EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 18.5.2011 
SEC(2011) 580 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European economic and social Committee and the Committtee of the Regions 
 
Proposal for a 
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of 
crime 
 
Proposal for a 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters  
{COM(2011) 274 final} 
{SEC(2011) 581 final}  
 
EN 1   EN Table of Contents 
Introduction/ Annexes.......................................................................................................... ...... 2 
1. Procedural Issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 3 
1.1. Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 3 1.2. Consultation of the impact assessment board (IAB).................................................... 4 1.3. Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 4 2. Problem Definition....................................................................................................... 5 2.1. Problem A – EU Legislation is inadequate  to improve the situation of victims.......... 6 
2.2. Problem B – Victims' needs are not suffici ently addressed in the Member States...... 8 
2.2.1. Issue 1 -Victims are not sufficiently recogni sed and treated with dignity and respect 8 
2.2.2. Issue 2 – Victims are not sufficiently protected........................................................... 9 2.2.3. Issue 3 – Victims are not sufficiently supported........................................................ 10 2.2.4. Issue 4 – Victims do not have effective access to justice .......................................... 12 2.2.5. Issue 5 – Victims do not have effective access to compensation and restoration...... 13 2.3. Hidden costs linked to victimisation.......................................................................... 14 2.4. The underlying drivers of the problems..................................................................... 16 2.5. Baseline Scenario....................................................................................................... 16  
2.6. The need for action at EU level.................................................................................. 17 2.6.1. European dimension and added value........................................................................ 18 2.6.2. Legal basis............................................................................................................. ..... 19 
2.6.3. Subsidiarity ............................................................................................................ .... 19 
3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 21 
3.1. General, specific and operational ob jectives.............................................................. 21 
3.2. Consistency of the objectives  with other EU policies................................................ 21 
3.3. Consistency of the objectives with the Fundamental Rights ..................................... 22 
4. Policy options............................................................................................................. 2 3 
4.1. Discarded options....................................................................................................... 23  
4.2. Overview of policy options........................................................................................ 23 4.3. Detailed description of policy optio ns concerning selected measures....................... 26 
5. Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 30 
 
EN 2   EN 5.1. Description and impact an alysis of policy options .................................................... 30 
5.1.1. Policy option 1: Retention of the st atus quo – No action at EU level........................ 31 
5.1.2. Policy option 2: Low prescription.............................................................................. 32 5.1.3. Policy option 3a: Medium prescription...................................................................... 35 5.1.4. Policy option 3b: Medium/High prescription ............................................................ 39 5.1.5. Policy option 4: High prescription ............................................................................. 42 6. Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 44 6.1. Comparative assessment of policy options ................................................................ 44 6.2. The preferred option................................................................................................... 44 7. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 46 
A
NNEXES  
This report commits only the Commission's services  involved in its preparation and does not 
prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission.  
 
EN 3   EN INTRODUCTION  
This impact assessment is for an initiative that aims at devel oping a set of measures for the 
recognition, protection and support of victims of cr ime that will ensure t hat victims receive a 
minimum level of assistance (legal, psychologic al and other), access to justice and restoration 
in all Member States of the EU. The initiative will benefit citizens across all Member States 
and will make sure that protection of victims is not lost when they travel or move to another 
Member State.  
In the Stockholm Programme (2010-2014)1, the European Council called for further action to 
place the needs of victims of crime at the centre of  our justice systems. This was reaffirmed in 
the Commission's action plan to implement  the Stockholm Program me. The Commission 
Work Programme 2011 (Annex I)2 lists the rights of and suppor t to victims of crime as a 
strategic initiative. The European Parliament  has also called upon the Council to adopt a 
comprehensive legal framework offering vi ctims of crime the widest protection.3 
The Commission's "Citizenship Report" of 27 October 20104 seeks to dismantle the obstacles 
to citizens' rights by adding subs tance to individual rights granted at EU level. Strengthening 
victims' rights, together with the strengtheni ng of procedural rights of suspects or accused 
persons in criminal proceedings  reflects this approach.  
This impact assessment evaluates the options for these measures. 
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Organisation and timing 
Identification : Lead DG: DG JUSTICE; Commissi on Work Programme 2011, Annex I 
(Agenda Planning 2009/006). 
Detailed work on the impact assessment starte d in 2009. Four expert meetings (17 November 
2008, 18 February 2010, 14 April 2010 and 25 May 2010), as well as a range of bilateral 
contacts with Member States and NGOs ha ve been held. Moreover, the Commission 
contracted an external study (her einafter "the external study")5. to support the preparation of 
the Impact Assessment, which presented its report in N ovember 2010. The Commission also 
held a public consultation from 15 July to 30 September 2010 (see Section 1.3 below). 
                                                 
1 Multi-annual programme 2010-2014 regarding the ar ea of freedom, security and justice (Stockholm 
programme) European Parliament resolution of 25 November 2009 on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – An area of freedom, security and justice 
serving the citizen – Stockholm programme. 
2 COM(2010) 623 final. 
3 Resolution of 7 May 2009 of the European Parliament on the development of an European Union criminal 
justice area (INI/2009/2012). 
4 COM/2010/0603 final. 
5 Matrix Report: A Study for an Impact Assessment on Ways of Improving the Support, Protection and Rights of Victims across Europe, November 
2010 (the "Matrix Report"). 
 
EN 4   EN The Inter-Service Steering Group met on 5 N ovember 2010 and 19 January 2011 at which 
representatives of Directorates-Generals Tr anslation (DG DGT), Enlargement (DG ELARG), 
Home Affairs (DG HOME) and the Secr etariat General (SG) participated. 
1.2. Consultation of the impact assessment board (IAB) 
The Commission’s IAB was consulted on 23 February 2011 and delivered its Opinion on 25 
February 2011. The IAB delivered a positive opinion subject to improvements on certain issues. In particular, the IAB recommended that: the intervention logic is strengthened; the 
expected benefits and the distribution of corresponding costs are better assessed; the 
methodology used to generate key estimates is be tter explained; the pref erred option is clearly 
presented and its proportionality  explained; and aspects of procedure and presentation are 
reinforced. The recommendations for improveme nts have been accommodated in this revised 
version of the report.  
1.3. Consultation and expertise 
The Commission's minimum standards on consu ltations were followed. Experts from 
different backgrounds including governments, law enforcement agencies, non-governmental 
organisations (NGOs), international organisatio ns and universities took part in detailed 
discussions on the legislative pl ans well before the conclusion of this impact assessment. 
Further details can be found at Annex 1
.  
The Commission contracted the ex ternal study to support the preparation of the impact 
assessment and a further study was contracted to examine options in rela tion to the specific 
objective of ensuring that the pr otection gained through a protecti on order is not lost when a 
protected person travels or move s to another Member States.6 Results from two surveys have 
also been used: the external  study consulted 384 representatives from government and non-
government sectors, receiving 119 replie s, and the Victims in Europe Project7 received 97 
replies to its legal implementa tion questionnaire and 218 to it s organisational questionnaire. 
During the preparation process of the impact  assessment, the Commission held a public 
consultation, open to all members of the pub lic and to non-governmental and governmental 
organisations, asking their views on what action the EU should ta ke to improve the situation 
of victims of crime. The Commission receive d 77 replies by the deadline for responses. In 
brief, the consultation process highlighted the importance of action in the following non-
exhaustive list of areas: iden tification of vulnerable victims; need to ensure the right to 
remedy to victims; need to ensure access to re storative justice and minimum standards; need 
to establish and promote victim support orga nisations; need to pr ovide translation and 
interpretation for victims; and need to change practitioners' attitudes and culture through training on rights of victims of crime. A summary of the resp onses can be found at Annex 2
.  
The results of the various consultations have b een used extensively for the problem definition 
and the identification and an alysis of policy options.  
                                                 
6 Hess, Burkhard, "Feasibility Study: The European Protection Order and the European Law of Civil Procedure". 
7 APAV/Victim Support Europe, the Project "Victims in Europe", 2009 (the "APAV Report"). 
 
EN 5   EN 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
Crime can affect us all, and every year many millions  of people in the EU do in fact fall victim 
to crime. According to Eurostat data8, around 30 million serious offences, excluding minor 
crimes, were recorded in 2007, and most crimes are never reported. Many of these offences 
involve more than one victim and those close to the victim also  suffer indir ectly from the 
crimes. This leads to a qualified estimate that there is likely to be about 75 million direct 
victims every year, with more than 225 milli on close family members also affected.9 
These figures show that the problem of victimis ation in Europe is considerable – roughly 15% 
of the EU's population suffer directly from se rious crimes (excluding minor offences) every 
year. This is a serious situation, but the pr oblems identified in this impact assessment go 
beyond the sheer numbers of victims of crime in Europe. We want to a ddress the quality of 
treatment that victims receive in the aftermath of crime and during the criminal proceedings 
that follow. Victims should receive the same minimum standard of treatment, including non-
discriminatory access to justice, in all EU Memb er States, irrespective of their nationality or 
country of residence. 
This non-discriminatory right of equal treatment of individuals who fall victim of crime while 
travelling to another Member State was establis hed by the European Court of Justice in the 
case Cowan v Trésor public  as early as 1989.10 Since this judgment, there has been an 
increased focus in the Member States and at EU -level on the rights of vi ctims of crime. With 
the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, new provisions on criminal justice provide a clear 
legal base for the EU to establish minimum ru les on victims' rights to facilitate mutual 
recognition of judgments and d ecisions and police and judicial  co-operation in criminal 
matters having a cross-border dimension.  
For mutual recognition and judici al co-operation to fully work there must be mutual trust 
between EU Member States and between criminal  justice systems. This means that justice 
systems should have faith in each others' standa rds of fairness and justice, and EU citizens 
should have confidence that the same level of minimum rules will be applied should they 
travel or live abroad. This notion also applies to  matters relating to the accused and the victim, 
the rights of whom are intertwined. Thus, action related to one inevitably affects the other and 
standards cannot be raised for one side alone. To do so woul d create an imbalance in the 
justice process and could limit advances in mutual trust.  
Today, most Member States have some level of  protection and support of victims of crime but 
the role and needs of victims in criminal proceedings are still generally not sufficiently 
addressed in national judicial systems. People w ho fall victim to crime across Europe are not 
guaranteed to be treated with respect or to r eceive appropriate support, protection or access to 
basic elements of justice. To address this prob lem, Member States need to raise the standards 
                                                 
8 Eurostat, Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, Statistics in focus, 36/2009 
9 Analysis carried out in "The Burd en of Crime in the EU", p. 70, of results from the EU International 
Crime Survey (EUICS) 2005 ( www.europeansafetyobservatory.eu ). The study indicates that around 
50% of five types of crime are reported to the po lice but does not take into account sexual assault 
reporting rates which are generally very low – between 15 and 28% in the EUICS. A slightly higher 
figure for non-reporting has therefore been assumed of 60%. Close family members is not a specific term but for the purposes of an estimate we have assumed that victims have on average 3 close family 
members resulting in a figure of 225 million. 
10 Case 186/87 - Ian William Cowan v Trésor public , judgment of the Court of 2 February 1989.  
 
EN 6   EN on victims' rights in accordance with standa rds already established through international 
instruments and caselaw of the European  Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).  
However, this problem is also a problem of th e EU since victims in different Member States 
are not subject to a level playing field. The standa rds on victims' rights must thus be put at the 
same minimum level throughout the EU. Since this  cannot be done at the national level alone, 
there is a clear added value of EU action on vi ctims' rights to increase mutual confidence 
between Member States' judicial systems which is a primary condition for the effective functioning of the European Area of Freedom , Security and Justice. Replies during the 
consultation made clear that the way victims are treated is a str ong indicator of the quality of 
justice systems in general since the establishmen t of victims' rights and their proper treatment 
tends to be of a lower priority compared to the rights of the accused. Working on minimum 
standards of victims' rights is therefore a powerful means to gene rally increase faith in foreign 
judicial systems. 
The EU has already addressed the rights of vi ctims in criminal proceedings in existing 
legislation. However, although the objectives a nd the scope of such legislation are still 
relevant, society's views on victims have evol ved and new objectives have appeared which 
need to be addressed. In addition, the implementa tion of the legislation has been ineffective. 
The results of both an extensiv e study on the legislative and pr actical implementation of the 
Framework Decision
11 combined with the Commission's own implementation reports and a 
range of consultations with st akeholders have revealed a wi de range of problems with the 
current Framework Decision and th e achievement of its objectives. The issues identified are 
covered by the two problems detailed below: 
Problem A : Existing EU legislation is inadequate  to improve the situation of victims – it is vague, does not 
contain concrete obligations and is not enforceable, and has therefore been  poorly implemented by the Member 
States and does not contribute to provi ding a sufficient level of mutual trus t required to enable the effective 
application of mutual recognition. 
Problem B : The needs of victims  of crime are not sufficiently addresse d in the Member States – victims do not 
get (1) recognition  and respect, (2) protection, (3) support, (4) effective access to justice, and (5) effective access 
to compensation and restoration.  
The consequences of crime and not meeting the needs of victims also have  significant hidden costs , including 
important financial and health costs.  
2.1. Problem A – EU Legislation is inadequate  to improve the situation of victims 
International and EU instruments largely establ ished minimum standards for victims of crime 
from the 1980s onwards. Such instruments ha s been established by the UN (e.g. Basic 
Principles on the Use of Rest orative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters) and the Council 
of Europe (e.g. Recommendation (2006) 8 on Assistance to Crime Victims). The EU 
subsequently reflected these standards th rough the adoption of the 2001 Council Framework 
Decision on the standing of victims in crim inal proceedings (the "Framework Decision")12 
and the 2004 Directive on the Compensation of crime victims.13  
                                                 
11 APAV Report. 
12 Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal 
proceedings. 
13 Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims. 
 
EN 7   EN The level of implementation by the Member States  of these two pieces of  legislation has been 
mixed. The Commission’s 2009 implementation re port on the Compensation Directive found 
that at the time transposition had been carried  out in all Member States except Greece. Greece 
has subsequently notified the Commission of its  transposing legislation. However, further 
research is required to establish to what ex tent implementation by Member States' has been 
effective.14  
The implementation of the Framework Decisi on, on the other hand, is not satisfactory.15 In 
addition whilst its scope covers most of the ri ghts of victims of all types of crime and is 
overall still relevant, the sc ope of any new action needs to  be wider given the growing 
awareness and changing judicial culture . Ther efore the scope of EU legislation on victims 
needs to be updated in light of new research a nd findings on victims, in particular as regards 
their rights and needs, mutual recognition of pr otection measures, and access to justice (right 
to review). 
EU legislation has not been effective  in meeting, or moving  towards the desired 
outcomes of addressing the needs of vi ctims and achieving minimum standards for 
victims across the EU.  No Member State can claim to have fully implemented the 
Framework Decision. Some States consider that th ey have already complied with parts of this 
Framework Decision through existing  national legislation or have only partly adapted existing 
legislation to respond to basic needs of victim s. Although there has been an improvement in 
the situation of victims in some Member Stat es, recent studies show that victims are not 
prioritised in most judicial systems in the EU, and that Member States generally do not ensure 
that victims are treated in a manner equivalent to that of a party to proceedings.16 The 
ineffectiveness of this legislation is due to: 
• Ambiguous drafting . The Framework Decision suffers from ambiguous drafting which 
has either made it difficult for Member States  to know how best to implement legislation 
or has left them such wide discretion in  implementation that no action has resulted.17 
Evidence of the problems Member States have  experienced is demonstrated through ECJ 
caselaw.18  
• Lack of concrete obligations . A number of articles in the Framework Decision do not 
impose concrete obligations. In effect, Member  States could carry out no action and remain 
in compliance with the Decision.  
• Lack of infringement possibilities . It is not possible in relation to the Framework 
Decision for the Commission or individuals to bring infri ngement proceedings against 
Member States, so it is inevitable that compliance is lower in these circumstances. 
                                                 
14 See Report from the Commission on the basis of Article 19 of the Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to 
compensation to crime victims, COM(2009) 170 final. 
15 Reports from the Commission on the basis of Article 18 of the Council Framework Decision on the standing of victims in criminal 
proceedings, COM(2004)54 final and COM(2009)166 final. 
16 APAV Report, p. 127-135; Matrix Report, p. 104. 
17 For example, Article 2 of the Framework decision requires that vulnerable victims can benefit from 
specific treatment but provides no definition of such victims nor does it stipulate what types of services 
should be provided for them. The result is a wide variety of practices as seen in the problem definition. 
18 See, inter alia, C-404/07, Katz (Judgment of 9 October 2008) where the ECJ ruled that Articles 2 and 3 
of the Framework Decision leave  to “the national authorities a large measure of discretion with regard 
to the specific means by which they implement those objectives…”.  
 
EN 8   EN The proposed measures will thus respond to th is basic problem by strengthening the legal 
framework in the EU through a set of legal in struments that are directly binding on Member 
States and that can be effec tively enforced by the Commissi on. This legal framework will 
establish minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime and will also introduce a new mechanism of mutual rec ognition to ensure that victims or potential 
victims benefitting from a protection measures in their Member States of residence will not lose this protection when crossing borders.  
2.2. Problem B – Victims' needs are not suffi ciently addressed in the Member States 
The fact that the needs of victims, and the corresponding rights, are generally not sufficiently 
or adequately met in the Member States is th e key problem that the proposed measures will 
address. Addressing victims' n eeds helps to ensure that some of their fundamental rights are 
respected. The needs of victims can be brought  under five categories: the need to be 
recognised and treated with  respect and dignity ; the need to be protected ; the need to be 
supported ; the need to access justice;  and the need for restoration.  
These categories are broad summaries of the righ ts and standards that are already in the scope 
of the Framework Decision and established through international in struments and ECtHR 
caselaw. The focus on these categories of n eed has also been confirmed in detailed 
consultations with stakehol ders (see Annexes 1 and 2
). 
2.2.1.  Issue 1 – Victims are not su fficiently recognised and trea ted with dignity and respect 
Human dignity is a fundamental right and treating victims properl y is a fundamental aspect of 
procedural and distributive justice. It is widely agreed that victims need to be recognised as 
victims and for their suffering to be acknowledge d. Victims also need to be treated with 
dignity and respect in all comm unications with police, legal pr ofessionals, judicial staff and 
other involved in the judicial process. Treating a victim with respect is particularly important for vulnerable victims
19 (e.g. children, victims of sexual violence, elderly and disabled 
persons). Moreover, indirect victims20 (e.g. family members) also n eed to be recognised as the 
consequences of the crime suffered by the di rect victim very often affect them too. 
To ensure that victims will be recognised and respected, all professionals in regular contact 
with victims should receive trai ning on victims' rights and be gi ven the appropriate tools to 
carry out needs assessments to determin e the status of individual victims. 
The victim had a seven-hour wait between cal ling the police and offi cers attending, during 
which time she could not go to the toilet. There was a further three-hour wait before 
attending a Sexual Assault Referral Centre  with police officers from the specialist 
Metropolitan Police Sapphi re team. The response team, wh en it did arrive, consisted of 
                                                 
19 "Vulnerable victims" are those who, due to persona l characteristics (e.g. age, disability) and/or to the 
circumstance of the crime, can be considered particul arly vulnerable to the crime they have suffered and 
its consequences (e.g. children, disabled, victims of violent and sexual crime). A person’s vulnerability 
may also be determined by looki ng at the probability of that pers on being at risk  of becoming 
(re)victimised, for reasons other than mentioned above (e.g. considering socioeconomic factors or 
whether or not the person has been victimised previously), see Matrix Report, p. 17. 
20 "Indirect victims" have been defined by the UN as ‘ the immediate family or dependants of the direct 
victim and persons who have suffered harm in inter vening to assist victims in distress or to prevent 
victimization’ , see  the 1985 UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justi ce for Victims of Crime and 
Abuse of Power. 
 
EN 9   EN two male officers. She felt there was a general air of disbelief. For example, the officers 
repeatedly questioned her as to whether sh e was certain the attacker was a black cab 
driver, despite the availability  of CCTV footage. ‘I was the criminal, being interrogated,’ 
she said. Later, when she read in the media about the arrest of Worboys in 2008, she ‘was 
devastated’ that no one had informed he r of this or followed it up with her. One of the 
Worboys rape victim, Stern Review21 
Evidence of a lack of recognition and treatment  (see also Annex 3 ): 
From studies and surveys throughout Europe, it appears that victims are often ignored or are 
not sufficiently provided with information about the judicial process. For this basic need to be 
met, the prerequisite is that a victim's needs are clearly identified and catered for. A recent 
study22 reveals that only 20% of questioned nationa l experts believe that victims in their 
country are adequately recognised. Even where n eeds are identified, 42% of  victims of serious 
crime did not receive the specific assistance th ey requested, compared to only 7% who did 
receive the specific assistance they requested.23 
Furthermore not all Member States recognise the full range of indirect victims and vulnerable 
victims. For example, Denmark, Malta, Roma nia, Slovenia and Slovakia do not recognise 
parents, children, other family me mbers, civil partners, or first responders as indirect victims. 
Only 13 States recognise civil partners as indirect victims.24 Vulnerable victims (such as 
children, disable persons, victims of specific types of crime) ar e not necessarily identified as 
being vulnerable and where they are, appropria te protection and support mechanisms are not 
necessarily available. For in stance, seven Member States (Cyprus, Hungary, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden) do not recognise disabled  persons as being 
vulnerable. 25 
2.2.2.  Issue 2 – Victims are not sufficiently protected 
Victims have a range of protecti on needs. They need to be pr otected from further criminal 
acts by the offender, supporters of the offender or from new crimes. Such protection may be 
required to prevent further violence occurrin g or it may be linked to the prevention of 
intimidation. For victims of chronic violence, like violence in the family, security is both their primary need in reporting a crime, but also their primary concern. Due to an increased 
mobility of people within the EU, victims who m ove or travel abroad risk losing a protection 
measures issued in their home  country since such measures are not automatically recognised 
in other Member States. 
The victim also needs to be protected from secondary victimisation during proceedings, i.e. 
distress a second time due to poor treatment in connection with a nd during the criminal 
proceedings. To avoid harm caused by, for instan ce, repeated and insensitive interviewing or 
having to face the offender in the same waiting area  before trial in court, it is important to 
ensure protection of victims throughout criminal  investigations and c ourt proceedings. This 
protection is essential for particularly vulnerable victims such as children.  
                                                                                                                                                        
 
21 Home Office (2009) ‘The Stern Review, p. 47. 
22 APAV Report, p. 38. 
23 Van Dijk, Jan et al. (2007). The Burden of Crime in the EU. Research Report: A Comparative Analysis of the European Crime and Safety Survey (EU 
ICS) 2005. 
24 APAV Report, p. 36. 
25 APAV Report, p. 40. 
 
