550 E-mail: [email protected] www.nhc.nl CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 5 1. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES .................................................... 7 1.1. Helsinki Committees.....................................................................7 1.2. The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights ......................8 1.3. Objectives of the Netherlands Helsinki Committee ..............................9 2. ACTIVITIES.....................................................................................11 2.1. Research.................................................................................. 11 2.2. Monitoring............................................................................... 12 2.3. Publicity .................................................................................. 13 2.4. Lobbying ................................................................................. 14 2.5. Technical assistance ................................................................... 15 2.5.1. Strengthening the role and independence of the judiciary........... 16 - Strengthening the legal culture in Croatia: improvement of the relations between the judiciary and the media .................... 16 2.5.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Elevators and Escalators) (Notified Under Document Number C(2007) 512 Final) (Only the English Version Is Authentic)
    26.3.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 75/19 Summary of Commission Decision of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators) (notified under document number C(2007) 512 final) (Only the English version is authentic) (2008/C 75/10) I. SUMMARY OF THE INFRINGEMENTS Introduction 1. The decision was addressed to KONE Belgium SA, KONE GmbH, KONE Luxembourg SARL, KONE BV Liften en Roltrappen, KONE Corporation (hereinafter ‘KONE’), Mitsubishi Elevator Europe BV, NV OTIS SA, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, General Technic-Otis SARL, General Technic SARL, Otis BV, Otis Elevator Company, United Technologies Corporation (hereinafter ‘Otis’), Schindler SA/NV, Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH, Schindler SARL, Schindler Liften BV, Schindler Holding Ltd (hereinafter ‘Schindler’), ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV/SA, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg SARL, ThyssenKrupp Liften BV, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG and ThyssenKrupp AG (hereinafter ‘ThyssenKrupp’). 2. The addressees participated in four separate but related single and continuous infringements of Article 81 of the Treaty in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands regarding elevators and escalators. Each of the four infringements covered the whole territory of one of these Member States. Procedure 3. The Commission initiated the investigation on its own initiative (‘ex-officio’) in early 2004 using informa- tion brought to its attention. Three rounds of inspections (Belgium, and Germany: January 2004; Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg: March 2004 and the Netherlands: April 2004) and a large number of leniency applications under the 2002 Leniency Notice confirmed that cartels were run in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2004 Contents
    annual report 2004 contents Bank Profile 1 Financial Highlights 2 Report of the Supervisory Board 3 Governing Bodies 5 Report of the Executive Board 6 Economic Environment In Turkey 8 Bank Operations 10 Wholesale Business 10 Retail Operations 11 Treasury Operations 15 Risk Management 16 Expectations 17 Board Staff and Personnel 18 Management and Staff 19 Financial Statement for the Year 2004 21 Consolidated balance sheet as of 31 December 2004 22 Consolidated profit and loss account for the financial year 2004 23 Consolidated cash flow statement for the financial year 2004 24 Notes to the consolidated balance sheet and profit and loss account 25 Financial Statement for the Year 2004 38 Company balance sheet as of 31 December 2004 38 Company profit and loss account for the financial year 2004 38 Notes to the company balance sheet and profit and loss account 39 Other Information 41 Auditor's Report 43 Directory 44 Dear reader, You may be surprised to see that we have chosen to illustrate our 2004 Annual Report with a number of children’s drawings, so here is a word of explanation. For the past seven years, DHB Bank has organized an annual drawing contest for children in the Netherlands. Each year, a theme is chosen, and the children compete in three age categories. The contest is enjoying an increasing popularity, and by now, more than thousand children participate in each edition. The contest, named "DeHa Cocuk", Turkish for whiz kid as well as a reference to our bank’s name, is traditionally organized in the run-up to April 23, the Turkish National Sovereignty and Children’s Day.
    [Show full text]
  • Zoonoses and Zoonotic Agents in Humans, Food, Animals and Feed in the Netherlands 2003-2006
    Zoonoses and Zoonotic Agents in Humans, Food, Animals and Feed in the Netherlands 2003-2006 Zoonoses and Zoonotic Agents in Humans, Food, Animals and Feed in the Netherlands 2003-2006 Editors: S. Valkenburgh, R. van Oosterom, O. Stenvers, M. Aalten, M. Braks, B. Schimmer, A. van de Giessen, W. van Pelt, M. Langelaar Centrum Infectieziektebestrijding RIVM, Postbus 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, telefoon: 030 - 274 91 11; fax: 030 - 274 29 71 Collaborating institutes: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu Postbus 1 3720 BA Bilthoven Voedsel en Waren Autoriteit Postbus 19506 2500 CM Den Haag Auteursrecht voorbehouden © 2007, Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, Bilthoven Aan de totstandkoming van deze uitgave is de uiterste zorg besteed. Voor informatie die noch- tans onvolledig of onjuist is opgenomen, aanvaarden redactie, auteurs en uitgever geen aanspra- kelijkheid. Voor eventuele verbeteringen van de opgenomen gegevens houden zij zich gaarne aanbevolen. Alle rechten voorbehouden. Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden verveelvoudigd, opgeslagen in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand of openbaar gemaakt in enige vorm of op enige wijze, hetzij elektronisch, mechanisch, door fotokopieën, opnamen of enige andere manier, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van het RIVM en de uitgever. Voorzover het maken van kopieën uit deze uitgave is toegestaan op grond van artikel 16b Au-teurswet 1912 juncto het Besluit van 20 juni 1974, Stb. 351, zoals gewijzigd bij het Besluit van 23 augustus 1985, Stb. 471, en artikel 17 Auteurswet 1912, dient men de daarvoor wettelijk verschuldigde vergoed- ingen te voldoen aan de Stichting Reprorecht, Postbus 882, 1180 AW Amstelveen. Voor het over- nemen van gedeelten uit deze uitgave in bloemlezingen, readers en andere compilatiewerken (artikel 16 Auteurswet 1912) dient men zich tot de uitgever te wenden.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2004 Vastned Industrial/Offices
    VastNed Offices / IndustrialAnnual VastNed/ N.V. Offices Report 2004 Annual Report 2004 VastNed Offices/Industrial Key figures Key figures property portfolio (in operation) 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ Netherlands Belgium France Total Results (x € 1 million) ____________________ ____________________ _______ _______ Gross rental income 94.0 108.2 117.8 111.3 83.6 Semi- Semi- Semi- Offices industrial Offices industrial industrial Direct investment result 40.8 48.6 52.6 52.2 48.2 _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ Indirect investment result (37.7) (31.5) (37.8) (8.2) 6.1 ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ Number of tenants 325 120 188 44 1 678 Investment result 3.1 17.1 14.8 44.0 54.3 Theoretical annual rental income (x € 1 million) 39.8 17.0 40.5 12.7 0.3 110.3 Market rent (x € 1 million) 38.2 16.1 36.7 11.5 0.3 102.8 Balance sheet (x € 1 million) Over/under-rent (in %) 104 106 110 111 127 107 Investments in property 1,165.6 1,262.6 1,323.1 1,271.3 1,131.7 Group equity 601.3 631.3 669.5 646.1 553.0 Average occupancy rate (in %) 86.0 84.0 79.4 93.0 100.0 84.2 Shareholders’ equity 466.4 509.0 540.6 570.4 547.1 Occupancy rate at year-end (in %) 87.7 74.8 79.8 93.5 100.0 83.5 Long-term liabilities 387.9 420.1 400.3 324.0 190.0 Rent-free periods / rent discounts (in %) 1.0 1.5 1.9 6.4 – 1.0 Composition property portfolio (in %) Number of properties 100 36 26 18 1 181 Netherlands 53 53 56 67 84 Investments (x € 1 million) 409.6 154.2 416.6 129.5 2.4
    [Show full text]