EN 10   EN Lindsay, 17 was 'torn to shreds' by a defence la wyer and made to hold up the underwear she 
had been wearing at the time of the attack, despite having worn jeans when the attack 
happened. The defendant was also allowed to cross examine her personally. Talking of her 
treatment in court, her parents explained that  "Lindsay was mortifie d after giving evidence," 
"She was horrified and crying, "She was mental ly scarred by what happened and never got 
over it". Three weeks after the conviction of the defendant, Lindsay committed suicide. Her 
mother commented: "They say that there is no proof that Lindsay's suicide is linked to the 
rape or the court because she di dn't leave a note. But I know that  is why she killed herself." 
Based on memorial to Lindsay A26 
Evidence of a lack of ef fective victim protection  (see also Annex 4 ): 
Not all Member States have a minimum level of appropriate or sufficient measures in place to 
protect victims. In addition, ther e is currently no mechanism to maintain this protection if a 
person travels or moves to another Member State27.  
Victims' need for protection is not met where the offender carries out further criminal 
offences against the same victim or where th e offender is able to intimidate the victim 
whether outside proceedings or within proceedi ngs. In the UK, a survey shows that 8% of 
victims have been subjected to some form of  harassment and 15% of victims were identified 
as at potential risk. Victims of certain types of  crime are particularly exposed to intimidation; 
the survey showed that 36% of women and 31%  of men who had fallen victim to domestic 
violence reported being intimidated.28 Importantly, intimidation was a factor in not reporting a 
crime in a 3rd of cases. 
It is of course recognised that due to the complex challenges of achieving protection 
combined with the need to balance the needs a nd rights of all interested parties, absolute 
protection is not possible. Nevertheless, impr ovements are achievable and necessary given the 
considerable scale of repeat victimisation29 in particular for specific types of offences such as 
domestic violence.30. By individually assessing a victim's  needs for protection when reporting 
the crime, further harm by the offender can be a voided if contact with the victim is prevented 
by restraining orders or other protection measures. 
Contact between the victim and the accused should also as far as possible be avoided in court 
premises, such as the waiting areas. However, in  24 Member States there is no obligation to 
provide separate waiting areas in the courts.31 
2.2.3.  Issue 3 – Victims are no t sufficiently supported 
In the immediate aftermath of a crime, vi ctims need support mainly through emergency 
assistance32 together with psychological first aid.33 Subsequently, if the crime is reported, the 
                                                 
26 http://www.suicide.org/memorials/lindsay-armstrong.html 
27 See impact assessment of the Member State initiative on the European Protection Order. 
28 2001 British Crime Survey. 
29 Based on the 2000 International Crime Victims' Su rvey (ICVS) an estimated 40 % of crimes are repeats 
against the same target within a year. 
30 Guidance on Investigating Domestic Abuse 2008, available at: http://www.mankind.org.uk/pdfs/ACPO%20final2.pdf . 
31 APAV Report, p. 98. 
32 See Maslow, A (1948) "Some theoretical consequences of basic need gratification". Journal of Personality. 16(4), 402-416. 
 
EN 11   EN victim will need to negotiate their way through the complexities  of the legal system. Support 
during this process, whether legal, emotional or  practical, is often needed by and crucial to 
victims. Such support is even more important for vulnerable victims. Victim support, through 
psychological or medical assistance, may also be  required for prolonged periods or for life as 
a consequence of the crime.  
"Francesca was living alone in her small 1 bedr oom apartment the night a man broke in and 
raped her in her own bed. The or deal had a devastating impact  on her and she was lucky to 
receive some counselling. But the counselling helped  little with her fee lings of fear, disgust 
and shame every night she went back to the bed she was raped in. She couldn't afford to 
move or to buy a ne w bed. In the end she slept on the floor." Based on testimony from Victim 
Support Organisation representa tive at expert meeting  
Evidence of a lack of effective victim support  (see also Annex 5 ): 
The most widely recognised pr oblem of victims support organisa tions is the lack of enough 
resources for staff, professional training an d financial assistance to run the services.34 
Moreover, the official recognition of the work of these organisations by national governments 
is perceived as crucial.35  
According to the 2000 International Crime Victims'  Survey (ICVS), coverage rates for victim 
support (for certain identified types of crime) is most de veloped in the UK (20%), the 
Netherlands (14%), Austria (13%), Belgium (12%), Denmark and Sweden (9%), while the 
least support seems to be available in Hunga ry (0.4%), Bulgaria (1%), Finland (2%), 
Germany (2%), Greece (2%), Italy (3%) and Spain (3%).36  
The analysis on the ICVS also indicates that the level of demand for victim support is highest 
in Portugal, Spain, Greece and Poland, but in a ll those countries such help is not readily 
available. The need of victim support seems relatively limited among victims in Bulgaria and Austria. 
Percentages of victims whose expressed needs are actually met by the agencies vary across 
countries. The highest take up rates in the EU  are achieved by victim support in the UK 
(36%), in Austria (38%), the Netherlands ( 35%), Belgium (28%) and Denmark (27%). Take 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
33 See e.g. Litz, B., Bryant, R. and Adler, A. (2002). "Early Intervention for trauma: current statues and future directions". Clinical Psychology: Science and 
Practice. 9(2), 112-134.  
34 Responses to the European Commission's public consultation #06, #08, #10, #15, #17, #18, #19, #22, #23, #25, #26, #28, #30, #34, #37, #43, #52, 
#53, #55, #66, #67, #68, #69, #72. 
35 Response #03, #06, #25, #70. 
36 The percentages refer to victims having re ceived support after re porting a crime. See Van Dijk, Jan; Van 
Kesteren; John; Smit, Paul. "Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective: Key findings from the 2004-2005 ICVS and EU ICS". Den Haag: 
WODC, 2007, p. 119. As referred in ICVS Report (2004/2005 surveys), victims who had reported to the 
police any of four types of crime with the most seri ous consequences for victims – burglary with entry; 
robbery; sexual incidents; and thr eats & assaults – were asked whether they had received support from a 
specialised agency. The percentage of victims receiving such help is called the coverage rate of victim 
support. Those who had not received an y help were asked whether they would have appreciated help in 
getting such information or practical or emotional support. Using this information estimates are made of 
the proportion of victims wanting sp ecialised help that actually receive it (called ‘take up rate’ of 
specialised victim support agencies). The percentage in victim support from a specialised agency relates to these four crimes and was made considering a period of five years. See 
Van Dijk, Jan; Van Kesteren; John; 
Smit, Paul. "Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective: Key findings from the 2004-2005 ICVS and EU ICS". Den Haag: WODC, 2007, p. 
119.. 
 
EN 12   EN up rates in the range of 10% to 25% ar e achieved in Sweden, Ireland, France and 
Luxembourg. In other States in the survey, le ss than 10% of the respondents who indicated 
that victim support would have been useful, ac tually receive it. The group of countries where 
victim support reaches only a small part of vict ims in need of help includes Greece, Spain, 
Portugal, Finland, Italy and Germany.37 
2.2.4.  Issue 4 – Victims do not have ef fective access to justice  
Victims' need for access to justice can be su mmarised as wanting to see justice is done 
(outcome focus/distributive just ice) and wanting to be confid ent about how it is achieved 
(procedural justice). It can cove r a wide variety of issues, su ch as accessibility of court 
processes, availability of adequate legal repr esentation in criminal trials, access to more 
informal legal processes (such as penal mediation)38 and the right to review a decision on 
whether or not to prosecute the offender. 
Victims need to get full access to and participa tion in the justice system, which encompasses 
the right to be heard and necessitates at a mi nimum that they are made aware of crucial 
decisions and key dates.39 Victims must also be able to understand the information received 
and the proceedings, so it is important to make available translators and interpreters, as well as information in a variety of languages. Vict ims should also be able to attend the trial. 
"I’m pretty disappointed by the way the polic e handled it really, I got the impression it 
wasn’t serious enough for them and I had to do al l the chasing. If it wasn’t for my efforts I 
would probably still be waiting for something to be done." Male, 25-64, Victim of crime – 
pre-case – Audit Commission - Experiences of the Criminal Justice System - Victims and 
Witnesses of Crime 
Evidence of a lack of victims'  effective access to justice  (see also Annex 6 ): 
A recent study40 shows that only in a few Member St ates do victims have easy access to a 
range of information regarding available suppo rt, legal advice and aid and essential issues 
concerning the criminal proceedings (including th e decision to prosecute, the court date and 
positive or negative court decisions).  
On the other hand, translators and interpreters ar e available in all Member  States for victims, 
free of charge, and in some states  information is already availabl e in different languages. In a 
number of Member States, however, eligib ility for such communication safeguards is 
restricted to victims as witnesses. Only in 15 Me mber States is it available to all victims. Even 
where such safeguards are available, they are not  always effective, available outside of the 
context of reporting the crime or of good qualit y. Moreover, victims are not always able to 
attend the trial because the availability of reimbu rsement of victims' expens es to get there is in 
most Member States inadequate or vict ims are not informed about such a right. 
Although a majority of Member States have an in stitutionalised right to re view of the decision 
not to prosecute in place, in six Member States  the victim has no right to such review. At the 
same time, in three Member States no information is provided to victims concerning the 
                                                 
37 ibid 
38 Parker, C., "Just Lawyers. Regulations and Access to Justice", Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 30. 
39 APAV Report, p. 41. 
40 References in this section were extracted from the APAV Report. 
 
EN 13   EN decision to prosecute and in seven Member St ates only information on negative decisions is 
provided. 
2.2.5.  Issue 5 – Victims do not have effective access to compensation and restoration 
Insufficient data was available to fully consid er state compensation and offender restitution. 
Further study will therefore be carried out in this respect. As such, this impact assessment focuses only on issues related to restoration and restorative justic e. Restorative justice aims to 
restore the victim to the position they were in be fore the crime. In this sense it has similar 
objectives to financial compensation, and an out come of restorative justice can be such 
compensation. However, it is of much greater be nefit since it has wider objectives by giving 
victims an opportunity to confront their offende rs face to face. Victims will thus get a chance 
to tell offenders the real impact of their crime,  get answers to their questions and to receive an 
apology, or at least an acknowledgement of responsibility by the offender.
41 Restorative 
justice also gives the offenders the chance to u nderstand the real impact of what they have 
done and to do something to repair the harm. Re storative justice holds offenders to account 
for what they have done, personally and directl y, and helps victims to get on with their lives. 
"After being brutally mugged my 15-year-old brother was ha ppy to hear his attacker was 
behind bars. […] It was then with some trepid ation that Gary, and th e rest of the family, 
decided to meet the offender face to face at a Restorative Justice Conference (RJC). […] 
Towards the end of the conference,  my brother and I, who hadn't expected to sympathise with 
the offender and his family, were. We were not the only ones it seemed; it felt like the 
offender too was putting himself in Gary's and his own family's shoes. […] The great thing 
about the conference is that the offender glimpsed what is  was like for Gary and was more 
than contrite. We, too, glimpsed into his life and had a better understanding of him and 
perhaps, the factors that drove him to it. Wh at he did was wrong and no matter how much his 
friends egged him on he had a choice and he now has to take responsibility for the 
consequences. For us, the integral  aspect of the conf erence was that it allowed the victim and 
the offender to identify with each other. It is harder to hurt someone  that you see as your 
own." ' Michelle's story', Why me? Vi ctims for Restorative Justice  
                                                 
41 For further details, see Sherman, L.W. &. Strang, H., "Restorative Justice: The Evidence". London, The Smith Institute, 2007 
(www.esmeefairbairn.org.uk/docs/RJ_full_report.pdf); Vanfraechem, I., Aertsen, I. & Willemsens, J. (eds.), "Restorative Justice Realities. Empirical 
research in a European context", The Hague, Eleven International Publishers, 2010.  
 
EN 14   EN Evidence of a lack of effective victim access to compensation and restoration  (see also 
Annex 7):  
Divergent national policies mean that restorativ e justice services are not equally accessible, 
and are not available at all to victims of crime in six Member States.42 Although basic 
standards and principles have been established by the UN in 200243 and by the Council of 
Europe in 200644, there is widely expressed concern that  such principles are not fully adhered 
to and that restorative justice processes are pr one to losing an appropriate focus on the victim. 
Commentators are concerned that restorative jus tice services are becoming too identified with 
one particular party, whether victims, offenders or communities.45 46 47  
2.3. Hidden costs linked to victimisation  
Every crime inevitably affects thos e individuals directly  or indirectly victimised by it, as well 
as society at large. Crime has significant econ omic and health related impacts, and such 
"hidden" costs can be reduced by meeting the needs of victims.  
The total costs of crime to the individual and to society are considerable. These include 
tangible costs, mainly in the economic sector, the health sector and the criminal justice 
system, and intangible costs, such as pain, suffering, and reduction of quality of life.  
A 2003 UK Home office survey ha s estimated that the total cost of crime amounts to £32.6 billion. 
Based on a combination of UK and Eurostat statistics this can be extrapolated to an EU cost of around 
€233 billion. The emotional and physical impact of crime costs victims in the UK around £18.1 billion 
per year.48  
A cost estimate on domestic violence against women alone shows that such violence 
costs the EU Member States between €10 and 20 billion annually, some 22% of 
which is calculated as hu man and emotional costs.49 This research al so suggests that 
every additional euro spent on prevention wo rk, protection and assistance to victims 
would give society savings of €87 on the total cost of domestic violence.  
                                                 
42 Willemsens, J., "Restorative Justice: An Agenda For Europe: The Role of the European Union in the Further Development of Restorative 
Justice", 2008. 
43 Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters. 
44 Recommendation (2006)8 on Assistance to Crime Victims. 
45 Statement on the position of the victim within the process of mediation, which was adopted by the European Forum for Victim Services (now: Victim 
Support Europe) in 2003 
46 Hudson, B., 'Balancing the ethical and the political: normative reflections on the institutionalization of restorative justice' , in Aertsen, I., Daems, T. and 
Robert, L. (eds .), Institutionalizing Restorative Justice , Cullompton, Willian Publishing, 2006, p. 274. 
47 Aertsen, I., 'Restorative justice through networking: a report from Europe', in Van Der Spuy, E., Parmentier, S. and Dissel, A. 
(eds.), Restorative Justice: Politics, Policies and Prospects , Cape Town, Juta & Co Ltd., 2007, p. 95. 
48 Home Office Online Report 30/05. The economic and social costs of crime against individuals and 
households 2003/04, p. 15, available at: http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr3005.pdf ; 
Eurostat, Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, Statistics in focus, 36/2009. Full methodology for the development of costs are contained in the report. The EU cost of crime is derived at by dividing the 
total cost of crime in the UK (£32.6 billion) with the number of crimes considered in the UK report 
(12 168 000), and then multiplying this figure with total estimated EU reported and unreported crimes 
referred to above (75 000 000). Arriving at a total estimated cost of £201 billion or 233 billion euros 
based on EU official ra tes as in February 2011. 
49 Daphne project "Estimation du coût des violences conjugales en Europe", Psytel, 2009, available at: 
http://www.psytel.eu/violences.php. Fu lly methodology is described in the report. In brief, however, 
medical, justice and police, social  and economic costs are included. 
 
EN 15   EN The tangible economic costs  of victimisation – that directly affect both the individual and the 
society as a whole – revolve around loss of productivity for pa id workdays and incapacity 
benefits for the long-term affected, includi ng out-of-pocket expenses to cover property 
damages/loss and the cost of medical care, cos tly lifestyle changes to regain a sense of 
security, and lost wages and productivity.50. Longer periods of sickness absences, spells of 
unemployment and even permanent disability  leave or premature retirement may cause 
victims a severe loss of earnings. There is ev idence to show that in the long-run those 
victimised before the age of 18 have lower average hourly wages and annual personal income 
than non-victims.51 These costs are also borne by comp anies and the economy as a whole. 
Apart from public costs for the health sector to deal with the consequences of crime, society 
also bears important costs for dealing with the crime itself, including work by the police and 
throughout the criminal justice process. 
Crime incurs significant costs in terms of the victim's health . A victim's health can be 
severely compromised and their life expectancy  can ultimately be shortened – on average one 
year of life expectancy  is lost to violence.52 In the short and long term, victims can suffer high 
levels of physical and psychological problems, including fear and anxiety ranging up to major 
depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)and suicide attempts. They can also turn to 
alcohol or drug abuse and their social and o ccupational functioning may be impaired. Health 
problems also have a direct link with economic co sts in that crime can affect a person’s ability 
to work, and can result in lower incomes.  
In addition to economic costs linked to  health care, there are important intangible costs  for 
victims stemming from pain, suffering, and redu ced quality of life. As shown by the cost 
estimates quoted above, the cost of the human and emotional su ffering represents an 
important part of the total cost of crime. Ag ain, not only does the victim bear such costs but 
the impact on our health services can be high in terms of cost and ca pacity. This burden can 
relate to short term and l ong term physical care through to emotional and psychological 
counselling. For instance, it has been found that 25% of all crime victims experienced related 
PTSD, including nervous breakdowns, suic ide ideation, and suicide attempts53 and that almost 
50% of all victims of sexual assault and approxi mately 5% of victims of assault and robbery 
incur costs for mental health services.54 
Meeting victims' needs before, during and a fter criminal proceedings may considerably 
mitigate these negative consequences and can also prevent them worsening due to bad 
treatment during the process . If victims receive appropria te support and protection, they 
will recover more quickly both physically and em otionally from the crime, and will thus for 
example limit their loss of earnings and uptake of benefits, or reduce the need for further 
health treatments. Ensuring that the victims' needs are met will t hus considerably contribute to 
reducing the total costs of crime.  
                                                 
50 Matrix Report, p. 49. 
51 Macmillan, Ross (2000), 'Adolescent Victimization and Income Deficits in Adulthood: Rethinking the 
Costs of Criminal Violence From a Life-Cours e Perspective', Criminology. 38, 2, p. 555. 
52 Matrix Report, p. 51; Soares, Rodrigo R., 'The we lfare cost of violence across countries', 2005. 
53 Kilpatrick, D. et al (1987). Cr iminal Victimization: Lifetime Pr evalence, reporti ng to police, and 
psychological impact. Crime and Delinquency 33:479-489. 
54 Miller, Ted, Cohen Mark, and Brian Wiersema (1996). Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look. 
Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice. 
 
EN 16   EN 2.4. The underlying drivers of the problems 
As described above, across the European Union, the needs of victims of crime are not being 
fully met since national legislation and practic e within States and across the EU are patchy. 
The primary drivers for this are: insufficient or incoherent attention paid to victims and a lack of knowledge about their needs; a lack of self-e nforcing mechanisms for victims' rights; and a 
lack of practitioner knowle dge of victims' issues. 
• Insufficient attention paid to victims and a lack of knowledge about their needs, 
rooted in historical and cultural attitudes.  Although victims' rights have increasingly 
become recognised by Members States in recent  years, they have historically not been 
considered as an important element of judici al proceedings and States' focus has largely 
been to punish those who have committed crimes against society as a whole. As a result, the needs of victims and the need to take them into account are often not in the minds of practitioners and policy makers. 
• A lack of enforcement mechanisms for victims' rights. One of the difficulties that 
victims face in their national systems is that their rights are genera lly not enforceable or 
that the repercussions for a failure to implem ent a right are weak; thus legal practitioners 
have less incentive to apply victims measures. Applications  to national courts take a 
considerable amount of time, effort and money which is likely to reduce the benefit of any 
judgment. Weaknesses in enforcement also appl y equally at the international level, where 
the current EU legal framework does not fore see any procedure for individuals' redress 
concerning victims' rights. Mo reover, although a number of arti cles of the ECHR apply to 
victims, including the right to a fair trial, there are very few cases brought to the court by 
victims themselves (and these relate primarily to inadequate investigation of the crime).
55 
In part this may be as a result  of a lack of awareness that th e ECHR applies to victims, but 
it may also result from the fact that a prim ary objective of victims is to recover and get 
over the crime.  
• Lack of knowledge and trai ning on victims' needs.  The lack of focus on victims’ rights 
and needs is equally reflected in the lack of  knowledge that legal practitioners have about 
the needs of victims. A primary driver for this is insufficient training and insufficient 
specialist training. This was a key issue raised during cons ultations and was considered to 
be highly relevant by stakehol ders in the external study. 
2.5. Baseline Scenario56 
Data suggests that the number of pe ople falling victim to crime annually is unlikely to 
decrease by any significant amount in the coming year s. At the same time whilst a range of 
international standards on victims’ rights have been established in the past years (see 
Annex 8 ), these were primarily taken in the 1980s. At the EU level, only one general 
instrument on victims has been agreed since 2001. These instruments have, however, neither resulted in any major change in the legislat ion and practice of Member States, nor in a 
significant or visible improvement  in the situation of victims.
57 
                                                 
55 Matrix Report, p. 46; Comments based on analysis of ECHR Annual Report 2009. 
56 Where not otherwise indicated, the data so urce of this section is the Matrix Report. 
57 COM(2004)54 final and COM(2009)166 final. 
 
EN 17   EN Analysis suggests that without further ac tion, there is unlikely to be a sufficient 
development in national legislation and ac tion that ensure that  victims receive non-
discriminatory treatment, no matter where in the EU they find themse lves, in particular 
when receiving services and accessing justice. This may in turn affect mutual trust in 
judicial systems in the European Union a nd undermine the effectiv e application of the 
Treaty-endorsed principle of mutual recognition. 
As has already been mentioned, the Framewor k Decision resulted in minimal national 
changes. Given the weaknesses in its draftin g combined with a lack of enforcement 
possibilities, it is unlikely that  the Framework Decision itself will result in new changes.  
All Member States have national legal provisions related to victims of crime, but they have 
met the needs of victims and safeguards their in terests to a varying ex tent. Nevertheless, the 
victims’ agenda has been gaini ng in profile over the years. Some Member States continue to 
develop their own national agenda on victim s based on internal priorities. Thus new 
legislation has been adopted by some States or is planned. Th e Commission is aware of nine 
Member States having legislation foreseen  (LU, IE, NL, MT, RO, FI, SE, DK, CZ, see 
Annex 9 ). Some States, for instance, DE and NL, have already implemented new legislation 
in recent years.  
It can therefore be assumed that to some extent  the situation of victims will improve in some 
Member States where they have either a gene rally high level of protection of victims or 
ongoing reform. However, it should be noted that  the developments in the countries listed 
above for the most part appear fairly restricted in their scope or are in very early stages, and 
improvements in a number of other Member St ates are not currently  envisaged. Thus, the 
effect will be to further increase standards in some States with others remaining at the same 
level, further widening gaps in standards between States.  
It must also be considered that even where de velopments do occur at a national level, these 
will occur largely on an ad hoc basis. The only ar ea where this is less likely to be the case is 
in relation to supporting victims of human trafficking and child sexual exploita tion, and this 
as a result of EU action since two Di rectives are curren tly under negotiation.58 There is no 
indication that without further EU interv ention, action will be developed on a co-
ordinated basis or following ex isting EU and international gu idelines. It can therefore be 
assumed that victims will not be able to rely on receiving the same minimum level of 
rights, support, protection, access to justice and restoration across the EU.  
Notably, the external study reveal ed that 75% or more  of respondents felt that maintaining the 
status quo would result in the situation for vic tims either staying the sa me with the remaining 
respondents considering there would be a very  negative impact. No respondents felt there 
would be a positive impact  
2.6. The need for action at EU level 
There are many reasons why EU action in this  area is necessary. Firstly, the cross-border 
implications of the problems and problem driv ers make EU interventi on necessary. Secondly, 
                                                 
58 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliame nt and of the Council on preventing and combating 
trafficking in human beings, and protecting victims, repealing Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA; 
Proposal for a directive on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child 
pornography, repealing FD 2004/68/JHA. 
 
EN 18   EN considering the substantial tangible and intangible costs of victimisation borne by the 
individuals as well as society as a whole and th at ultimately public confidence in the criminal 
justice system suffers if crime victims are not respected, there is a need for EU-level policy 
interventions that lead to improvements in victims’ well-being across Europe. Finally, the 
Lisbon Treaty provides a clear le gal basis for EU for establis hing minimum rules on the rights 
of victims of crime. In addition, EU action in this field will raise standards in relation to the 
fundamental rights of victims of crime, which is a strong priority for the EU.  
Solving the identified problems requires action beyond that at the EU-level and would also 
require action initiated by Member States them selves. In our options and solutions, we are 
concentrating only on actions that  bring EU added value and that are necessary to the well-
functioning of mutual recogniti on and for increasing trust in the judicial systems of the 
Member States. 
2.6.1.  European dimension and added value 
The Lisbon Treaty provides a clear legal basis to facilitate judi cial co-operation and mutual 
recognition having a cross-border dimension through minimum standards on the rights of 
victims of crime.  
The cross-border dimension of judicial co-opera tion is wide and can result from a range of 
situations, most obviously where a person is victimised in a forei gn EU state. In this respect, 
around 11.3 million EU citizens live in a foreign EU State59 and a large majority of EU 
citizens that travel abroad on holidays chose an other European country – of an estimated 1.4 
billion journeys made by Europeans in 2008, about 90 % were within the EU.60 Crime 
statistics by nationality are not available generally but assuming they suffer crime at the same 
rate as nationals, this means that around 1.7 milli on citizens living abroad (15% of the total) 
fall victim to crime every year. For tourists, the figure will be highly variable and often dependent on the length of stay but even a 1%  crime rate will result in many millions of EU 
tourists falling victim to crime every year.  
Moreover, there is also a cross- border dimension for crimes against people in their country of 
residence where cases are ultimately transf erred, the victim moves during the course of 
proceedings, or witnesses or assets are abroad. It is evident therefore that the cross-border 
dimension of victimisation is significant. 
Given the right to free movement in the EU, th ere is a clear added va lue of EU action over 
and above that of national action. Such EU added value can be seen from several perspectives.  
Firstly, victims may not be subject  to the same rights in their country of residence compared 
to their home country, or in a country where th ey temporarily travel or visit. This risks 
impeding the free movement of people and se rvices, which is one of the fundamental 
requirements for the good functioning of the intern al market. Moreover, j udicial co-operation 
can also be hampered where there are concerns over the treatment of victims or where certain 
procedures are required to be followed in a Member State, for example video recording of a 
child's evidence. 
                                                
 
59 Eurostat, Statistics in Focus 94/2009. 
60 COM(2010)352, based on Eurostat, Tourism Statistics 2008. However, this figure does not show how 
many individuals  have made these journeys (many go on several journeys per year). 
 
EN 19   EN Secondly, a lack of EU-level minimum standards on victims' rights puts th e quality of justice 
in the EU at a lower level than standards id entified in internationa l instruments and through 
ECtHR case law. In a common area of freedom, securi ty and justice, this is difficult to accept. 
Weaknesses in existing EU legislation and a lack of enforceabilit y of international 
instruments make a coherent, EU wide applica tion of such standards unlikely. EU action is 
therefore the most likely means to achieve a level playing field acro ss the Member States. 
Finally, a lack of common standards reduces c onfidence in the judicial systems of the 
Member States, which in turn impedes the effective operation and application of EU 
instruments based on the Treaty-endorsed principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions and consequently the strengthening of the Europ ean area of freedom, security and justice.  
Additionally, whilst the establishment of these mi nimum standards relates to victims of crime, 
such standards facilitate police and judicial co-operation in gene ral and not just in relation to 
victims. This reflects the fact that the trea tment of the victim and accused are linked in many 
ways and many general cross-bor der judicial co-operation or mutual recogniti on initiatives 
can impact on victims. As such, improvements in  the treatment and protection of victims can 
improve such co-operation. 
EU action will thus make sure that all EU Member States respect common minimum 
standards for all persons falling victim to crim e on their territory, whether national citizens or 
not.  
2.6.2.  Legal basis 
The power to act and, where necessary, propose  EU legislation in the area of civil and 
criminal law is conferred, inter alia, by two articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union (TFEU). Article 82  TFEU provides a more specific legal base for criminal 
matters and establishes that to the extent necessary to facilitate mutual  recognition and police 
and judicial co-operation in criminal matters having a cross border dimension, minimum rules 
may be established concerning the rights of vi ctims of crime. As regards civil aspects, 
Article 81  TFEU provides the legal ba se to take measures aimed at ensuring the mutual 
recognition and enforcement between Member St ates of judgments and of decisions in 
extrajudicial cases and effectiv e access to justice. Moreover, Article 81 foresees the adoption 
of measures for the approximation of the la ws and regulations of the Member States. 
2.6.3.  Subsidiarity 
It is considered that there is a need for EU action based on the following factors: 
• Transnational aspects of the issue bein g addressed which cannot be dealt with 
satisfactorily by acti on by Member States 
(1) People can become a victim of a crime outside their own Member State, and the needs 
of those victims need to be respected, too. Free movement can be impeded where 
discriminatory treatment of victims occurs. 
(2) New EU action will enable a co-ordinated approach to be taken ensuring minimum 
standards across the EU and avoiding problem s raised with ad hoc national action, for 
instance where improvements in a State are focussed on one area or one type of victim 
creating large differences in treatment between States. 
 
EN 20   EN (3) Member States acting individually cannot  ensure a continuous maintenance of 
protection in the whole EU  that is already afforded to victims nationally. 
• Action at EU level would produce clear benefits (compared to Member States' action) 
in terms of scale of the action 
(4) Given the ambiguity of existing legislati on coupled with Member State action being 
based primarily on internal priorities, which vary widely, it is unlikely that Member 
States acting individually would be able to establish sufficiently consistent standards 
of rights and services for victims (see Section 2.5 above).  
(5) EU action will ensure that all needs of  victims are addressed. This cannot be 
guaranteed by Member State action, as can  be seen by some of the proposed 
developments in national legislation. 
(6) In particular, EU action to assist Member  States through practical measures will 
enable economies of scale to be achieved, for instance in relation to the development of training programmes, development and dissemination of information programmes 
(see for instance the Commission’s e-justice portal which provides victims factsheets 
for all Member States). 
• Action at EU level would produce clear benefits (compared to Member States' action) 
in terms of effectiven ess of the action  
(7) Though some improvements on victims' rights have occurred over the 10 years since 
the 2001 Framework Decision was adopted, these appear to be based on national 
priorities and not greatly in fluenced by current EU legi slation. For instance, the 
Commission’s implementation reports on the Framework Decision noted that in many 
cases, Member States had informed the Comm ission that their existing measures were 
sufficient to implement the Decision, and had not actually introduced new measures, 
but studies show that such national meas ures are not enough to  properly address 
victims' needs. 
(8) New EU legislation will be combined with effective practical measures to assist 
Member States and practitioners to effectively meet the needs of victims. 
(9) New EU action, under the Lisbon Treaty, w ill enable the deficits of previous 
legislation to be rectified, thus assisti ng Member States in their implementation. 
(10) New EU action will have greater enforcement m echanisms to ensure that legislation is 
in fact implemented.  
 
EN 21   EN 3. OBJECTIVES  
3.1. General, specific and operational objectives 
3.2. Consistency of the objectives with other EU policies  
The specific objectives of this proposal to en sure that the needs of  victims of crime are 
respected and met are wide ranging and cut across a number of other EU policies. In 
particular, the protection of victims' rights is an essential part of a range  of EU policies and/or 
instruments relating to human trafficking, sexua l abuse and exploitati on of children, violence 
against women, terrorism and enforcement of ro ad traffic offences (see Annex 8 for further 
details). 
The specific objectives of this proposal are cons istent with the approach taken in the above 
policy areas. While the specific instruments on, for example, tr afficking and sexual abuse and The General Objectives  are to facilitate the establishment of a Eu ropean area of freedom, security and justice 
and the development of mutual trust between criminal  justice authorities, by en suring that the rights of 
victims are fully respected throughout the EU, whilst al so respecting the rights of  the defence, and that 
citizens can circulate freely wit hout being treated differently shoul d they fall victim to crime. 
Specific Objective Operational Objective 
A.1 Ensure the needs of indirect (immediate family) victims are met. 
A.2 Ensure  all police, prosecutors, judges and court staff who come into 
contact with victims receive appropriate victims training. A. To ensure that victims 
are recognised and treated 
with respect and dignity  
A.3 Establish needs assessment mechan isms for all victims to identify 
the needs of victims and vulnera ble victims and their needs. 
B.1 Ensure victims do not lose the pr otection they have been given when 
they travel or move abroad. B. To ensure that victims are protected  
B.2 Ensure contact between the offe nder and victim is avoided during 
proceedings. 
C To ensure that victims 
are supported . C.1 Ensure effective victims suppor t services are available based on 
international standards. 
D.1 Ensure all victims are able to attend trial 
D.2 Ensure all victims are assisted in understanding their rights, obligations and the proceedings from both a linguistic and wider 
perspective. D. To ensure that victims have effective access to justice  
. 
D.3 Ensure all victims have a right to have prosecution decisions 
reviewed. 
E. To ensure victims have access to restoration  E.1 Ensure victims have access to effective Restorative Justice Services. 
 
EN 22   EN sexual exploitation of children and child pornogra phy address the particular needs of certain 
groups of victims of identified ty pes of crimes, this proposal will address the needs of all 
victims of crime, irrespective of the type of crime or the circumstances or place in which it 
was committed.  
The proposal will build on and complement existing instruments, and establish minimum 
standards on victims' rights which will impr ove the general environment for protecting 
victims in EU law and policy. Thus whilst th e needs of victims of terrorism are not 
specifically addressed in any action, they  will nevertheless be nefit from improved 
mechanisms to identify their needs, keep them informed of proceedings and received adequate 
protection during proceedings. Likewise, for road traffic victims, though action does not 
specifically envisage the detaile d needs of such victims, the improvement of awareness and 
cultural attitudes of legal practitioners combined with appropriate assessments will help ensure their needs are met, in particular their treatment before a specific crime has been 
identified.  
Moreover, in line with the approach taken for victims of human traffi cking and sexual abuse 
and exploitation of children and child porno graphy, the proposal will be consistent in 
addressing the particular needs of vulnerable victims. 
3.3. Consistency of the objectives with the Fundamental Rights 
Any action of the EU to ensure that the needs of vi ctims of crime are respected and met must 
respect the fundamental rights recognised by the EU Charte r of Fundamental Rights in the 
European Union ("EU Charter"). Any options e nvisaged in this impact assessment must be 
fully consistent with a range of  fundamental rights. The key right s relevant to this assessment 
are: human dignity, the right to life, right to the integrity of the person, right to liberty and 
security, respect for private and family life, protection of personal da ta, right to property, 
freedom of movement and residence, equality befo re the law, the rights of the child, the rights 
of the elderly, integration of pers ons with disabilities, and right to an effective remedy and to 
a fair trial, and finally presumpti on of innocence and right of defence. 
The protection of the fundamental rights of th e individual has become an even stronger 
priority for the EU with the en try into force of the Lisbon Treat y: the EU Charter has become 
legally binding on the Union and the EU is ab out to accede to the European Convention of 
Human Rights (ECHR). In accordance with Communication from the Commission on the 
Strategy for the effective implementation of  the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the 
European Union
61, this impact assessment examines th e impact on the Fundamental Rights of 
the options proposed, in particular in the light of the 'fundamental rights check list' presented 
in the Communication. 
Fundamental rights of all  individuals must be respected in all EU actions and by Member 
States when they implement EU la w. EU action in this field shoul d thus at the same time raise 
standards in relation to the fundamental rights of victims of crime whilst ensuring that any 
limitation of the rights of the defe nce or to other fundamental ri ghts is formulated in a clear 
and predictable manner and is n ecessary and proportionate to pr otect the rights and freedoms 
of the victim.  
                                                 
61 COM(2010) 573. 
 
EN 23   EN The European Court of Human Rights has stresse d that a court cannot ignore the plight of 
victims and downgrade their rights, as there is a “ need to safeguard victims’ rights and their 
proper place in criminal proceedings ”.62 The Court has also recognised that in criminal 
proceedings certain measures may be taken fo r the purpose of protecting the victim, provided 
that such measures can be reconciled with an adequate and effective exercise of the rights of 
the defence.63 However, it is considered that decisions in this respect must be taken at a local 
level and on an individual basis. The Court also  ruled that Article 4 of the ECHR in certain 
circumstances, require a State "to take operational measures to protect victims, or potential 
victims, of trafficking " where circumstances gi ve rise to a credible suspicion of trafficking.64 
Most measures envisaged in the options assess ed do not affect the rights of the accused in 
criminal proceedings. In particular, the proposed  measures neither affect the presumption of 
innocence of the accused, nor the right not to  be judged twice for the same offence ( ne bis in 
idem ), as discretion is left to the judge who will ultimately ensure that the fundamental rights 
of accused are observed and respected.  
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
The options for addressing the problem as defined in Section 2 of this Impact Assessment, in 
line with the objectives established in Section 3, are set out below. 
Options examined in this assessment all take a combined approach w ith varying levels of 
detail or obligation being imposed. This is based on an overwhelming response from 
respondents during the external study that th e optimum approach was a combined one 
involving both new EU legislati on and practical action to ensu re proper implementation. Thus 
for all measures, practical measures will be established to assist in implementation and 
identification of best practice. These will ra nge from funding of EU projects and studies, 
development and exchange of best practices, co-ordination with Eu ropean networks and 
specific projects tendered by the Commission. 
4.1. Discarded options 
Analysis of legal measures related to legal ai d and compensation of victims demonstrates that 
further research is still needed to precisely  identify problems and possible solutions. Such 
research is even more important since action in these areas could have very high cost 
implications for the Member States. As such, legal aid and compensation are not included in 
the options below but will be the subject of further studies to determine appropriate EU 
action. 
4.2. Overview of policy options  
We have considered five options: retention of the status quo  (option 1) and four other policy 
options (options 2, 3a, 3b a nd 4). The retention of the status quo  would involve taking no 
action  at EU level, while the four alternative policy options will improve victims' situation 
across Europe. These options range from Low - Medium - High level of obligation imposed 
on Member States and the de tail of such obligations.  
                                                 
62 Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, 12 February 2004. 
63 See for instance Cases ECtHR in SN v Sweden, Doorson v Netherlands (1996), Luca v Italy (2003). 
64 See Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, no 25965/04, 7 January 2010. 
 
EN 24   EN Option 
1 – 
Status 
Quo Retention of the status quo. No action at EU level.  
  
Option 
2 – 
Low 
level of obligation Least prescriptive option. Imposes minimum obligations on Member States to 
establish systems or services with minimum detail on what standards should 
be achieved. When necessary to take legal measures, this option requires the 
least changes in national procedural laws.  
  
Option 
3a –
Medium level 
obligatio
n
 Medium prescriptive option. Imposes medium level of obligation on Member 
States, with the exception of measure 11 - Establishment of Restorative 
Justice Services (RJS) , to establish services and rights and imposes 
provisions on what such services should be while defining minimum details 
on what standards to be applied. The level of obligations on Member States 
for measure 11 is low  and does not require Member States to establish RJS 
but only to ensure that safeguards and minimum quality standards are applied 
where RJS are used.  
  
Option 3b –Medium
/High 
level obligatio
n
 Medium prescriptive option. Imposes medium level of obligation on Member 
States for all measures  to establish services and rights and imposes 
provisions on what such services should be while defining minimum details 
on what standards to be applied.  
  
Option 4 –
 
Highest 
level of obligation The most prescriptive option. Imposes a range of obligations on Member 
States to establish services and rights. It also imposes more detailed provisions 
on what such services should be and the exact standards that should be applied.
 
Each policy option has been asse ssed against eleven selected me asures (described in Section 
4.3). The selection of the eleven measures wa s made from a list of nearly sixty possible 
measures that were identified as potentiall y meeting the needs of victims, based on the 
evidence collected by the external contractor.65 From this list, only those measures were 
                                                 
65 The Matrix Report approach was based on the trad itional options of no action, better implementation, 
legislative action and a combined approach. Howe ver, two issues arose when following this 
 
EN 25   EN selected that would have the most effect in reaching the objectives set out in Section 3 and 
respond best to the problems that  could be tackled at EU level.  They are also likely to have 
the most significant cost implications and impact.  
Each of the eleven measures corresponds to an operational objective listed in Section 3.1 
above. All standards required under these meas ures (depending on the degree of obligation 
under each policy option) derive from international standards and from the EU Charter and 
ECtHR caselaw. 
                                                                                                                                                         
methodology. Firstly, taking this approach failed to meet all the needs of victims. Secondly, their was 
an overwhelming response from respondents that the optimum approach was a combined one involving 
both new EU legislation and practical action to ensure proper implementation. Whilst for better implementation or legislation only positive impact  was generally assessed as low and occasionally 
medium, this compares with a combined approach which received medium and high ratings for positive 
impact.  
 
EN 26   EN 4.3. Detailed description of policy opti ons concerning selected measures 
Policy option 1, the status quo , has been presented in the baseline scenario (see Section 2.5) . The other policy options desc ribed below meet to varying 
degrees the objectives outlined in Section 3 above. Most of the eleven measures are already in some ways covered under the Fram ework Decision, but 
these policy options go beyond the status quo  (policy option 1). For example, while Article 13 in the Framework Decision simply provides that 
Member States should "encourage actions" by victims support organi sations, the four policy options  for measure 7 would require at a minimum (option 
1) that there is easy and eff ective access to such services. 
• Measure  
(+ operational 
objective)  • Policy option 2 
• Low prescription • Policy Option 3a 
• Medium prescription • Policy option 3b 
• Medium/High prescription • Policy option 4 
• High prescription 
• 1. Coverage of 
indirect victims (A1) • Not covered.  • Co-victims of murder covered as 
if they were direct victims. Support services and protection 
available to immediate family or 
dependents of direct victims. • Co-victims of murder covered as 
if they were direct victims. Support services and protection 
available to immediate family or 
dependents of direct victims. • All indirect victims covered as if 
they were direct victims i.e. immediate family, dependants, 
• 2. Provision of 
Training  
(A2) • MS required to establish 
guidelines for practitioners on the 
appropriate treatment of victims. • MS required to ensure that police, 
prosecutors and court staff are 
provided with appropriate training on victims from the earliest point, 
with particular attention on 
vulnerable victims. Judicial studies for judges shall be made 
available. 
• Training should cover at least 
rights and needs of victims, 
impact of victimisation on 
victims, support possibilities that officials can provide, risk and 
avoidance of secondary 
victimisation. • MS required to ensure that police, 
prosecutors and court staff are 
provided with appropriate training on victims from the earliest point, 
with particular attention on 
vulnerable victims. Judicial studies for judges shall be made 
available. 
• Training should cover at least 
rights and needs of victims, 
impact of victimisation on 
victims, support possibilities that officials can provide, risk and 
avoidance of secondary 
victimisation • MS required to make training on 
victims mandatory for police, 
prosecutors, judges and court staff who come into contact with 
victims during the course of the 
work.  
• 3. Assessment of • MS required to enhance and • MS required to establish • MS required to establish • MS required to assess all victims 
 
EN 27   EN victims' needs 
(A3) encourage exchange of 
information and best practices on 
the best ways to identify and meet the needs of victims. individual needs assessments to 
identify vulnerable victims and 
needs of other victims not falling under that category. Indicators of 
vulnerability helping to determine 
the needs shall include at least: personal characteristics, type or 
nature of the crime; risks of repeat 
and secondary victimisation. Assessments not required for 
minor crimes.  individual needs assessments to 
identify vulnerable victims and 
needs of other victims not falling under that category. Indicators of 
vulnerability helping to determine 
the needs shall include at least: personal characteristics, type or 
nature of the crime; risks of repeat 
and secondary victimisation. Assessments not required for 
minor crimes.  for their needs from the moment a 
crime is reported and at regular 
intervals throughout proceedings through an EU needs assessment 
form. 
• 4. Identification 
of vulnerable victims and 
provision of 
specific services (A3) • Definition and minimum services 
of vulnerable victims provided only in relation to child sexual 
exploitation and human 
trafficking. • Presumption of vulnerability of 
identified categories of victims including at least children, 
persons with with disabilities, 
victims of sexual violence, human trafficking or interpersonal 
violence. 
• MS required to establish 
appropriate services to meet the 
needs of such victims. • Presumption of vulnerability of 
identified categories of victims including at least children, 
persons with with disabilities, 
victims of sexual violence, human trafficking or interpersonal 
violence. 
• MS required to establish 
appropriate services to meet the 
needs of such victims. • As a minimum children, those 
with physical and mental disabilities, victims of sexual 
violence, human trafficking or 
interpersonal violence, deemed to be vulnerable.  
• MS required to make available a 
range of specific services for 
vulnerable victims, as identified 
in the Directive. 
• 5. Cross border 
provision of 
protection 
measures  (B1) • Amend existing civil law 
instruments (Brussels I and IIbis) 
which cover protection measures 
in order to ensure they work effectively for the mutual 
recognition of protection 
measures. • Legislation establishing a mutual 
recognition mechanism for 
protection measures.  • Legislation establishing a mutual 
recognition mechanism for 
protection measures.  • Legislation requiring Member 
States to put in place a facilitation 
mechanism to assist victims who 
already benefit from a protection measure to apply for protection 
measures when in a Member State 
other than their own.  
 
EN 28   EN • 6. Provision of 
separate waiting 
areas to avoid contact between 
victim and 
offender (B2) • MS required to establish 
guidelines and protocols for court 
officials to assist them in ensuring that risk of contact between 
victim and offender is minimised 
unless required for the administration of justice. • MS required to ensure that contact 
between victims and offenders 
within court premises may be avoided unless criminal 
proceedings require such contact. 
MS shall progressively adapt court premises to have separate 
waiting areas for victims, and 
ensure that new court buildings are constructed with separate 
waiting areas for victims and that 
contact with the offender is reduced throughout the court 
premises. • MS required to ensure that contact 
between victims and offenders 
within court premises may be avoided unless criminal 
proceedings require such contact. 
MS shall progressively adapt court premises to have separate 
waiting areas for victims, and 
ensure that new court buildings are constructed with separate 
waiting areas for victims and that 
contact with the offender is reduced throughout the court 
premises. • Same as option 3 but all courts, 
existing and new, must have 
separate waiting areas for victims. 
• 7. Establishment 
of a minimum 
level of Victim 
Support Services, including support 
during 
proceedings (C1) • MS required to ensure there is 
easy and effective access to 
victims support services without 
providing further detail on how this should be achieved. • MS required to ensure that 
victims have easy access to 
effective victim support services. 
Key services to be provided are identifies and services shall be 
provided by persons competent to 
deal with the problems faced by victims. • MS required to ensure that 
victims have easy access to 
effective victim support services. 
Key services to be provided are identifies and services shall be 
provided by persons competent to 
deal with the problems faced by victims. • Same as option 3, but services 
shall be independent of the 
government and autonomous. 
Victim support services required also to provide legal advice or 
assistance. 
• 8. Attendance of 
trial  
(D1) • MS required to establish 
guidelines to better inform victims 
of factors which will assist their attendance of trial including trial 
dates, possibility of 
reimbursement, information on the court and proceedings etc • MS required to ensure that victim 
are kept fully informed of the trial 
date and be reimbursed for the expense of attending the trial. 
Exclusion of a victim from trial 
must be assessed on an individual basis and can only happen in 
exceptional circumstances. • MS required to ensure that victim 
are kept fully informed of the trial 
date and be reimbursed for the expense of attending the trial. 
Exclusion of a victim from trial 
must be assessed on an individual basis and can only happen in 
exceptional circumstances. • Victim will have a right to attend 
trial, except in exceptional 
circumstances. Victim must be kept fully informed of the trial 
date, which will be determined 
taken into account the victim's availability. Victim will be 
reimbursed for any attendance. 
• 9. Provision of 
interpretation 
and translation 
(D2)  • MS required to establish 
mechanisms to minimise 
communication difficulties for all 
victims and not just those who are witnesses or parties to • MS required to ensure that 
interpretation and translation is 
provided to facilitate the victim's 
understanding of and involvement in the criminal proceedings, • MS required to ensure that 
interpretation and translation is 
provided to facilitate the victim's 
understanding of and involvement in the criminal proceedings, • MS required to provide free of 
charge interpretation and 
translation for victims with an 
identified language problem. 
 
EN 29   EN proceedings. where proportionate in view of 
the circumstances of the case. where proportionate in view of 
the circumstances of the case. 
• 10. Review of 
decisions  (D3) • MS required to ensure that the 
victim can provide their views before a decision is made not to 
prosecute.  • MS required to provide victims 
with a right to have a decision not to prosecute reviewed.  
• MS left to determine the exact 
review mechanism they use. • MS required to provide victims 
with a right to have a decision not to prosecute reviewed.  
• MS left to determine the exact 
review mechanism they use. • MS required to provide victims 
with a right to a judicial review of a decision not to prosecute. 
• 11. Establishment 
of Restorative 
Justice Services 
(RJS)  (E1) • No requirement to establish RJS 
but MS must ensure that 
safeguards and minimum quality 
standards are applied where RJS are used. • No requirement to establish 
RJS but MS must ensure that 
safeguards and minimum 
quality standards are applied where RJS are used. • MS required to- establish or 
enhance RJS. Such RJS must 
represent equally victims’ and 
defendants' interests and minimum standards and 
safeguards shall be applied 
(including consent and 
confidentiality). • MS must make available RJS 
(including at least mediation and 
family group conferencing) to all 
victims, applying safeguards in accordance with UN Basic 
Principles on the Use of 
Restorative Justice Programmes 
in Criminal Matters . 
 
 
EN 30   EN 5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
5.1. Description and impact an alysis of policy options 
A broad impact analysis of each option has been  carried out. The most relevant likely impacts 
of the policy options are the econo mic and social impacts. The gr eatest cost implications are 
expected to fall on public authorities. No  environmental impacts are anticipated.  
For the purposes of comparison, for all four options (except status quo ), estimated costs are 
provided for the five measures wh ich are likely to be the most costly and/or most sensitive 
(training, victim support, interpretation and tran slation, restorative justice and attendance of 
trial). In addition, some basic estimates of costs are provided concerning the provision of 
separate waiting areas to avoi d contact between victim and offender, as well as a basic 
analysis of the impact of a review mechanism on the decision not to prosecute.66 
Nevertheless, numerous factors which cannot be  accurately calculated will affect the real 
costs. In many instances, such factors are like ly to present a downward pressure on costs e.g. 
where Member States already have measures in place. See Annex 10  for further details on the 
cost estimates provided for the policy options below . 
Specific costs are not available on the right to re view. This possibility already exists in all 
Member States except for six (BE, CY, IE, LU, MT, SI). For option 3a and 3b, it is left to 
Member States to determine the exact mechan ism. They could therefore implement this 
measure by allowing another officer to carry ou t the review, they could establish a specific 
authority or ombudman, or establish a right of  judicial review. Thus , they can choose an 
option which can have low cost implications. However, for option 4 there are greater cost 
implications since Member States are re quired to establish a judicial review. 
All options, except status quo , are expected to have a positive impact on fundamental rights of 
victims with the options ha ving biggest impact also im proving fundamental rights the 
greatest. Measures such as the cross border pr ovision of protection measures could have an 
impact on the fundamental rights of the offende r. The key fundamental rights concerned are: 
human dignity, the right to life , right to the integr ity of the person, ri ght to liberty and 
security, respect for private and family life, protection of personal da ta, right to property, 
freedom of movement and residence, equality befo re the law, the rights of the child, the rights 
of the elderly, integration of pers ons with disabilities, and right to an effective remedy and to 
a fair trial, and finally presumpti on of innocence and right of defence. 
With regard to the impact of the different op tions on the Member States, there is no detailed 
cost breakdown available showing which Member States would bear the majority of costs for 
reaching the desired EU minimum standards sp ecified in each option. However, considering 
that the existing national laws and practices di ffer to a varying degree from these minimum 
standards, the impact of the pr oposed measures would presumably be greatest in the Member 
States where a right is not, or not sufficien tly, addressed in the way foreseen by these 
standards, while the impact would be lesser in the States that already have a high level of 
protection and support of victims.  
                                                 
66 Except where otherwise specified, the cost estima tes provided are based on the Matrix Report and 
further explained in Annex 10. 
 
EN 31   EN For example, there is no national victim suppo rt organisation in nine  Member States (CY, 
DK, EL, IT, LV, LT, PL, SI and ES), while in  ten Member States such national services 
already exist (AT, BE, EE, FI , DE, NL, PT, SK, SE and UK).67 Whilst the cost implications 
for establishing such services in the first group of Member States will be considerably higher 
than for the latter group, the measure will bring greater and direct benefit for victims in those 
countries where such services do not currently exist, thus increasing their well-being and 
chance of recovery. Further info rmation on individual Member St ates' current standards with 
respect of meeting victims' n eeds is provided in Annexes 3-7 .  
5.1.1.  Policy option 1: Retention of the status quo – No action at EU level 
Expected Impact 
Effectiveness 
in meeting 
objectives Zero: As set out in the baseline scenario, transposition of relevant EU legislation has more or less 
stagnated. The situation is expected to evolve as set out in Section 2.5 abov e. Whilst there is a trend 
amongst Member States to develop their own national agenda on victims' rights, there is no indication 
that all Member States will follow this trend. With out further EU action, there is unlikely to be a 
sufficient development of national legislation and action on victims of crime such that they can be 
assured to receive an equal and appropriate level of treatment no matter where in the EU they find 
themselves. 
In addition, it is noted that with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Court of 
Justice will gain jurisdiction over existing "third pillar" acquis  by 2014. In theory this should improve 
the situation slightly since enforcement powers will ex ist. However, as detailed in previous sections, 
the current drafting and obligations are vague making judicial review difficult. In addition, 75% or more of respondents in the study by the external contractor felt that without any further (EU) action, 
the situation for victims across Europe is expected to stay the same, with 25% considering it would 
deteriorate over the next five years, particularly for victims of violent crime. This means that on the whole the range of problems identified above would remain or become worse.  
Political 
Feasibility High: Member States will have no new obligations. Th is option should therefore not experience 
significant objections. 
Financial and 
economic 
impact There are no immediate new financial burdens associat ed with this option. However, the total costs of 
crime to the individual and to so ciety are considerable. Such costs have been detailed in Section 2.3 
and based on a UK Home Office Survey an extrapolated EU cost of €233 billion has been estimated. 
Since adequately meeting the needs of victims can reduce those costs, no EU action can be assumed 
to have high cost implications on society. 
Social impact There are no expected positive social impacts. Rath er it is expected that in many Member States 
victims will continue to be treated poorly and not receive support, protection or access to justice. The 
negative impact is likely to be greatest on vulnerable groups such as the disabled or those subjected to 
sexual violence.  
Impact on 
fundamental 
rights Under this option, fundamental rights of victims will be mostly protected on the Member States level 
in accordance with their in ternational obligations. The protection of  the fundamental rights of victims 
on the Union level will continue to be limited to the application of the Directive on the compensation 
of victims and the Framework Decision. The fundamental rights will continue to be protected in a 
different manner according to each  national system. The EU Charte r – and the rights applying to 
victims enshrined therein – will be applied only when EU law is involved. 
Impact on 
MS judicial 
systems No impact is expected on Member States' judicial  systems except where they make changes on their 
own initiative. 
                                                 
67 APAV Report, p. 120. 
 
EN 32   EN 5.1.2.  Policy option 2: Low prescription  
Expected Impact 
Effectiveness 
in meeting 
objectives Low: This option is the least prescriptive leavin g a wide discretion to Member States in 
implementation. Only a few measures introduce obligations to change behaviours or activities. As 
with the Framework Decision, this is likely to re sult in few changes or improvements. Even where 
action is taken it is unlikely to establish minimum standards. Furthermore, open provisions are very 
difficult to be monitored.  
Synergies are unlikely to be achieved or to make any significant cost savings or added benefits due to 
the likely lack of uniformity of implementation. Some extended benefits may be achieved through the 
establishment of detailed guidelines which could form the foundations of a training programme or 
even a governmental change programme.  
Political 
Feasibility  High: Given the lack of obligations imposed on Member States, negotiation and implementation 
should be very feasible. Member States will be ab le to choose how far they wish to go with any 
implementation and what changes they wish to make. However, some States, in particular those who 
already have good victims' provisions, and the European Parliament may wish to go further.  
Financial and 
economic 
impact Total costs are expected to be  the lowest in this option  (excluding status quo ). Almost all costs will 
fall to public administrations on both a national and local level. Some costs could fall to the voluntary 
sector. Some costs may be limited to the short run such as the development of guidelines, whilst 
others may incur ongoing running costs such as victim support services.  
 Minimum 
Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) Maximum 
Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) 
Training 
(one off development cost) 0 1.58 
Victim Support Services 
(annual running costs) < 23 < 23 
Interpretation/ translation 
(annual costs) < 0.03 6.88 
Restorative Justice 
(annual costs - however, due to reduction 
in reoffending, significant savings for the criminal justice syst em can be expected) 0 
 878 
 
Attendance of trial 
(one off development cost) 0.146  1.58 
Separate waiting areas 
(one off development cost)  0.146  1.58 
TOTAL  < 23.33 million < 905.74 million 
    
 Training – development of guidelines:  
Total cost: Near to zero – €1.58 million for 27 Member States  
Costs are likely to be relatively low. Depending on how this option is implemented the burden could 
be primarily on national governments or the EU.  
Cost for developing guidelines will vary. At the lowest end, the European Network of Councils for 
the Judiciary recently produced basi c guidelines for judges at virtually  no cost. Such an  approach for 
all practitioners could significantly reduce costs close to zero. The range of costs was further 
developed based on whether guidelines are produced by a government Department, are externally 
contracted or are drafted by the EU and adapted by  Member States. In addition, some Member States 
e.g. FR, BE already have guidelin es which would reduce this cost.  
 Victim Support Services – easy, effective access:   
Total cost: Less than €23,500,000 for 17 States that have no or limited VSO  
This option gives Member States wide flexibility in implementation. This may result in Member 
 
EN 33   EN States either carrying out few changes or not implementing to the extent described below. As such it 
can be assumed that costs will be lower than options 3a, 3b and 4. 
Costings are based on known budgets from several national organisations adjusted based on whether 
there was no known victim support organisation in a Member State (CY, DK, EL, IT, LV, LT, PL, SI 
and ES - 9 States), whether existing VSOs achieved national coverage (AT, BE, EE, FI, DE, NL, PT, 
SK, SE, UK – 10 States) or did not (BG,  CZ, FR, HU, IE, LU, MT, RO - 8 States).  
 Interpretation and Translation – minimise communication difficulties:  
Total cost: Less than €30,000 – €6,880,000 
This option provides a wide leeway for implemen tation by Member States. Costs of implementation 
are expected to fall on government authorities at a nati onal and regional level. Cost for leaflets should 
only be borne once and for any subsequent changes to content. There are unlikely  to be annual 
translation costs. Costs for translation of proceedings are exp ected to remain relatively constant. 
Costs ranges are based on whether Member States choose to produce leaflets (assumed as being 4 
pages) or in addition provide short summaries of the outcome of proceedings. 
In relation to the leaflets LT, LU, NL, PT, ES, UK  are already know to provide this information. 
Calculations are therefore made for 21 States. A short 4 page information leaflet for 21 States 
translated into 22 languages would range from €29,933 – €86,739. However,  Member States are 
likely to do this based on the most common languages used in their jurisdiction rather than for all 22 EU languages. Thus costs are likely to be lower. 
In relation to summaries of proceedings, AT, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, LT, LU, NL, RO, SK, ES, SE, 
UK (15 States) already provide tran slation and interpretation services for all victims. Calculations are 
made therefore for 12 States (BE, BG, CZ, CY, DK, IE, IT, LV, MT, PL, PT, SI). The cost of 
producing 1 page summaries is therefore estimated to range from €2.91 to €6.79 million . 
 Restorative Justice Services (RJS) – safeguards where RJS exists:  
Total cost: €0 – €878 million (accreditation and legal advice for 21 States) 
21 Member States provide some form of RJS (AT, BE, BG, CZ, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, IE, IT, LV, 
LU, PL, PT, RO, SI, ES, SE, UK). Calculations on safeguards will thus only be based on costs in 
those states. 
Member States could implement this requirement ranging from no significant costs since many 
safeguards do not impose financial burdens  (such as the requirement of consent to participate in 
RJS), to the most expensive safeguards accreditation schemes and provision of legal advice (in 
accordance with the UN  guidelines on RJS safeguards). Cost  estimates will thus only be given on 
those two safeguards. 
Total cost of accred itation schemes: €413, 914 – €3,420,182 (assuming implemented by 21 States).  
Total cost of legal advice:  €606 – €875 million  (assuming implemented by 21 States). This is based 
on the most  likely costing scenario,  i.e. on the number of  cases that currently go to court and a 50% 
take up rate. However, it is assumed that costs would be lower as not all 50% of victims would 
actually receive RJ (case not suitable, offender refu sal) or would not get to a stage where legal advice 
was required or desired.  
 Attendance of trial – establish guidelines: 
Total cost: €146,000 - €1,580,000 
This policy option involves the establishment of guidelines to better inform victims concerning trial 
dates and possibility of reimbursement. Based on the analysis of guidelines on training in studies, the following costs are expected:  
Guidelines attending trial  
Internally developed by 
Ministry of Justice Externally contracted EU Drafted, MS adaptation 
 
EN 34   EN €145,616 €970,000 - 1,580,000 €236,201 
 
 Separate waiting areas – development of guidelines and protocols:  
Total cost: €146,000 - €1,580,000 
This policy option involves the establishment of guidelines and protocols for court officials to assist 
them in ensuring that risk of contact between victims and offender is minimised. The calculation of the costs estimates are the same as for guide lines on attendance of  trial (see above).  
 
Social impact  This option is likely to raise awareness of the rights  available among both victims and professionals 
with whom they are in contact (e .g. through adoption of guidelines, exchange of best practices). This 
would contribute to the required ch ange in culture, increase the victim 's access to justice, support and 
protection. However, the risk that guidelines are not made sufficiently available and are adhered only 
on a voluntarily bases, limits this positive impact.  
The exclusion of indirect victims and the narrow approach of vulnerable victims (limited to child 
sexual abuse and exploitation and human tr afficking) would significantly reduce the beneficiaries of 
common EU standards . 
The introduction of minimum requirements as regards the availability of support services, 
mechanisms to minimise communication difficu lties and a review mechanism would clearly 
strengthen the individual's right to  access to justice . However, without common standards as regards 
the quality of these services or mechanisms, there is a serious risk that the situation of victims will not 
really improve in many Member States. 
This option would positively affect the right of the individuals to  move freely within the EU  by 
ensuring that a victim continues to benefit from a protection measure when crossing borders. 
Fundamental 
rights Under this option, the precise impact on fundamental rights would very much depend on how 
Member States implement EU legislation. For thos e Member States which are ambitious, the positive 
impact on fundamental rights of option 2 could come close to option 3. In general, it is possible to 
state that option 2 is likely to ensure a higher level of respect for the victim's fundamental rights than 
option 1. However, consisting mainly of soft-law measures and giving the overall situation as regards the lack of possibilities to enforce those rights (see Section 2.4), this positive impact remains limited.  
In any event, this option will have a impact on  several fundamental rights, in particular:  
• The right to human dignity  and right to the integrity of the  person  will be strengthened due to 
the development of measures related to identification of the needs of victims. This right would be 
also enhanced by the adoption of the guidelines for practitioners on the appropriate treatment of 
victims and the requirement to ensure easy and e ffective access of victims to support services. 
• Right to an effective remedy  and to a fair trial  could be more effectively put in practice as 
victims could provide their views before a decision not to pros ecute is made. Member States 
obligations to set minimum quality standards for RJS would also contribute in ensuring that right 
to a fair trial is guaranteed within this specifi c procedure. Victims would also benefit from setting 
minimum requirements as regards the provision of information to victims about the trial.  
• The rights to life, the respect for private and family life  and freedom of movement  and 
residence  will be positively impacted by an efficient solution as regards the cross border provision 
of protection measures. 
• A mutual recognition instrument in this area could potentially impact the fundamental rights of the 
offender such as the right to liberty and security, the respect for private and family life, 
protection of personal data, freedom of mo vement an residence rights to effective remedy 
and to a fair trial and the principle of lega lity and proportionality of criminal offences. The 
impact on these rights and the proportionality of their limitation  would depend on the 
concrete type of protection measures which would be defined or subject to mutual recognition.  For 
instance, Member States can impose national prot ection measures which can result in anything 
 
EN 35   EN from restrictions on making phone calls to an individual through to being barred from a family 
home. A mutual recognition instrument would result in such similar measures being applied in 
another Member State to which the victim moves or travels. In that case,  respect for private and 
family life will be particularly affected. Reco gnition of the protection order would also require 
that information on the offender is exchanged between Member States' authorities which could 
impact the protection of personal data. The instrument will have to ensure that any such possible limitations to the rights of the offender are ju stified by providing the necessary safeguards to 
ensure that such impact would be proportionate and necessary to the aim of protection of the 
victim. Any limitations of the rights of the offend er will have to be formulated in a clear and 
predictable manner. The right of the offender to challenge before a tribunal the protection 
measures will have to be ensured as well as pr esumption of innocence and right of defence.. 
• The measures relating to this option would increase the rights of the child  and several other rights 
affected with regard to victims of human trafficking by requiring minimum level of support 
services available for these two groups, this option would only have limited impact on the rights 
of the child in general, of the rights of the  elderly  and the integration of person with  
disabilities in general since the group of victims do not benefit from specific protection.  
Impact on MS 
judicial 
systems Limited since the proposal consists either of soft law measures (gui delines, exchange of practices) or 
of legal requirements aiming at a minimum level of ambition, thus requiring little changes in the 
national legal systems. 
5.1.3.  Policy option 3a: Medium prescription 
Expected Impact 
Effectiveness 
in meeting 
objectives High : This option is predicted to be highly efficient in terms of achieving the general and specific 
objectives. The concrete obligations imposed on Member States and the quality standards introduced 
will allow monitoring and effective infringement proc edures at EU level. For those measures where 
there is not yet a common culture among Member Stat es (e.g. restorative justice services) this option 
would start by creating a common culture (through aw areness raising, exchange of best practices), 
whilst also setting certain minimum quality standard s where restorative justice systems are indeed 
used. A range of synergies could occur for instance where victims support organisations are strengthened they may provide training at reduced co sts. Where training of practitioners is effective, 
their increased awareness of victim support and re storative justice will allow those organisations to 
plug into the criminal justice system more easily  and at a lower overall cost. In the most well 
established victim support organisations, needs assessments are carried out by those organisations 
rather than government, at a much lower cost.  
Political 
Feasibility  Medium High  - Given the obligations imposed on Member States and the costs involved, negotiation 
and implementation will entail severe discussion, in particular for those Member States which have the lowest standards in place. Ho wever, this option imposes a lo w obligation on Member States 
regarding one of the most controversial and costly matters, i.e. restorative justice, which should ease 
the political acceptability and increase the likelihood of  agreement. This option is thus more feasible 
than option 3b which imposes a higher obligation on Member States with regard to restorative justice 
services.  
Financial and 
economic 
impact Total costs are expected  to be the in the lower middle  of the four options (excluding Status quo). 
Almost all costs will fall to public administrations on both a national and local level.  
 
 Minimum 
Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) Maximum 
Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) 
Training 
(1st year costs, range of cost reduction 
factors exist) 4.61 
(opportunity cost: 71.27) 17.28 
(opportunity cost: 72.29) 
Victim Support Services 
(Annual running costs) < 24 < 27 
 
EN 36   EN Interpretation/ translation 
(Annual costs) < 89.29 < 205.49 
Restorative Justice (AS OPTION 2) 
(Annual costs - however, due to reduction 
in reoffending, significant savings for the 
criminal justice syst em can be expected) 0 
 878 
 
Attendance of trial 
(Annual costs) 240 242.9 
TOTAL  357.9 1,370.67 
Separate waiting areas  
(per 50m2 new waiting area per court)  0.23 
 
Training – legal practitioners trained, training available for judges, some detail on content:   
 
Training of police and judiciary: €4.61 – €17.28 million  (based on single tr aining scenario for 
all practitioners assuming no Member State currently provides training)  
Opportunity cost of attending training: €71.27 million – €72.29 million 
No figures available for prosecutors or court staff. 
Costs are based on estimates for a 2 hour face to face training session for police officers and judges. 
Costings are based on minimum-maximum ranges for hourly wages of trainers (including 
development of the course), number of police officer s and judges and their average national salaries.  
It should be noted that the above costs could be significantly reduced due to a range of factors: 
• The above scenario assumes no trai ning is currently provided. Howe ver, although exact details are 
not available, we know that some Member States  already provide traini ng. Respondents in the 
APAV interim report, felt that police officers a nd legal practitioners in BE, CY, FI, FR, EL, HU, 
IE, IT, MT, PL, PT, SK, SI and SE need more training programmes in order for them to meet the 
needs of most victims.  It was also felt that professionals in  DE and UK who deal with victims do 
not have enough knowledge 
• Since training of judges is not mandatory in this option, it can be assumed that not all judges will 
be trained. Costs will therefore be lower. 
• We would also anticipate that costs would be significantly lowered by providing victims training 
during basic training i.e. before practitioners ar e practicing. Further reductions could be made 
through online or e-learning to minimise lost work time. Costs are al so much lower where 
provided by victim support organisations. The more such organisations are strengthened the more 
likely they are to car ry out such tasks. 
• Finally these costs are based on the first year of training provision. Subsequent training at this 
level would only be needed for new recruits and thus 2nd year costs onwards would be much 
lower.  
Victims support services – establish services or support existing ones. Minimum standard. 
Total cost: Less than €24 – €27 million to establish nationwide services.  
Cost for accreditation: €477,000 – €3.58 million 
Cost of services: Less than €23.5 million for 17 States that have no or limited VSO  
Costs are based on calculations in option 2. Additional costings are provided in relation to 
accreditation (based on restorative justice accreditation) si nce this option requires that services are 
provided by competent practitioners.  
Interpretation and Translation – provided on basis of proportionality  
Total costs: Less than €89.29 – €205.49 million 
Translation: €87.42 – €203.61 million   
Interpretation:  €1.88 million   
As with option 2, this option is difficult to cost. A proportionality test has been introduced to provide 
 
EN 37   EN where necessary and to a necessary extent. This should effectively reduce cost implications in 
particular in relation to low level crimes (where for instance a simple summa ry may be provided) or 
where the victim has indicated they do not  wish to receive translations etc.  
Translation: Costs are based on  translating an average of 30 pages . On this basis, the total cost for 
the 9395 cases  involving foreign victims in those 12 States that don't currently provide interpretation 
and translation ranges from €87.42 – €203.61 million.   
 
Interpretation: It has been estimated that  the average cost of interpre tation for the accused for 1 case 
is around €200 . Based on this costing, it is estimated that interpretation for the 12 States that do not 
currently provide interpretation for all victims would cost around €1.88 million  at a maximum. 
However, these costings only provide a baseline. Since Member States will apply a proportionality 
test, it is assumed that costs can be reduced . In addition, interpretation costs are based on UK figures 
for interpretation. It has been observed that interpretation in the UK is provided to a very high level 
and it can therefore be assumed that these costs are at the maximum end of the scale .  
Restorative Justice Services (RJS) – safeguards where RJS exists:  
Total cost: €0 – €878 million (accreditation and legal advi ce for 21 Member States) 
Costs are based on calculations made in option 2.  
Attendance of trial – assessment on exclusion, trial date info, reimbursement  
Total cost: €240 – €242.9 million 
Cost of providing information: - €0 – €2.9 million 
Reimbursement: €240 million 
Key costs relate to informing the victim of the trial date and reimbursing the victim for attendance. 
Assessment of exclusion of the victim is not exp ected to impose significant financial costs though 
some additional administrative burden will be experienced.  
Information on trial date : Costs are established for the 19 States that do not currently inform all 
victims of the trial date (CY, DK, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU,IT, LU, MT, NL, PT, RO, SK, SI, ES,SE, 
UK) though in reality they will be lower since many  victims are witnesses. Cost are based on mailing 
information to victims and are estimated at €2.9 million. These costs  could be reduced to near zero by 
sending the official communication by E-mail. 
Reimbursement for attendance : Costs are established for the 9 States which only reimburse 
witnesses or parties to proceedings or have no provisions on reimbursement ((BE, CY, DK, EE, IE, 
IT, UK, MT and ES. Based on studies, the total costs for these 9 states amounts to around €240 
million.   
Separate waiting areas: progressive adaptation of existing court premises to have separate 
waiting areas for victims and establishment of such area in newly constructed court premises  
Maximum €200,000 - €230,000 per newly constructed waiting area 
This cost is very difficult to estimate since little information is available from the Member States. We 
can therefore not provide an EU total cost on this measure.  
To get an indication, the external study relied on information retrieved from the UK Ministry of 
Justice, where the design of a court with complete  separation for victims (Sunderland Justice Centre) 
had just been completed. In the Sunderland Justi ce Centre, the extra witne ss area over and above the 
normal vulnerable witness suite is about 10 sq m per court; the extra circulation is about 40 sq m per 
court, thus totalling about 50 sq m per court. The cost for building separate waiting areas in a new court
68 is in the range of £3,500 - £4,000 (€4,000 - €4,600) per m2. The cost of separate witness 
waiting room is therefore about £175 000 - £200 000 (€200,000 - €230,000) per courtroom.  
With only one example these figures are not particularly robust. Clearly much depends upon the 
design of the building and any site constraints placed on the design, as well as the general 
construction costs in a particular Member State.  Surveys on international construction costs available 
 
EN 38   EN building costs average. Therefore, while we cannot speculate on speci fic costs for individual Member 
States, we can assume that the cost for Memb er States to build one court room of 10 m2 and of 40 m2 
extra circulation area are likely not  to exceed €200,000 - €230,000.  
Considering that only four Member States (LT, NL , RO, UK) already have an obligation to provide 
separate waiting areas for victim and offender (conditional or unrestricted), the cost implication for 
the other 24 Member States will potentially be significant depending on the degree of ambition in providing such separate areas (e.g. whether such pr emises should be connected  to separate entrances 
and corridors). As we do not have any information on the possibilities and plans in the different 
Member States to adapt existing court premises, or  on plans for the construction of future court 
houses, we cannot estimate a total EU cost for this  option. However, a number of factors are likely to 
reduce annual cost implications since we do not expect large numbers of new courts to be built every 
year. In addition, the size of such a waiting area is likely to be much smaller for many courts than the example of the UK court referred to above (50m2 including a separate corridor). 
Social impact  Beyond the benefits identified in option 2, enforceable common standards as regards both the 
availability and the quality of services would significantly improve the situation of specific 
categories of victims  (including family members of a murdered, children, disabled, elderly etc.). This 
positive impact is strengthened by an obligation for Member States to carry out a needs assessment 
for each victim to ensure their i ndividual needs are properly met as well as by a mandatory list of 
services which all victims are entitled to. This latter measure would significantly improve the situation of victims, in particular in those Member  States which do not yet have a strong culture of 
victim support services and which might otherwise be tempted to offer only a limited range of 
services. 
As regards the victim's access to justice , this option goes clearly beyond option 2 since it introduces 
mandatory rules as regards the victim's right to be informed about the process, the right to reimbursement for attending trial, the right to have the decision not to prosecute reviewed. This 
positive impact is even more important in cross-border cases since the victim will be entitled to 
interpretation and translation of court proceedings.  
The introduction of minimum requirements where restorative justice services  are already used will 
clearly strengthen the individu al's right in the 21 Member States which use such schemes.
 
The obligation to minimise direct contact between the victim and the offender in court rooms and 
police stations would have a positive impact on the protection of the victim. However, this obligation 
is to some extent put in place progressively, thus delaying the positive impact of this option in time. 
Fundamental 
rights This option would have a significant positive impact on the fundamental rights of victims. It would go 
beyond the impacts of policy option 2 in several respects.  
• The right to human  dignity  and right to the integrity of the person would be strengthened by 
mandatory rules on training for all professiona ls in contact with victims and by introducing 
minimum standards as regards availability and quality of victim support services that would be made available also to an immediate family and dependents of the victim of murder. Assessments 
of victims would allow specific needs of certain victims who do not fall under a presumed 
category of vulnerability to be addressed. This proc edure also contributes to the fact that victims 
are granted adequate compensation and may not need  to take part in formal proceedings. Clearly 
obligations or standards for RJS will provide strong  protection of victims in particular, in relation 
to their fundamental rights. 
• The introduction of a review mechanism against the decision not to prosecute would have a 
positive impact on the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. This impact will very 
much depend on the way this right is implemented since option 3s leaves much discretion to 
Member States. The victim would be entitled to r eceive information about th e criminal procedure, 
to attend trial (unless there are exceptional circumstances), to recei ve interpretation and translation 
in the relevant steps of the criminal proceedings and where proportionate. In order to mitigate the 
risk that the right to a fair tr ial of the accused could be unpropor tionally limited, the option recalls 
that the victim could be excluded from trial in exceptional circumstances which will be defined by the Member States of the judicial authority. There is a risk that strengthening the victim's right to 
 
EN 39   EN fair trial might impact the fair trial of the accu sed. Attendance of victims will have to respect the 
right of fair trial and defence of the offender.  
• As regards protection of personal data , when implementing several of the proposed measures, 
such as the operation of victims support services  or the needs assessment, sensitive personal data 
may be treated or processed. Such data shall be  collected for specified, explicit and legitimate 
purposes and processed fairly, lawfully and in a way that is compatible with those purposes.  
• As regards the rights of the child, rights of the eld erly and the integration of people with 
disabilities , option 3a clearly goes beyond option 2 by increasing the number and quality of 
support services for several specific groups of vulnerable victims as well as of family members. Children and people with disabilities would be also pr esumed to be vulnerable. Particular attention 
would be also paid to the training of the professionals on how to adequately address the needs of 
these groups.  
• The cross-border provision of protection measures under option 3a has the same impact on all the 
fundamental rights as option 2. The right to private and family life will also be strengthened by the 
reduction of direct contact between victims an d offenders in court rooms and police stations. 
Impact on MS 
judicial 
system There could be a large impact on Me mber States judicial system, in pa rticular in those Member States 
which have a low standard as regards the standing of victims in the judicial procedure. However, this 
option does not contain concrete measures which would have the most serious impact on Member States' judicial sy stem (e.g. judicial
 review as regards the decision not to prosecute, restorative justice 
as mandatory part of the judicial procedure) and,  wherever needed, would leave sufficient discretion 
to Member States in implementation.  
5.1.4.  Policy option 3b: Medium/High prescription 
Expected Impact 
Effectiveness 
in meeting 
objectives High : This option is predicted to be highly efficient in terms of achieving the general and specific 
objectives. The concrete obligations imposed on Member States and the quality standards introduced will allow monitoring and effective infringement proc edures at EU level. For those measures where 
there is not yet a common culture among Member St ates (e.g. establishment of restorative justice 
services) this option would start by creating a comm on culture (through awaren ess raising, exchange 
of best practices), whilst also setting certain mini mum quality standards. A range of synergies could 
occur for instance where victims support organisations are strengthened they may provide training at 
reduced costs. Where training of practitioners is eff ective, their increased awar eness of victim support 
and restorative justice will allow those organisations to plug into the criminal justice system more 
easily and at a lower overall cost. In the most we ll established victim support organisations, needs 
assessments are carried out by those organisations rather than government, at a much lower cost.  
Political 
Feasibility  Medium  - Given the obligations imposed on Member States and the costing involved, negotiation 
and implementation will entail severe discussion, in particular for those Member States which have 
the lowest standards in place. This option goes further than option 3a w ith regard to restorative justice 
and requires Member States to establish or enhance such services, which might be controversial. 
Financial and 
economic 
impact Total costs are expected to be the in the higher middle  of the four options (excluding Status quo). 
Almost all costs will fall to public administrations on both a national and local level.  
 Minimum 
Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) Maximum 
Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) 
Training 
(1st year costs, range of cost reduction 
factors exist) 4.61 
(opportunity cost: 71.27) 17.28 
(opportunity cost: 72.29) 
Victim Support Services 
(Annual running costs) < 24 < 27 
Interpretation/ translation < 89.29 < 205.49 
 
EN 40   EN (annual costs) 
Restorative Justice 
(Annual running costs) 20.08 
 2,641.58  
 
Attendance of trial 
(Annual Costs) 240 242.9 
TOTAL  377.98 3,134.25 
Separate waiting areas  
(per 50m2 new waiting area per court)  0.23 
 
Training – legal practitioners trained, training available for judges, some detail on content:  
 
Training of police and judiciary: €4.61 – €17.28 million  (based on single tr aining scenario for 
all practitioners assuming no Member State currently provides training)  
Opportunity cost of attending training: €71.27 million – €72.29 million 
No figures available for prosecutors or court staff. 
Costs are based on calculations made in option 3a.  
Victims support services – establish services or support existing ones. Minimum standard. 
Total cost: Less than €24 – €27 million to establish nationwide services.  
Cost for accreditation: €477,000 – €3.58 million 
Cost of services: Less than €23.5 million for 17 States that have no or limited VSO  
Costs are based on calculations made in option 3a.  
Interpretation and Translation – provided on basis of proportionality  
Total costs: Less than €89.29 – €205.49 million 
Translation: €87.42 – €203.61 million   
Interpretation:  €1,879,000   
Costs are based on calculations made in option 3a.  
Restorative Justice Services (RJS) – establish or enhance RJS based on minimum standards  
Total cost  of establishing RJS an d apply minimum standards  (including establishment costs, 
accreditation and legal advice:   
€20.1 million to €2.6 billion 
 
Total cost of establishing RJS (in 6 Member States):   
€19.6 million (at €75 per case) to €1.7 billion (at €6570 per case). 
 
Total cost of a ccreditation: €477,296 – €3.58 million (assuming implemented by all 27 States)  
Total cost of legal advice: €645 – €938 million (assuming implemented by all 27 States) 
Note  that this cost will only be included in the maximum costing since Member States are not 
obliged to carry it out.  
This option requires that restorative justice services are provided and establishes certain standards to 
be achieved including that practitioners are competent in restorative justice. Costings are provided for 
establishing RJS and for implementing the two mo st expensive safeguards accreditation schemes and 
provision of legal advice  (in accordance with the UN guidelines on RJS safeguards). Further details 
are provided in Annex 10. 
Cost of establishing and running RJS:  21 Member States have some form of RJS in place. The cost 
estimates are thus made on the basis of only those six States which do not have RJS (CY, DK, LT, MT, NL, SK). The cost per case can vary widely fr om €75 in France €6570 per case in the UK. Based 
on a calculation using 261,507 court cases in the six States concerned (assuming there is a 50% take 
up of RJS by the approximately 523.000 victims with court cases in these countries), the cost for establishing RJS could range from €19.6 million (at €75 per case) to €1.7 billion (at €6570 per 
case).   
 
EN 41   EN include all 27 Member States: €477,296 – €3.58 million .  
The cost of legal advice  is based on the same calculations as in  option 3a, except that they include all 
27 Member States: €645 – €938 million. 
Attendance of trial – assessment on exclusion, trial date info, reimbursement  
Total cost: €240 – €242.9 million 
Cost of providing inform ation: €0 – €2.9 million 
Reimbursement: €240 million 
Costs are based on calculations made in option 3a.  
Separate waiting areas – progressive adaptation of existing court premises to have separate 
waiting areas for victims and establishment of such area in newly constructed court premises  
Maximum €200,000 - €230,000 per newly constructed waiting area 
Costs are based on calculations made in option 3a.  
Social impact  This option has the same social impact as option 3a with the additional consideration that restorative 
justice services will be strengthened. This is a serv ice that is not yet a common practice in all Member 
States and the requirement to establish and apply minimum standards as regards the quality of the 
services provided in this area can potentially signifi cantly increase the victims' feeling that justice is 
done and that the criminal justice systems cares about their feelings. 
Fundamental 
rights This option has the same positive impacts on fundamental rights as option 3a. The following 
considerations should be noted with re gard to restorative justice services: 
• The right to human  dignity  and right to the integrity of the person would be strengthened by 
the increased possibilities for the victim to benefit from some form of restorative justice. This 
does not negatively impact the corresponding rights of the offender since this technique always 
requires the consent of both parties involved and consent of the state authority. Indeed, it has been found to have a positive impact on offenders. This option includes the elaboration of common 
standards and safeguards ensuring the respect of fundamental rights during this procedure. 
Impact on MS 
judicial 
system This option has the same or even larger impacts on Member States' judici al systems as option 3a. 
Under this option, Member States would in addition have the obligation to establish or enhance restorative justice services which could have a si gnificant impact, in particular in those Member 
States which either do not have such services in  place or have low standards for such services.  
 
EN 42   EN 5.1.5.  Policy option 4: High prescription 
Expected Impact 
Effectiveness 
in meeting 
objectives Very high: This policy option is predicted to yield an even higher level of efficiency in terms of 
achieving the general and specific obj ectives than options 3a and 3b. Gr eater efficiency is expected in 
particular in terms of ensuring that all victims in the EU are treated with re spect and dignity since the 
option entails detailed common quality requirements as regards training, individual need assessment 
and the respect of the specific needs of vulnerable and indirect victims. Equally, this option is likely to 
demonstrate higher efficiency in re lation to achieving the specific objective of ensuring that victims 
are supported (broad range of services available through independent non governmental bodies), have 
access to justice (right to judicial  review, full interpretation and tran slation of court proceedings free 
of charge, full reimbursement of attendance to trial etc.) and are entitled to benefit from the most important forms of restorative justice. Similar synergies to those described in option 3a and 3b will 
also be achieved.  
Political 
Feasibility Low: Given the high level of obligations imposed on Member States and the high cost implications, 
this option will be difficult to negotiate and to implement. In particular, the high cost of providing legal advice may have to be borne by victim sup port and restorative justice organisations which may 
not be in a position to do so. 
Financial and 
economic 
impact Total costs are expected to be the highest  of the four options (excluding Status quo). Almost all costs 
will fall to public administrations on both a national and local level. Depending on the Member States' implementation, victim support and restorative jus tice services may bear the costs of implementing 
any new safeguards in their sectors, such as training or accreditation.  
 
 Minimum 
Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) Maximum 
Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) 
Training 
(1st year costs, range of cost reduction 
factors exist) 4.61  
(opportunity cost: 
71.27) 17.28 
(opportunity cost: 
72.29) 
Victim Support Services 
(Annual running costs) 4,074  6,617 
Interpretation/ translation 
(annual costs) 89.29 205.49 
Restorative Justice 
(Annual running costs) 20.08 
 2,641.58  
 
Attendance of trial 
(Annual Costs) 240 242.9 
TOTAL  4,427.98 9,724.25 
Separate waiting areas 
(per 50m2 new waiting area per court)  0.23 
 
Training : mandatory training for police, pr osecutors, judges, court staff 
 
Total training of police and judiciary – €4.61 – €17.28 million (based on single training scenario 
for all practitioners assuming no Member State currently provides training)  
Lost police and judicial time - €71.27 million – €72.29 million  
Costs are based on the same calculations as in option 3a and 3b. However, this option makes training 
for judges mandatory and is therefore expect ed to be more costly than that option. 
Victims Support Services (VSS) – establish or su pport independent VSS. Legal advice shall be 
provided. 
Total Cost – €4.07 – €6.6 billion 
Cost of services – Less than €23.5 million for 17 States that have no or limited VSO 
 
EN 43   EN Cost for accreditation: €477,000 – €3.58 million 
Cost for legal aid: €4.05 – €6.59 billion  
Costs are based on calculations provided in option 3a and 3b. However, in this option, VSS are 
required to be independent, autonomous and to provide legal advice or assistance. It can be assumed 
that whilst most costs should remain the same, the provision of legal advice could significantly increase costs.  
It is difficult to calculate the cost of providing such advice. Some victim support organisations already 
do so either through in house or external lawyers.  Costs can vary greatly depending on how advice is 
given but also on the nature of the advice. If it is basic and related to information on general rights etc 
this could be provided by less qualified persons. However, legal counsel could be extremely 
expensive.   
Costs are based on national hourly wages of lawyers in Member States, 1 hour of advice being 
provided by an external lawyer. On this basis the total EU cost would be between €4.05 – €6.59 
billion . 
 
Interpretation and Translation – provided for all victims during proceedings  
Total Costs: €89.29 – €205.49 million  
Costs are based on calculations made in option 3a and 3b. However, no flexibility is provided in 
relation to when translation and interpretation is  provided which will minimise the possibility to 
reduce costs.  
Restorative Justice Services (RJS) – establish or enhance RJS based on minimum standards  
Total cost  of establishing RJS a nd apply minimum standards  (including establishment costs, 
accreditation and legal advice:   
€20.1 million to €2.6 billion 
 
Total cost of establishing RJS (in 6 Member States):   
€19.6 million (at €75 per case) to €1.7 billion (at €6570 per case). 
 
Total cost of a ccreditation: €477,296 – €3.58 million (assuming implemented by all 27 States)  
Total cost of legal advice: €645 – €938 million (assuming implemented by all 27 States) 
Note  that this cost will only be included in the maximu m costing since Member States are not 
obliged to carry it out. ). 
Costs are based on the same calculations as in option 3b. However, this option make RJS mandatory 
and in accordance with certain standards and is theref ore expected to be more costly than that option. 
Attendance of trial – right to attend trial, informed of date and reimbursed, availability considered. 
Total cost – > €240 – 242.6 million 
Cost of providing information: > €0 – 2.6 million 
Reimbursement: > €240 million  
Costs are based on calculations made in option 3a and 3b. However, since full information should 
provided to victims about the attendance of trial a nd also the victims availab ility should be taken into 
account when determining the date of the trial, th e costs of reimbursement are likely to be higher. 
There are no figures available in relation to victim s attendance of any matter related to proceedings, 
but even if we assume as a minimum that the victim has to attend two further sessions of questioning 
during the investigation process this would treble reimbursement costs. 
Separate waiting areas: all courts, existing and new, must have separate waiting areas for victims 
Maximum €200,000 - €230,000 per newly constructed waiting area 
 
EN 44   EN would be considerably higher considering that Member States would need to establish separate 
waiting areas for victims in both existing and new waiting areas in all their court houses.  
Social impact The social impact of this option will go clearly beyond the impact of option 3a and 3b since it will 
introduce detailed and enforceable rights for all victims. The advantages compared to option 3a and 3b concern the respect for the need of specific categorie s of victims (full range of services available to 
vulnerable victims such as children) and access to justice (full judicial
 review of the decision not to 
prosecute) as well as the respect of the victim's pr ivacy (complete separation of victim and offender in 
all courts).  
Fundamental 
rights The impact of option 4 would be quasi identical as for option 3a and 3b with  the difference that the 
impact is sometimes stronger and fundamental rights of more individuals are enhanced due to its 
higher level of ambition. 
Impact on MS 
judicial 
systems There is a significant impact on Member States judi cial system, including in those where the standing 
of victims is already a priority. All Member States would be obliged to introduce major changes to 
their national criminal procedure laws. 
6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
6.1. Comparative assessment of policy options 
Although highly feasible, Policy option 1 ( status quo ) does not meet the identified objectives 
and is therefore not considered. Policy option 2 is also poor and does not sufficiently fulfil the 
operational objectives that the European Commi ssion intends to achieve with the adoption of 
the new measures.  
Policy option 4 is the most likely to meet all the objectives and to meet them to the greatest 
extent. However, it is the most prescriptive providing Member St ates with the least amount of 
flexibility. It also imposes additional obligat ions on Member States. As a result costs are 
likely to be much higher than in the other options and it is the least feasible in terms of it being agreed. The degree of additio nal benefit that could be achie ved is not considered to be 
proportionate to the additional costs.  
Policy options 3a and 3b are also  highly likely to meet the ob jectives though not to the same 
extent as option 4. However, with  increased flexibility for Stat es these options are both more 
feasible to negotiate and bear a lower financia l burden than option 4. Furthermore, risks of 
reduced effectiveness will be mitigated through practical measures. Nevertheless, it is 
considered that in relation to the specific meas ure on restorative justice services the feasibility 
and cost implications are such that the mixe d option 3a is preferred. Implementing option 3a 
will in particular considerably reduce the total cost of implementation compared to option 3b. 
Policy option 3a is theref ore the preferred option.  
6.2. The preferred option 
Implementing the  preferred Policy option 3a  would help achieve the following results: 
• Adoption of legislation by European Parliament and Council (operational objectives 
referred to in brackets) : 
– Easily accessible victim support services are available in all Member States and 
meet specified minimum standards of service (C1).  
 
EN 45   EN – Police, prosecutors and court staff are trai ned in victims' matters in all Member 
States. Judicial studies are available to judges (A2).  
– Mechanisms exist in all Member States to  assess the individual needs of victims 
and to identify vulnerable victims (A3).  
– Where a person is identified as vulnerable certain identified minimum services are 
available to them (A3).  
– Interpretation and translation is availa ble to victims during proceedings in all 
Member States to an extent proportionate to the circumstances of the case (D2).  
– Where Restorative justice services are used, certai n safeguards and minimum 
quality standards should be applied (E1).  
– Where requested, and based on mutual recognition, protection measures are 
provided to persons already benefitting from a protection measure, when they 
travel or move abroad (B1).  
– The victim has a right to re quest a review of the prosec ution in all Member States. 
The exact mechanism for carrying out such a review is determined at a national 
level (D3).  
– Exclusion of a victim from a trial is based on an individual assessment and the 
victim is informed of th e date of trial (D1).  
– Contact between the offender and victim  is minimised during proceedings. Any 
new courts are designed with the possibi lity to provide separate waiting areas 
(B2).  
– In general the legislation will relate to di rect victims. However, rights will apply 
to the immediate family of murder victim s. Support services and protection will 
be available to the immediate family of all victims (A1) 
• Establishment of practical measures to a ccompany legislative ac tion to facilitate 
implementation and to consider future EU action: 
A list of appropriate practical measures shall be established to facilitate implementation, 
including:  
– Study on state compensation and offender restitution. 
– Study on legal assistance and legal aid for victims of crime. 
– Support projects to develop best practice which will provide Member States with 
a more detailed understanding of how best  to achieve the objectives in the 
legislation.  
– The European Commission will also carry  out its own projects and studies to 
further develop knowledge in the field. This could include for instance the 
establishment of interactive websites in all Member States to enable victims to 
better understand the criminal justice pro cess and their role in it. Or it could 
 
EN 46   EN involve the development of  training programmes.  
Whilst costs for the preferred option could range  from 358 million to around €1.4 billion, this 
amounts to only about €5 – 19 per victim (whe n considering 75 million direct victims of 
crime in the EU). In addition, as explained in the analysis, a range of factors a likely to result 
in costs being lower. 
It should also be borne in mind that the actio n envisaged is likely to  reduce the significant 
costs associated with crime (extrapolated to around €233 billion). In part icular, effective and 
proper treatment of victims can help reduce th e emotional and physical impact of the crime 
which can in turn have a positive economic impact  in terms of the speed  with which victims 
return to work, increased produc tivity due to faster and bette r recovery etc. Moreover, the 
action on mutual recognition of protection measur es has a direct impact on crime prevention. 
Putting effective protection measures in place reduces repeat victimisation and the costs saved in terms of police and judiciary interventions for not having to deal with such crimes can be 
significant. 
In terms of fundamental rights, policy option 3a will bring an overall positive impact on the 
fundamental rights of the victim. The measures relating to protection could have an impact on 
the rights of the offenders and will require to  be accompanied by the necessary safeguards to 
ensure compliance with fundamental rights. 
Action under policy option 3a has a clear EU adde d value. It builds on and reinforces the 
existing national and EU legal frameworks and will ensure that victims of crime are given non-discriminatory minimum level of rights across the EU, irrespec tive of their nationality or 
country of residence. The mutual recognition m echanism for protection m easures is entirely 
new and will cover both criminal  and civil law matters, and the EU added value in such cross 
border situations is considerable.  
With this action the EU can contribute to make crime victims' needs a central part of the 
justice systems, alongside catching and punishi ng the offender. This action will raise the 
standards on victims' rights in the Member States and will ensure that victims benefit from a 
level playing field across the EU. These minimum safeguards and standards will facilitate 
judicial cooperation and increase quality of justice. 
7. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The timeframe for transposition of the EU legislation by Member States will be up to three 
years from its entry into force. The legisl ation would create a range of Member State 
obligations which although mirrori ng to a large extent existing international st andards, are 
nevertheless in existence to varyi ng degrees in Member States. It is expected that a three-year 
deadline would provide Member States with su fficient time to effect necessary changes to 
their respective national laws and practice. Potential risks to implementation in time will be identified in an Implementation Plan accompanying proposed legislation which set out relevant measures by the Commission aimed at countering these risks.  
Providing for a robust monitori ng and evaluation mechanism is crucial to ensure that the 
rights envisaged in the legislation are complied w ith in practice. The legislation will stipulate 
that Member States' should report on the e ffective implementation of legislative or non-
legislative measures based on the natu re of the proposed changes. Annex 11
 contains 
 
EN 47   EN indicators to evaluate the implementation of  the proposal against po licy objectives. Data 
provided by Eurostat, Eurobaromete r and the Council of Europe will  assist in the formation of 
a useful baseline for monitoring the situation. This may be coupled by a Commission funded 
victim survey prior to and subsequent  to implementation of the Directive. 
Besides quantitative data provided by Member St ates, other possible s ources of qualitative 
information on legislative and practical complian ce will be gathered from the Justice Forum, 
the ECtHR, the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary, Victim Support Europe and 
its members and the European Forum for Rest orative Justice and its members. If the 
anticipated review of the manda te of the Fundamental Rights Agency extends that mandate to 
former third pillar areas, it could play a role  in collecting data, ca rrying out studies and 
compiling reports on the rights c overed in the Directive.  
Member States should be encouraged to collect relevant data to assist in this process as there 
is reliable empirical data  is currently weak.  
The Commission envisages carrying out a specif ic empirical study with an emphasis on data 
collection 3-5 years into  the implementation of the proposal to gain in-depth quantitative and 
qualitative insights into the effectiveness of th e proposal. The data, combined with the Victim 
surveys would enable the Commission to evaluate  actual compliance in Member States more 
robustly than using the means hitherto available as well as an evaluation on the perception of 
victims in term of the meeting of their needs. 
 
EN 48   EN ANNEX  
ANNEX 1 – CONSULTATION OF PARTIES  
The Commission first hosted an experts'  meeting on 17 November 2008 where there 
was broad agreement on the need to improve th e situation of victims in particular in 
relation to the provision of support. In 2009, the Commissi on pursued the preparation 
process of the Impact Assessment and a fu ll consultation process therefore began in 
early 2010. The Commission's five mini mum standards on consultations were 
followed. Experts from different bac kground including governments, law 
enforcement agencies, NGOs, international or ganisations and unive rsities took part 
in detailed discussions on the legislative plans well before the conclusion of this 
impact assessment. 
A meeting of academic experts, NGOs a nd Member States was held on 18-19 
February 2010 and was followed by a fu rther Justice Forum on 14 April 2010. Key 
messages resulting from these meetings were: 
• discussion on how to identify vulnerable victims (children, trafficked persons, 
etc); 
• the need to focus on implementing and monitoring the existing legislation; 
• the need to change practitioners' attitude s and culture through training on rights of 
victims of crime; 
• the need to provide information, prot ection and compensation to victims; 
• the need for coordination of victims support organisations; 
• the importance of having minimum standard s for courtrooms and the layout of the 
courts in Europe; 
• the importance of cultural competences a nd qualifications of the interpreter; 
• the need to ensure the right to remedy to victims; 
• the idea of having a single instrument c overing compensation and victims rights;  
• the access to restorative justice. 
On 25 May 2010, a meeting was also held with Member State's to discuss the 
specific issue of protection orders in both civil and criminal proceedings. Citing the 
efficiency of national protection measures , these experts considered that mutual 
recognition is not necessarily the best option to ensure e ffective protection of cross-
border victims. Recognising that  speed and flexibility matte r more than the kind of 
procedure (criminal, civil or administrative ), EU action could be  useful to ensure 
that: 
• all MS have an efficient pr otection measure in place;  
 
EN 49   EN • when issuing their national protection measur e, all MS ensure ad equate assistance 
to foreign applicants (t ranslation, legal advice); 
• the victim does not need to prove again the facts (circulation of evidence); this 
could be done either via rule on recognition on eviden ce or via exchange of 
information rules. 
The European Commission also contracted an external Study to  assist with the 
impact assessment in identifying the needs of victims of crime, which measures could be established to meet these needs and to examine the impacts of any possible 
options.
69 
A further study was contracted to examin e options in relation to the specific 
objective of ensuring that the protection gain ed through a protection order is not lost 
when a protected person travels or moves to another Member States.70 
In the middle of the preparation process of  the Impact Assessment, the Commission 
held a public consultation from 15.07.2010 to 30.09.2010, open to all members of the public, to non-governmental and government al organisations as king their views on 
what action the EU should take to improve  the situation of victims of crime.  
This public consultation was held to confir m developing views and initial results of 
the external study as well as  to identify if any other needs of victims had been 
missed. A summary of the results of that consultation are found at Annex 3 but can 
be briefly listed as: 
• Victims’ right to privacy must be protecte d; all victims should be provided with 
some type of immediate assistance; tran slation and interpretation are crucial to 
ensure that victims fully understand thei r rights and the information they are 
given; and minimum standards should a pply to Restorative Justice proceedings; 
• Victim Support Organisations are indispen sible for providing effective services to 
victims; 
• Cooperation and best practice sharing betw een all organisations  involved with 
victims within a Member State and the EU  is crucial across a large number of 
issues, including victims’ needs asse ssment, implementing EU-wide protection 
measures, improving the quality of practitioners’ training; 
• Both victims’ rights and defendant’s ri ghts should be respected during criminal 
proceedings. 
In addition to direct consultation, the Commission has drawn on a number of studies 
and publications.  Particular reference is made to the: 
• Victims in Europe (VinE) Project
71, carried out by the Portuguese Victim Support 
Organisation APAV. This project involved a legal and organisational analysis of 
the implementation of the 2001 Framework Decision on the Standing of victims in criminal proceedings 
72;  
 
EN 50   EN • Project ONE73, carried out by the Bulgarian Centre for the Study of Democracy 
again analysed implementation of the 2001 Framework Decision as well as the 
Compensation Directive. 
Moreover, the analysis of th e replies to the que stionnaire to delega tions with a view 
to a possible submission by Spain and othe r Member States of an initiative for a 
Directive of the European Parliament a nd of the Council on the European Protection 
Order74 showed the support of all Member St ates to legal measures for protect 
victims of crime. 
Overall, the consultation process has reveal ed widespread agreement on the need to 
substantially improve the situation of victims. There is general agreement that the 2001 Framework Decision, whilst being comprehensive, has many vague articles with limited obligations which creates diffi culties in implementation and reduces the 
likelihood of implementation. 
The input received during the consultation has been taken into account in the Impact 
Assessment and has resulted in the identifica tion of the five needs of victims, the 
development of the problem anal ysis, objectives and options.  
 
 
EN 51   EN ANNEX 2 –SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO PUBLIC CONSULTATION 
 
 
        DIRECTORATE GENERAL JUSTICE 
 
Analysis of Public Consultation Responses: Taking Action on Rights, Support and Protection of Victims of Crime and Violence  
 
 
 
     Disclaimer 
 
In keeping with our values of integrity a nd excellence, Matrix has taken reasonable 
professional care in the preparation of this report.  Although Matrix has made reasonable efforts to obtain information from  a broad spectrum of sources, we cannot 
guarantee absolute accuracy or completeness of information/data submitted, nor do we 
accept responsibility for recommendations  that may have been omitted due to 
particular or exceptional conditions and circumstances. 
 
  
 
Confidentiality  
 
This report has been prepared for the client w ithin the terms of our contract, and contains 
information which is propr ietary to Matrix and confidential to our relationship.  This may not be 
disclosed to third parties without prior agreement. 
 
Except where permitted under the provisions of co nfidentiality above, this document may not be 
reproduced, retained or stored beyo nd the period of validity, or tr ansmitted in whole, or in part, 
without Matrix Insight’s prior, written permission. 
 
© Matrix Insight Ltd, 2009  
 
 
Any enquiries about this report should be directed to enquiries@matrixknowledge.com   
 
 
EN 52   EN  
 
 
Contents 
 
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 53  
2.0 Respondent Characteristics ........................................................................................ 54  
3.0 Response Characteristics............................................................................................ 55  
4.0 Key Findings .............................................................................................................. 57  
4.1 Recognition ................................................................................................................ 57  
4.2 Protection.................................................................................................................... 6 0 
4.3 Support ....................................................................................................................... 6 3 
4.4 Access to Justice......................................................................................................... 64  
4.5 Compensation and Restoration................................................................................... 65  
5.0 Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 66  
 
 
 
EN 53   EN  
– Introduction 
In 2011, the European Commission intends to ad opt a package of measures to improve the 
rights and support available to victims of crim e across Europe. To inform the Commission’s 
work in this area, a public consultation ‘Taking Action on the Rights, Support and Protection of 
Victims of Crime and Violence’ was launched gi ving stakeholders the opportunity to present 
their views on existing difficulties and suggestio ns for concrete actions that could be developed 
at EU level. The consultation was launched by DG Justice on 15 July 2010 and closed on 30 
September 2010.75 This report summarises and analyses the responses to the public 
consultation. All replies received until 8 October 2010 are included in the analysis.  
 
The consultation questionnaire is structured aro und the five victims’ needs areas: Recognition, 
Protection, Support, Access to Justice and Com pensation and Restoration. The questionnaire 
contains 17 questions in total, including 5 general questions and 12 questions dealing 
specifically with the aforementioned needs ar eas. The questionnaire was made available in 
three languages (English, German, and French).  Replies were accepted in all official EU 
languages. Responses were submitted in English, German, French, Spanish, Finnish, 
Romanian and Slovenian. Non-English responses we re translated into English by the Matrix 
Insight team.  
 
In total 77 responses were submitted and are included in this analysis. The main objective of 
the analysis is to highlight what issues hav e been raised, and the number and types of 
stakeholders raising each of the key issue. Where applicable, the data is broken down by 
country and/or stakeholder group. The analysis  of the responses focuses on the following 
aspects: 
 
• Detailed information is provided on resp ondent characterist ics and broken down by 
country and stakeholder group (Section 2). 
 
• Detailed information is provided on the charac teristics of the replies, accounting for the 
frequency of replies by question and needs area. Replies are furthermore broken down 
by country and stakeholder group (Section 3).  
 
• A detailed discussion is provided, outlining the main arguments put forward in favour 
and against the relevant policy options that  are currently under c onsideration by the 
European Commission (Section 4).  
 
A conclusion is offered in Section 5. A separat e excel spreadsheet accompanying this report 
compiles all replies, broken down by individual  questions and sub-questions. ‘Key tags’ for 
individual replies by issue area are also provided. 
 
EN 54   EN – Respondent Characteristics  
In total 77 submissions were made in response to the public consultation. The table below 
illustrates the break-down of responses by countr y. Replies received from countries outside of 
the European Union or from international or ganisations (e.g. UNICEF) are grouped together 
under ‘International’. Replies received from  pan-European organisations are listed under 
‘European’. Responses that did not indicate a co untry of origin are categorised as ‘unknown’. 
Replies were received from 18 EU Member Stat es (EU12/EU15 split equals 7/11). By far the 
most responses were submitted by the UK, followed by Belgium and Spain.  
 
a) Table 1: Responses by Country 
 
Responses by Country 
Austria 3 
Belgium 9 
Bulgaria 1 
Czech Republic 1 
Finland 3 
France 1 
Germany 6 
Hungary 1 
Ireland 2 
Italy 1 
Lithuania 1 
Malta 1 
Portugal 3 
Romania 2 
Slovenia 1 
Spain 8 
The Netherlands 3 
UK 16 
European 6 
 
EN 55   EN International 3 
Unknown 3 
Source: Consultation Responses  and Matrix Calculations  
 
The figure below illustrates the break-down of responses by stakeholder group. Replies are 
categorised according to the following stakeholder  groups: NGO/think tank, Citizen, Judiciary, 
National Government, Other, Academic, Law Enforcement (e.g. police), Legal Profession, 
Medical Profession).  The ‘Other’ category contains responses from non-NGO civilian run 
groups and an MEP. NGOs/think tanks (including victim support organisations), citizens and the 
judiciary provided more than 75% of the respon ses. Only six responses were submitted by 
national governments. No responses were prov ided by members of the medical profession.  
 
b) Figure 1: Responses by Stakeholder Group 
 
Responses by stakeholder groupNGO/think thank
Citizen
Judiciary
National Government
Other
Academic
Law enforcement - e.g. 
police
Legal profession
 
Source: Consultation Responses  and Matrix Calculations  
 
– Response Characteristics  
The consultation questionnaire is divided into two parts. Part I presents five general questions 
and Part II narrows in on  the five needs areas.  With r egard to Part II, the percentage of 
respondents answering questions varies by needs ar ea. As is illustrated in the figure below, 
questions on ‘recognition’ and ‘protection’ were particularly popular with 65% and 62% of 
respondents providing answers respectively. Rela tively fewer respondents were concerned with 
questions on ‘support’ where only 55% of all respondents provided input.   
 
EN 56   EN  
c) Figure 2: Percentage of Respondents Answering in Each Area 
 
Source: Consultation Responses  and Matrix Calculations  
 
A break-down by stakeholder group reveals that compensation and restoration is particular a 
point of concern for citizens. Approximately twic e as many citizen replies address questions on 
compensation and restoration compared to any of the other issues. In contrast, national 
governments as well as members of the judiciary are more concerned with questions that have 
implications for a country’s judicial system. T he attention of respondents from NGO/think tanks 
(including victims support organisations) is equally divided among all needs areas.   
d)  
e) Table 2: Frequency of replies by needs area – cross tabulate responses by country/stakeholder group 
 
Responses by stakeholder group / area 
Responses by stakeholder group 
RECOGNITION PROTECTIO
N SUPPORT ACCESS 
TO 
JUSTICE COMPENSATION 
RESTORATION 
NGO/think thank 31 32% 29% 29% 29% 26% 
Citizen 19 16% 16% 16% 11% 32% 
Judiciary 10 100% 100% 70% 90% 70% 
National Government 9 56% 56% 56% 56% 44% 
Other 4 25% 25% 25% 25% 75% 
Academic 2 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 
Law enforcement - e.g. 
police 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
Legal profession 1 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 
Medical profession 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 
Source: Consultation Responses  and Matrix Calculations  

 
EN 57   EN  
– Key Findings 
This section provides a detail ed analysis of the consulta tion responses. Since the vast 
majority of questions are open-ended (and ev en polar questions leave room for open-
ended responses), the submissions are predicta bly broad.  It is ther efore not possible to 
quantify the answers without distorting the information provided. Instead, a qualitative 
analysis of the answers has been carried  out, whereby the main arguments are 
summarised for each individual question, with the relevant respondents identified in the 
footnotes. For brevity’s sake, respondents ar e listed by their identification number. A 
corresponding list may be found in the Appendix. 
 
a. Recognition 
38 respondents (49%) replied to Question 6(a ): ‘Do you think victims related training 
should be compulsory for practioners?’  
 
Approximately 80% of the respondents wo uld welcome additional training for 
practitioners. 19 of the 37 respondents are in  favour of making trai ning compulsory, and 
the importance of compulsory training for pr actioners dealing with  female victims and 
children has been emphasised repeatedly76. On the other hand, si x respondents believe 
that making training compul sory is not warranted. Among t hose, the perception is that 
existing documentation (e.g. Victims Charter, Guide to the Crimin al Justice System) 
provides sufficient guidance for practitioners.77 Moreover, concerns were raised that 
obligatory training would be too restrictive and could pot entially interfere with the 
independence of the judiciary.78 
 
33 respondents (43%) replied to Question 6(b) : ‘How do you think the quality of 
training programmes can be improved?’  
 
Suggestions on how to improve the quality of training programmes have been made 
with reference to three aspects. First and foremost, the value of combining theoretical 
knowledge with practical experience of victim s has been emphasised.79 To this end, 
cooperation with academic  institutions and sharin g best practices are perceived as useful 
instruments.80,81 Secondly, it was suggested that trai ning should be introduced when first 
obtaining one’s professional qualification82  and should be provided on a continuous basis thereafter.83  
The possibility of specialised training by victim type84 and needs areas85 was highlighted. Thirdly, 
the importance of adequate financial resource allocation was raised.86  
 
EN 58   EN  
36 respondents (47%) replied to Question 7 : ‘How should it be ensured that the 
individual needs of vic tims are properly assessed?’  
 
First and foremost, it was suggested that multidis ciplinary teams should carry out victims’ needs 
assessment and that they should involve all rele vant agencies (e.g. VSO, police, judiciary).87 
The point was made that victims should be interv iewed at the earliest opportunity following the 
crime88, with follow-up discussions used to identify changing needs over time.89 The need for 
individualised assessment, as outlined in Articl e 2 of the Framework Decision was stressed.90 
Although a number of respondents highlighted  the usefulness of questionnaires and 
checklists91, others emphasised the importance of a dopting a more qualitative approach that 
would put the victim at the centre, by listeni ng to the victim and observing his/her behaviour.92 
Some Victim Support organisations across Eu rope have developed Assessment Frameworks to 
assess the needs of each individual victim they work with, to ensure their service meets the 
need of the individual. These should be shared with or similar programmes developed by 
criminal justice agencies.93  
 
32 respondents (42%) replied to Question 8(a) : ‘How do you think vulnerable victims 
should be identified?  
 
A variety of different views were taken on the i dentification of vulnerable victims. While the point 
was made that children and disabled people should automatically be categorised as 
vulnerable94, the risks of identifying vulnerable vict ims outside of that scope were also 
addressed. Firstly, as the vulnerability of a vict im is to a large part determined individually, 
making potentially all victims vulnerable95, it would be difficult to come up with a limited number 
of meaningful categories across the board.96  Secondly, creating potentially numerous additional 
sub-categories would further complicate t he already complex criminal justice systems.97 Thirdly, 
shifting focus to vulnerable victims bears the risk of diverting attention away from the needs of 
non-vulnerable victims. 98 Nevertheless, the point was made that a definition of ‘vulnerable 
victim’ is needed (e.g. age, disability or circumstance of crime99) and should be applied 
universally.100  
 The vulnerability of a victim should be asse ssed by using the expert knowledge of a 
multidisciplinary team
101 at the earliest opportunity following the crime.102 For instance, the 
identification of vulnerable child victims can onl y take place through close cooperation with 
those professionals in constant contact with child ren.  However, there are systematic gaps in 
taking advantage of those professionals. To illu strate with an example, while a kindergarten 
teacher in Germany is bound by law to report a suspected crime, school teachers and trainers 
are not.  It would hence be useful to employ school nurses and school psychologists across the 
country.103   
 
 
EN 59   EN 27 respondents (35%) replied to Questions 8(b):  ‘What special measures should be 
available to vulnerable victims?  
 
 
A number of different measures are perceived as important, almost all of which pertain to the 
victim’s participation in criminal proceedings. In addition to offering vulnerable victims legal and 
psychological assistance104  this includes providing information and explanations on procedural 
decisions105  and making the information accessible in an easily understood language106.  
 
Measures with regards to providing evidence ar e deemed as particularly important. The use of 
specially trained professionals107 and video links108  as well as the victim’s right to be 
accompanied by a trusted person109 is considered important. While repeat questioning should 
be avoided110, the point was made that a general restri ction on the number of questionings not 
viable with reference to the fair trial principle. Since the initial questioning of the victim is usually 
used as basis for the indictment, it is not possible to restrict the court used for the proceedings 
from asking clarifying questions to the victim again.111 112 
 
 
EN 60   EN b. Protection 
31 respondents (40%) replied to Questions 9(a):  ‘Do you think measures are needed to 
protect a victim’s privacy and if so how?  
 
All 31 respondents reiterate the vict im’s right to privacy, particula rly where it concerns sensitive 
information about the individual’s life113  and in cases of sexual abuse and domestic violence114. 
Measures to protect victims’ privacy should fu rthermore extend beyond th e end of the criminal 
proceedings.115  
 
The relationship with the media is of particu lar concern and the point was made that States 
should, where appropriate, with full respect fo r freedom of expression,  encourage the media 
and journalists to adopt self-regulatory measures to ensure the protection of private and family 
life of victims.116 For example, Bulgarian Media is required to exercise prudence in the 
disclosure of the victims’ identity, refrain from glorifying or unnecessarily sensational reporting of 
crime, violence and cruelty, and cautioned not to  provide media as a platform to those who 
promote, incite or use violence.117 Nevertheless, the effectiveness of media codes of conducts 
has been called into question.118 As a minimum, information on t he progress of the investigation 
or file should be communicated to t he victim before being sent to media.119  
 A central theme is the balance between victims’  rights and defendants’ rights is perceived as 
important.  Accordingly, a point was made that t here should be a uniform general obligation that 
requires the rights of the vict im to privacy and confidentiality to be balanced by the judge 
against the rights of the defendant and the state.
120 Measures are already in place in some 
countries (e.g. Germany, Lithuania) and are perceived as sufficient.121  
 
25 respondents (32%) replied to Question 9(b): ‘What protection measures should be 
available?’  
 
The two measures mentioned with regards to the protection of victims’ privacy are (a) keeping 
proceedings confidential when permitting122 and (b) removing any personal data (e.g. contact 
details, images) from case files, and not distributing them without prior consent.123 Moreover, 
protection orders should be available for victim s who experience threatening, alarming or 
distressing behaviour that does not yet constitute a crime or in the aftermath of a high profile crime.
124  
 
Voluntary yet enforceable codes of conduct on disc losure of private information are suggested 
as one possibility.125 For example, ethical codes for lawyer s should cover the types of questions 
which should not be asked of vulnerable victims,  while leaving it up to the judge to make the 
final decision.126 Other measures available to the court should be the power to impose reporting 
 
EN 61   EN restrictions to prevent the media identifying the victim (e.g. for child) and proportionate 
measures such as restricting public access to the court room for parts of the trial.127  
 Opinions on legislation on separation of offender and victim in court are divided. While some 
respondents believe that legislation is necessary
128, others argue that l egislation (or other 
regulations) on separation of the offender and vict im in court and police station is not necessary, 
as this is the responsibility of the police and the courts. The assumption is that they are capable 
to fulfil their obvious duties.129  
 
35 respondents (45%) replied to Question 10(a) : How do you think victims should be 
protected from offenders/pot ential offenders in relation to intimidation/further harm?  
 
Most of the measures listed under  this question pertain to court proceedings. To this end, 
victims and defendants are to be kept apart by providing separate facilities130, enabling victims 
to give evidence remotely through video link or  having read their testimony in their absence.131 
Alternatively, victims could give testimony at court while the defendant is not present.132 
Nevertheless, the point was made that a separation of victim and defendant often fails in the court's duty to 
clarify the facts and that an EU wide regulation in this  regard would only be sensible if core areas of the 
taking evidence are harmonised.133  
 
Other measures considered important include protective bail134 and restraining orders135, 
providing secure housing and witness protection programmes136. Finally,  early police arrival at the 
crime scene  as well as frequent police patrols arou nd offender homes not in custody were mentioned as 
well137. 
 
EN 62   EN  
24 respondents (31%) replied to Question 10(b):  As regards to protection orders, 
what do you think is the most feasible and effective option to  achieve EU wide 
protection?  
 
Opinions as regards the feasibility and effectiv eness of the European Protection Order (EPO) 
are divided. However, a point strongly convey ed is that an effective system of EU wide 
protection orders is necessary given the extent of free movement of EU citizens and their 
frequent change of location. 
 The variety of approaches used across the EU means that an EU-wide protection measure 
cannot be a simple mutual recognition instrument
138, and cooperation between authorities of 
different countries and harmonization of  applicable measures is necessary.139 To this end, the 
proposed EPO is perceived as workable model provided that it can be made to work without 
disproportionate complexity under the control of the judiciaries of the EU.140 The argument is 
that a procedure like the EPO should be short an d simple - the main obstacle for victims with 
the EPO would be that the procedure contains two steps (EPO and transformation in national 
legislation) with a lot of procedural rights (t ranslation, appeal, oral procedure). This procedure 
might take more time than starting a new procedure in another Member State.141  
 
It was suggested that the European Protection Order could work in conjunction with practical 
assistance. These include setting out the facts and details of the protection order in one Member State, so that another Member State (the state to which a vulnerable person is moving) 
has the information needed to enable them to ma ke a decision as to whether suitable protection 
can be accommodated within their system. However,  it was also stated that the legal base of 
current draft of the EPO is too wide and that it can only properly cover criminal protection 
measures.
142  
 On the other hand, the view is t hat the EU wide recognition of protection orders is probably not 
necessary.
143 The German Bundesrat has already rejected the possibility for an EU-wide 
protection order (26 Marc h 2010 (BR-Drs. 43/10).144 There is much that can be done without 
legislation and suggestions are for the Commission to consider working with some of the more 
practical tools at the EU’s disposal, such as  the e-justice portal. Moreover, the Commission 
could translate and promote information specific ally about protection measures available in 
Member States.145  
 
Support does exist for enforcing protection orders  given in one Member State in another State 
to which the victim have moved. This would be in  line with the EU’s aim of mutual recognition 
and providing equal protection to all people who fall victim to crime in Europe.146 Pursuant to 
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 Dece mber 2000, decisions must be recognised in 
the Member States and may be enforced there.147  
 
Another central theme that has emerged is that  protection orders should be recorded on an EU 
wide database of information (e.g. on offende rs) and shared between security service via 
 
EN 63   EN Europol or a similar organisation.148 In this way, EU citizens who travel to other EU member 
states would be afforded cross-border protecti on against the potential threats from an offender 
or his associates.  
c. Support 
37 respondents (48%) replied to Question 11:  How do you think victim support 
organisations can be assisted to prov ide effective serv ices to victims?  
 
The most widely recognised instrument is t he provision of enough resources for staff and 
professional training and in particular financial assistance.149 Moreover, the official recognition of 
the work of these organisations by nati onal governments is pe rceived as crucial.150 One way of 
doing so would be though commissioning these organisations to deliver services and support to 
victims.151  
 
42 respondents (55%) replied to Question 12:  What services do you think they should 
provide?  
 
There is broad support for the following services: specialised medical care, psychological 
support either directly or through a help-li ne available 24/7, legal and financial assistance, 
provision of secure housing, provision of inform ation, practical support such as escort to the 
court and court assistance, provision of  mediation and restoration services. 
 
32 respondents (42%) replied to Question 13(a):  Do you think foreign and/or 
domestic victims should be provided immedi ate basic assistance? Who should provide 
such assistance?  
 
Respondents unanimously agree that – depending on the crime – some type of immediate 
assistance should be provided to victims. For minor crimes, access to phone and internet was 
seen as useful. For more serious crime transitional accommodation as well as food vouchers were perceived as useful assistance. 
Providing this type of support is seen as primarily the role of 
consular authorities followed by Social Services and VSOs.  
 The point was made that with regards to foreig n victims, a distinction should be made between 
tourists and temporary residents as the latter might need less assistance (depending on the 
crime).  In all cases, the issue of language shoul d be taken into account either by translation of 
informative documents or the prov ision of a social interpretation.
152  
 
 
EN 64   EN d. Access to Justice 
31 respondents (40%) replied to question 14(a):  How should we ensure that victims 
fully understand their rights and the information they are given?  
 
There is universal agreement that translation and interpretation are crucial to ensure victims 
fully understand their rights through availability of  translation and interpretation. Additionally the 
importance of implementing proper quality contro l regarding the provision of interpretation has 
been raised, where service provi ded to victims should be no less than that provided to the 
defendant.153 
 
20 respondents (26%) replied to Question 14(b) :  What other ways exist to ensure 
victims fully understand their rights?  
 
Most respondents agree on the importance of easily accessible  written information to be 
available for victims,154 which is targeted to victims according to their characteristics such as 
age, nationality and education.155 Examples of means through which victims should access 
such information are: advertising campaigns, leaflets, consultation events,156 internet,157 and 
service providers like police and hospitals.158 
 
38 respondents (49%) replied to Question 15:  Should victims have a right to provide 
information before key decision are made, such as decisi ons to stop an investigation or 
prosecution, and to seek the review of such decisions afterwards?  
 
There is some agreement that victims should hav e the right to express their opinion with full 
knowledge of the consequences,159  as well as the right to appeal against the court decision.160  
 
 
 
EN 65   EN e. Compensation and Restoration 
37 respondents (48%) replied to Question 16 : How do you think victims should be 
assisted when making compensation claims and when seeking to enforce compensation 
orders?  
 
A number of different approaches to help victims making/enforcing compensation schemes 
were favoured by the respondents, incl uding State operated compensation scheme,161  advance 
state payments for victims with high debts162,  free legal assistance  and access to a victims 
fund or a flat-rate financial help for victims163,164  Generally speaking, the availability of clear and 
simple information and forms, which would need to be translated into EU languages to assist 
both national and foreign victims, is seen as crucial.165 The point was made that providing 
victims with a point of contact to ask for adv ice in throughout the procedure could be helpful. 166 
 
30 respondents (39%) replied to Question 16(a):  Should restorative justice be 
available to all victims?   
 
There is universal agreement t hat Restorative Just ice (RJ) should be available but only about 
half of respondents agree with the statement unconditionally.167 Most respondents set some 
stipulation on the provision of RJ. In addition to regulation the practice of RJ168 and using only 
qualified personnel169, RJ should be applied only to appropriate cases only170, neither 
offenders171 nor victims should be compelled to participate in the RJ process.172   
 
19 respondents (25%) replied to Question 17 (b):  Should minimum standards be 
applied to organisations providing such service?  
 
There is universal agreement that minimum standards should be applied to RJ, including: 
practice standards related to a variety of types of  service provision for child victims in different 
situations; standards that guarantee adequate childr en’s rights, and access to coherent service 
delivery with minimum changes of mediators duri ng the process and standards for qualifications 
of mediators between justic e systems and children in different situations. 173 
 
EN 66   EN  
– Conclusion 
The data emerging from a topic this complex and a public consultation this broad is predictably 
multifaceted. Nevertheless, the an alysis carried out in this paper reveals a number of overarching 
trends and patterns:  
 
• Universal agreement among respondents exists on the following points: 
 
o Victims’ right to privacy must be protected; 
o All victims should be provided with some type of immediate assistance; 
o Translation and interpretation are crucial to  ensure that victims fully understand their 
rights and the information they are given; and 
o Minimum standards should apply to Restorative Justic e proceedings.  
 
• Victim Support Organisations are indispen sible for providing effective services to 
victims.  To continue doing so, they need financial assistance. To further increase their 
profile, the importance of their work must be recognised by national governments, which could 
also be involved in raising awareness of these organisation.   
• Cooperation and best practice sharing between all organisations involved  with victims 
(e.g. police, judiciary, VSOs) within a Member State and across the EU is crucial across a 
large number of issues, including victims’ needs assessment, implementing EU-wide 
protection measures, improving the quality of practioners’ training.  
 
• A central them is the balance between victims’ rights and defendant’s rights during 
criminal proceedings. While restrictions on repeated question s is desirable from the victim’s 
perspective, general restrictions on the number of questionings is not viable with reference to 
the fair trial principle. Although the victim has an undeniably right to privacy, this right must be 
balanced against the right of the defendant and the State. While separation between victim 
and defendant at court seems sensible, it often fails in the face of the court’s duty to clarify the 
facts.   
 
 
 
EN 67   EN  
Appendix  
 
Entry 
ID Name of Respondent    
01 A G Cowie MA(Hons) MBA. Chief 
Superintendent, Chair, ACPOS Victims & 
Witnesses Portfolio Group UK (Scotland) Association of Chief 
Police Officers in 
Scotland Victims & 
Witnesses Portfolio 
Group Law enforcement 
- e.g. police 
02 Alianza de Solidaridad Extremeña Spain Alianza de Solidaridad 
Extremeña NGO/think thank 
03 Margarida Medina Martins (Member of the 
Board) Portugal Associação de Mulheres 
Contra a Violência 
(AMCV) Association of 
Women Against 
Violence  NGO/think thank 
04 John Allman UK  Beulah Baruch Ministries Other 
05 Laia Herrera i Guardiola Spain (Catalan) Catalan Women's 
Institute (Institut Català 
de les Dones) NGO/think thank 
06 Mgr. Markéta Vitoušová Czech Republic Czech victim support - 
Bily kruh bezpeci  NGO/think thank 
07 The Restorative Justice Council (formerly 
Restorative Justice Consortium) UK  The Restorative Justice 
Council (formerly 
Restorative Justice Consortium) NGO/think thank 
08 GERMAN FEDERAL MINISTRY OF 
JUSTICE  Germany GERMAN FEDERAL 
MINISTRY OF 
JUSTICE  National 
Government 
09 Victims and Witnesses for England and 
Wales England and 
Wales Victims and Witnesses 
for England and Wales NGO/think thank 
10 Mr. H.M.J. Ezendam
Senior beleidsmedewer ker The Netherlands Ministerie van Justitie - 
Dutch Ministry of Justice National 
Government 
11 Ministry of Justice for England and Wales England and 
Wales Ministry of Justice for 
England and Wales National 
Government 
12 ENCJ - Spain Spain European Network of 
Councils for the 
Judiciary (ENCJ) Judiciary 
13 ENCJ - Scotland Scotland European Network of 
Councils for the 
Judiciary (ENCJ) Judiciary 
14 ENCJ - Italy Italy European Network of 
Councils for the 
Judiciary (ENCJ) Judiciary 
 
EN 68   EN 15 ENCJ - The Netherlands The Netherlands European Network of 
Councils for the 
Judiciary (ENCJ) Judiciary 
16 ENCJ - Lituania Lituania European Network of 
Councils for the 
Judiciary (ENCJ) Judiciary 
17 ENCJ - Romania Romania European Network of 
Councils for the 
Judiciary (ENCJ) Judiciary 
18 ENCJ - Ireland Ireland European Network of 
Councils for the 
Judiciary (ENCJ) Judiciary 
19 ENCJ - Bulgaria Bulgaria European Network of 
Councils for the 
Judiciary (ENCJ) Judiciary 
20 ENCJ - Joint response from expert group  Expert group with 
judges from 
England and 
Wales, Spain, 
Italy, Denmark, 
Romania and 
Bulgaria ENCJ Judiciary 
21 Caoimhe Sheridan - Editorial and Policy 
Assistant  International ENAR- European 
Network Against Racism NGO/think thank 
22 Ms Kirsi Pulkkinen 
Legal Adviser 
Ministry of Justice  Finland Finish Ministry of Justice National 
Government 
23 CENTRAL OFFICE OF JUSTICE
VICTIM SUPPORT SERVICE Hungary CENTRAL OFFICE OF 
JUSTICE VICTIM 
SUPPORT SERVICE NGO/think thank 
24 David Fernández Barba
Gabinet Tècnic
Direcció de Serveis Spain Security Programme 
against Gender Violence 
(Government of 
Catalonia, Spain) National 
Government 
25 Brigitte Chaudhry 
President FEVR Belgium, France, 
Greece, Ireland, 
Italy, 
Luxembourg, 
Netherlands, 
Poland, Portugal 
Romania, 
Slovenia, Spain, 
the United 
Kingdom. FEVR - European 
Federation of Road 
Traffic Victims NGO/think thank 
26 Victim Support Europe International Victim Support Europe NGO/think thank 
27 Regional Representative for Europe of the 
United Nations High Commissioner for 
Human Rights, the Director of the Bureau 
for Europe of UNHCR, the Director of the 
UNICEF Brussels Office, Relations with the 
EU Institutions, the Head of the UNODC international Various NGO/think thank 
 
EN 69   EN Liaison Office with th e EU Institutions, the 
Director of the International
Labour Organisation (ILO) Office for the 
European Union and the Benelux countries, 
and the Officer in Charge of the UNIFEM 
Brussels Office 
28 Margaret Wachenfeld 
Senior Policy Adviser, International UNICEF NGO/think thank 
29 European Women’s Lobby Centre on 
Violence against Women International European Women’s 
Lobby Centre on 
Violence against Women NGO/think thank 
30 Amy Aeron-Thomas Britain Road Peace NGO/think thank 
31 Dr Claire Corbett  Britain N/A Citizen 
32 Diana Dodds Ireland MEP Other 
33 Dr David Gadd, Senior Lecturer in 
Criminology,  
Deputy Interim Research Director for Social 
Science Research Institutes
Keele University UK Keele University Academic 
34 Eric Davies UK N/A Citizen 
35 Ferial Hamid  Portugal N/A Citizen 
36 Save the Children International Save the Children NGO/think thank 
37 Portuguese Association for Victim Support Portugal Portuguese Association 
for Victim Support NGO/think thank 
38  Kathleen O'Hara US / England consultant for the Federal 
Office for Victims of 
Crime in the US / Victim 
Support England  Citizen 
39 (Dr) Martin Wright UK N/A Academic 
40 Sylvia Robbins Huntley Malta N/A Citizen 
41 Ann UK N/A Citizen 
42 Robert Shaw UK N/A Citizen 
43 Slachtofferhulp Nederland The Netherlands Slachtofferhulp 
Nederland NGO/think thank 
44 Unknown Finland N/A Citizen 
45 Jan Klemen čič Slovenia N/A Citizen 
46 Worlwide Campaign Against Tourture International Worlwide Campaign 
Against Tourture Other 
47 Alison Wills Unknown N/A Citizen 
48 Jake Maverick UK N/A Citizen 
 
EN 70   EN 49 Kevin Hennessey UK N/A Citizen 
50 Wirtschaftskammer Oesterreich Austria Wirtschaftskammer 
Oesterreich National 
Government 
51 Austrian Bar Association Austria Aust rian Bar Association Legal Profession 
52 Austrian Federal Minist ry of Justice Austria Austrian Federal 
Ministry of Justice National 
Government 
53 Frauenhauskoordinierung Germany Fr auenhauskoordinierung NGO/think thank 
54 Deutsche Kinderhilfe Germany Deutsche Kinderhilfe NGO/think thank 
55 Hesse Ministry of Justice, Integration and 
Europe Germany Hesse Ministry of 
Justice, Integration and 
Europe National 
Government 
56 German Association of Judges - Deutscher 
Richterbund Germany German Association of 
Judges - Deutscher 
Richterbund Judiciary 
57 Hilfsorganisation für Angehörige von 
Mord,Tötungs,Suizid und Vermisstenfällen Germany Hilfsorganisation für 
Angehörige von 
Mord,Tötungs,Suizid 
und Vermisstenfällen NGO/think thank 
58 Raymond Bell Finland N/A Citizen 
59 Unknown Unknown N/A Citizen 
60 Julen Fernández Conte Spain CGAE NGO/think thank 
61 Camila de Epalza Azqueta Sp ain Delegation of the Basque 
Country National 
Government 
62 Txema URKIJO Spain Víctimas del Terrorismo NGO/think thank 
63 Fundación Miguel Angel Blanco  Spain Fundación Miguel Angel 
Blanco NGO/think thank 
64 Unknown Unknown N/A Citizen 
65 Consultation eur SASJ Arlon Belgium SASJ NGO/think thank 
66 Consultation eur SASJ Dinant Belgium SASJ NGO/think thank 
67 Consultation eur SASJ Huy Belgium SASJ - Aide et 
Reclassement  NGO/think thank 
68 Consultation eur SASJ Liège II Belgium SASJ NGO/think thank 
69 Consultation eur SASJ Marche Belgium SASJ NGO/think thank 
70 Consultation eur SASJ Neufchât eau Belgium SASJ NGO/think thank 
71 Consultation eur SASJ Nivelles Belgium SASJ NGO/think thank 
72 Consultation eur SASJ Verviers  Belgium SASJ NGO/think thank 
 
EN 71   EN 73 Luminita Ratiu Romania N/A Citizen 
74 Arthur Lepp Canada N/A Citizen 
75 Unknown China Chinese Victims Of 
Directed Energy And 
Neurological Weapons Other 
76 Jacques Duhayon Belgium N/A Citizen 
77 Xavier Brosse France N/A Citizen 
 
 
EN 72   EN SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEXES 3-7 
OVERVIEW: STATE OF PLAY - MEMBER STATES 
 
I – Recognition as indirect 
victims 
 1. Parents (21 MS) 
2. Children (21 MS) 
3. Other family members (20 MS) 
4. Same sex partners (13 MS) 
5. First responders (11 MS) 
II – Repetitive questioning 
 
II.1. Limits on repetitive 
questioning  6. No limits (15 MS) 
7. Repetitive Questioning is limited 
for all victims (1 MS) 
8. Repetitive questioning is limited 
for certain vulnerable victims 
(11 MS) 
II.2. Questioning of child-
witnesses 
 9. No special attention (none) 
10. Discretion of individual 
examiner (3 MS) 
11. Performed by specially trained 
police officers (20 MS) 
12. Trusted adult present and/or a 
child-friendly environment (27 
MS) 
13. Television-link, and/ or video 
recording (24 MS) 
II.3. Questioning of 
victims with mental 
disabilities 14. No special attention (8 MS) 
15. Should take place in the 
presence of a trusted adult (15 
MS) 
16. Can take place through a 
television-link and/ or video 
recording of earlier questioning 
(11 MS) 
II.4. Questioning of victims 
of sexual and domestic 
violence 
 
 17. No special attention (10 MS) 
18. Should be conducted by a 
police officer of the same sex 
(10 MS) 
19. Allowed to be conducted in the 
presence of a companion (10 
MS) 
20. Specialized rape or domestic 
violence teams ( 8 MS) 
21. Special guidelines for sexual 
and domestic violence (12 MS) 
II.5. Questioning of cross-
border victims 
 22. No special attention (none) 
23. Translators are available for the 
questioning (29 MS) 
24. Video/telephone conferencing 
or earlier video-recording (14 
MS) 
25. Immediate statement (14 MS) RESPECT/ 
RECOGNITION 
 
III – What are the criteria used 
to define vulnerable victims? 26. Age victim (27 MS) 
27. Handicap victim (19 MS) 
28. Type of crime (20 MS) VICTIMS NEEDS 
PROTECTION 
 IV –  Measures for protection 
from the offender 
 29. Police protection of victim and 
family (22 MS) 
30. Preventive custody of offender 
(22 MS) 
31. Provision of protection 
equipment (8 MS) 
32. Relocation of victims (19 MS) 
33. Facilities at court (17 MS) 
34. Measures to prevent offenders 
from tracing (14 MS) 
35. Right to complete anonymity for 
victims (14 MS) 
 
EN 73   EN V – Are there any obligation to 
provide separate waiting areas 
for victim and offender? 36. No obligation (24 MS) 
37. Conditional obligation (3 MS) 
38. Unrestricted obligation (1 MS) 
 
EN 74   EN  
VI – The existence and position 
of Victim Support 
Organisations (VSO)  
 39. There is no national VSO (9 
MS) 
40. There is a national VSO (10 
MS) 
41. The VSO has achieved national 
coverage (10 MS) 
42. The VSO provides general 
services for all victims of crime 
(13 MS) 
43. The VSO provides specialised 
services meeting the needs of 
specific groups (11 MS) 
44. The VSO is consulted on 
national policies concerning 
crime victims (10 MS)  
 
SUPPORT 
 
VII – Percentage of victims that 
received victim support of 
those indicating a need for it 
(percentage in a period of five 
years)  45. 1996 Surveys 
46. 2000 Surveys 
47. 2004/05 Surveys 
VIII – Exclusion of victims from 
trial: are there a right to supply 
the courts with information 
relevant to the victims’ need 
for compensation? 48. No obligation (2 MS) 
49. Participatory right of victim or 
lawyer (25 MS) 
50. Formal duty of public prosecutor 
(6 MS) 
51. Victim Impact Statement (12 
MS) 
IX – Interpretation and 
translation 
 
IX.1. Communication 
safeguards 52. Translators and interpreters are 
available for victims, free of 
charge (27 MS) 
53. Information should be made 
available in different languages 
(6 MS) 
IX2. Eligibility for 
communication 
safeguards 54. No victims (none) 
55. At least for victims as witnesses 
(27 MS) 
56. Other victims as well (15 MS) ACCESS TO JUSTICE 
 
X – Right to review 
prosecution decision 57. No right to review (6 MS) 
58. Non-institutionalized review 
(none) 
59. Institutionalized review (21 MS) 
XI.1. – Is Restorative Justice 
allowed?  60. No (6 MS) 
61. Yes (21 MS)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
RESTORATION 
 XI.2. Are there Guidelines or 
Agency Code for agents of the 
Criminal Justice System? 62. No (5 MS) 
63. Yes (11 MS) 
64. Data not available (12 MS) 
 
Abbreviations:   
 
EN 75   EN  
EW = England and Wales / SNI = Scotland and Northern Ireland / S = Scotland / NI = Northern Ireland 
 
NOTE:  
 Sources: 
APAV Report: The Implementation of the EU Framework Decision on the standing of victims in the criminal proceedings in the 
Member States of the European Union. Lisboa: APAV, 2009. 
VAN DIJK, Jan; VAN KESTEREN, John; SMIT, Paul. Criminal Victim isation in International Perspe ctive: Key findings from the 
2004-2005 ICVS and EU ICS. Den Haag: WODC, 2007, p. 125. 
WILLEMSENS, Jolien. Restorative justice: an agenda for Europe – t he role of the European Union in the further development of 
restorative justice. Final report of AGIS Project JLS/2006/AGIS/147. Leuven: 2008, p. 188-194. 
 
EN 76   EN ANNEX 3 – MEMBER STATE POSITIONS IN RELATION TO RESPECT AND RECOGNITION 
 
RESPECT/ RECOGNITION 
 
I – Recognition as indirect victims  1. Parents (21 MS); 2. Children (21 MS); 3. Other family members (20 MS); 4. Same sex partners (13 MS); 5. First responders (11  MS) 
II – Repetitive questioning 
II.1. Limits on repetitive questioning 6. No limits (15 MS); 7. Repetitive Questioning is limited for all victims (1 MS); 8. Repetitive questioning is limited for cer tain vulnerable victims 
(11 MS) 
II.2. Questioning of child-witnesses 9. No special attention (none); 10. Discret ion of individual examiner (3 MS); 11. Pe rformed by specially trained police officer s (20 MS); 12. 
Trusted adult present and/or a child-friendly environment (27 MS);  13. Television-link, and/ or video recording (24 MS) 
II.3. Questioning of victims with mental disabilities 14. No special attention (8 MS); 15. Should take place in the pr esence of a trusted adult (15 MS); 16. Can take place through a  television-link 
and/ or video recording of earlier questioning (11 MS) 
II.4. Questioning of victims of sexual and domestic violence 17. No special attention (10 MS); 18. Should be conducted by a polic e officer of the same sex (10 MS); 19. Allowed to be conduc ted in the 
presence of a companion (10 MS); 20. Specia lized rape or domestic violence teams ( 7 MS ); 21. Special guidelines for sexual and  domestic 
violence (11 MS) 
II.5. Questioning of cross-border victims 22. No special attention (none); 23. Translators are available for the questioning (27 MS); 24. Video/telephone conferencing or earlier video-
recording (12 MS); 25. Immediate statement (13 MS) 
III – What are the criteria used to define vulnerable victims? 26. Age victim (27 MS); 27. Handicap victim (19 MS); 28. Type of crime (20 MS) 
 
MS/Issu
es  
AT  
BE  
BG  
CZ  
CY  
DK  
EE  
FI  
FR  
DE  
EL  
HU  
IE  
IT  
LV  
LT  
LU  
MT  
NL  
PL  
PT  
RO  
SK  
SI  
ES  
SE  
UK Total 
MS IMS
 
EN 77   EN 1.  √ √ √ √ √  √ √  √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √  √ √ √    √ √ √ 21 
2.  √ √ √ √ √  √ √  √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √  √ √ √    √ √ √ 21 
3.  √ √ √ √ √  √ √  √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √  √ √     √ √ √ 20 
4.  √ √ √ √   √   √  √ √ √   √  √      √   13 
5.    √ √   √ √  √ √ √ √ √  √ √           11 
6.   √ √  √ √ √   √ √ √ √     √    √ √ √ √  √ 15 
7.     √                        1 
MS/Issu
es  
AT  
BE  
BG  
CZ  
CY  
DK  
EE  
FI  
FR  
DE  
EL  
HU  
IE  
IT  
LV  
LT  
LU  
MT  
NL  
PL  
PT  
RO  
SK  
SI  
ES  
SE  
UK Total 
MS 
8.  √       √ √     √ √ √ √  √ √ √     √  11 
9.                             none 
10.                   √  √     √   3 
11.  √ √ √ √  √ √ √ √ √  √ √ √ √ √ √  √ √   √ √  √ √ 20 
12.  √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 27 
13.  √ √  √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √  √ √ √  √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 24 
14.      √    √  √  √ √   √   √     √   8 
15.  √  √   √ √ √  √  √   √ √  √  √  √  √  √ √ 15 
16.    √ √  √    √  √     √    √    √ √  √ √ 11 
17.    √    √    √ √  √ √ √  √  √   √     10 
18.  √   √     √ √       √  √   √   √ √ √ 10 IMS
 
EN 78   EN 19.  √ √  √    √  √       √    √ √ √   √  10 
20.       √           √ √ √     √ √  √ (EW) 
√(SNI) 7 
21.  √ √   √   √ √ √       √ √ √       √ √ (EW) 
√ (SNI) 11 
22.                             None 
23.  √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ (EW) 
√ (S) 
√ (NI) 27 
24.  √  √    √ √ √ √ √    √  √   √    √ √ √ √ (EW) 
√ (S) 
√ (NI) 12 
25.   √ √    √  √       √ √ √ √  √ √  √  √ √ (S) 
√ (NI) 13 
26.  √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 27 
27.  √ √ √ √  √ √ √ √ √ √  √ √ √   √ √ √  √ √    √ 19 
28.  √ √ √ √ √ √  √ √ √    √ √  √   √ √ √  √ √ √ √ 20 
Total  
28√ 18 16 16 16 11 10 16 17 13 19 13 13 13 14 15 13 19 11 16 16 10 11 10 12 15 17 15  
 
 
EN 79   EN  
ANNEX 4 -  MEMBER STATE POSITIONS IN RELATION TO PROTECTION 
 
PROTECTION 
IV –  Measures for protection from the offender  29. Police protection of victim and family (22 MS).; 30. Prevent ive custody of offender (22 MS); 31. Provision of protection 
equipment (8 MS); 32. Relocation of victims (19 MS); 33. Facilitie s at court (17 MS); 34. Measures to prevent offenders from 
tracing (14 MS); 35. Right to complete anonymity for victims (14 MS) 
V – Are there any obligation to provide separate waiting areas for victim and 
offender? 36. No obligation (24 MS); 37. Conditional obligat ion (3 MS); 38. Unrestricted obligation (1 MS) 
 
MS/Issu
es  
AT  
BE  
BG  
CZ  
CY  
DK  
EE  
FI  
FR  
DE  
EL  
HU  
IE  
IT  
LV  
LT  
LU  
MT  
NL  
PL  
PT  
RO  
SK  
SI  
ES  
SE  
UK Total 
MS 
29.  √  √ √ √ √ √ √  √ √  √ √ √ √ √ √ √  √  √ √ √ √ √ 22 
30.  √ √ √  √ √ √   √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √  √  √ √ √ 22 
31.  √     √        √       √   √ √ √ √ 8 
32.  √ √ √ √ √ √  √   √  √ √ √ √  √   √  √ √ √ √ √ 19 
33.  √ √ √ √ √ √  √  √ √   √  √  √ √     √ √ √ √ 17 
34.  √ √  √ √ √  √      √  √    √ √  √ √  √ √ 14 
35.  √  √ √   √    √   √ √ √   √ √   √ √ √  √ 14 
36.  √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √  √ √  √ √  √ √ √ √ √ 24 IMS
 
EN 80   EN 37.                 √      √     √ 3 
38.                    √         1 
Total 
10√ 8 5 6 6 6 7 4 5 1 4 6 2 4 8 5 7 3 5 5 4 6 1 6 7 7 7 9  
 
EN 81   EN ANNEX 5 -  MEMBER STATE POSITIONS IN RELATION TO SUPPORT  
 
SUPPORT 
VI – The existence and position of Victim Support Organisations (VSO)  39. There is no national VSO (9 MS); 40. There is a national  VSO (10 MS); 41. The VSO has  achieved national coverage (10 
MS); 42. The VSO provides general services for all victims of crime (13 MS); 43. The VSO provides specialis ed services meeting 
the needs of specific groups (11 MS); 44. The VSO is cons ulted on national policies concerning crime victims (10 MS) 
VII – Percentage of victims that received victim support of those indicating a need 
for it 
(percentage in a period of five years) 45. 1996 Surveys; 46. 2000 Surveys; 47. 2004/05 Surveys 
 
MS/Issu
es  
AT  
BE  
BG  
CZ  
CY  
DK  
EE  
FI  
FR  
DE  
EL  
HU  
IE  
IT  
LV  
LT  
LU  
MT  
NL  
PL  
PT  
RO  
SK  
SI  
ES  
SE  
UK Total 
MS 
39.      √ √     √   √ √ √    √    √ √   9 
40.  √ √     √ √  √         √  √  √   √ √ 10 
41.  √ √     √ √  √         √  √  √   √ √ 10 
42.  √ √ √ √   √ √  √  √     √ √ √  √     √  13 
43.  √ √ √ √   √ √  √       √  √  √      √ 11 
44.  √ √ √ √   √ √  √         √  √      √ 10 
Total 6√ 5 5 3 3 1 1 5 5 0 5 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 5 0 2 1 1 3 4  
45.  18       16 13          33 6 0     27 25 (UK)  IMS
 
EN 82   EN 38 (EW) 
24 (S) 
23 (NI) 
46.   15    22  6 9          44 8 5     33 29 (UK) 
40 (EW) 
28 (S) 
38 (NI)  
47.  38 28 10   27  6 11 8 4 1 13 7   11  35      4 21 30 (UK) 
31 (EW) 
40 (S) 
37 (NI)  
 
 
EN 83   EN ANNEX 6 -  MEMBER STATE POSITIONS IN RE LATION TO ACCESS TO JUSTICE  
 
ACCESS TO JUSTICE 
VIII – Exclusion of victims from trial: are there a right to supply the courts 
with information relevant to the victims’ need for compensation?  48. No obligation (2 MS); 49. Participatory right of victim or la wyer (24 MS); 50. Formal duty of public prosecutor (5 MS); 51 Victim 
Impact Statement (10 MS) 
IX – Interpretation and translation -  
IX.1. Communication safeguards 52. Translators and interpreters are available for victims, free of charge (27 MS);  53. Information should be made available in 
different languages (6 MS) 
IX.2. Eligibility for communication safeguards 54. No victims (none); 55. At least for victims as witnesses (27 MS); 56. Other victims as well (15 MS)  
X – Right to review prosecution decision 57. No right to review (6 MS); 58. Non-institutionaliz ed review (none); 59. Institutionalized review (21 MS) 
 
MS/Issu
es  
AT  
BE  
BG  
CZ  
CY  
DK  
EE  
FI  
FR  
DE  
EL  
HU  
IE  
IT  
LV  
LT  
LU  
MT  
NL  
PL  
PT  
RO  
SK  
SI  
ES  
SE  
UK Total 
MS 
48.      √                    √   2 
49.  √ √ √ √  √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √  √ √ √ √ √ √ √  √ √ (EW) 
√ (S) 24 
50.  √       √             √     √ √ (EW) 
√ (S) 5 
51.  √ √     √ √     √    √  √ √  √     √ (EW) 
√ (S) 10 IMS
 
EN 84   EN √ (NI) 
52.  √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 27 
53.                 √ √  √  √    √  √ 6 
54.                             None 
55.  √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 27 
56.  √      √ √ √ √ √ √    √ √  √   √ √  √ √ √ 15 
57.   √   √        √    √ √      √    6 
58.                             None 
59.  √  √ √  √ √ √ √ √ √ √  √ √ √   √ √ √ √ √  √ √ √ 21 
Total 
12√ 7 5 4 3 4 4 6 7 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 6 6 4 7 5 6 6 5 4 6 6 8  
 
EN 85   EN ANNEX 7 -  MEMBER STATE POSITIONS IN RELATION TO RESTORATION 
 
RESTORATION 
XI.1. Is Restorative Justice allowed?  60. No (6 MS); 61. Yes (21 MS) 
XI.2. Are there Guidelines or Agency Code for agents of the Criminal Justice 
System? 62. No (5 MS); 63. Yes (10 MS); 64. Data not available (12 MS) 
 
MS/Issu
es  
AT  
BE  
BG  
CZ  
CY  
DK  
EE  
FI  
FR  
DE  
EL  
HU  
IE  
IT  
LV  
LT  
LU  
MT  
NL  
PL  
PT  
RO  
SK  
SI  
ES  
SE  
UK Total 
MS 
60.      √ √          √  √ √    √     6 
61.  √ √ √ √   √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √  √   √ √ √  √ √ √ √ 21 
62.      √    √  √     √  √          5 
63.  √   √    √  √    √      √ √   √  √ √ (EW) 
√ (S) 10 
64.   √ √   √ √     √ √  √  √  √   √ √  √   12 
Total  
5√ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2  IMS
 
EN 86   EN ANNEX 8 - INTERNATIONAL INSTRU MENTS RELATED TO  
VICTIMS OF CRIME 
 
f. United 
Nations • Declaration of Basic Principles of Jus tice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of 
Power, GA Res. 40/34 of 29 November 1985 
• Basis Principles on the Use of Restorative e Justice Programmes in Criminal 
Matters, ECOSOC Res. 2002/I2, 2002 
• UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, Articles 1, 14, 24 
and 25, 2000 
• Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Puni sh Trafficking in Persons, Especially 
Women and Children, supplemen ting the UN Convention against 
Transnational Organized Crime, 2000 
• Guidelines on Justice for Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, ECOSOC 
Res. 2005/20, 2005 
• Basic Principles and Guidelines on th e Right to a Remedy and Reparation for 
Victims of Gross Violations of In ternational Human Rights and Serious 
Violations of International Humanitarian Law, GA Resolution 60/147, 2005 
• Draft UN Convention on Justice and S upport for Victims of Crime and Abuse 
of Power 
g.  h.  
i. International 
Criminal Court • Statute of Rome to establish the Intern ational Criminal Court, Articles 36 (8), 
42 (9, 43 (6), 54 (I), 68, 69, 75, 79 and 93, 1998 
• Selection of the Rules of Procedure a nd Evidence, relating to victims and 
witnesses, 2002 
j.  k.  
l. Council of 
Europe • European Convention on the Compensa tion of Victims of Violent Crimes, 
Strasbourg, 24.XI.1983 (CETS 116) 
• Recommendation (1985) 11 on the Position of the Victim in the Framework 
of Criminal Law and Procedure, adopted on 28 June 1985 
• Recommendation (1999) 19 concerning Medi ation in Penal Matters, adopted 
on 15 September 1999 
• Guidelines of the Committee of Minist ers on the Protectio n of Victims of 
Terrorist Acts, adopted on 2 March 2005 
• Recommendation (2006) 8 on Assistance to Crime Victims, adopted on 14 
June 2006 
m.  n.  
o. European 
Union • Framework Decision on the Standing of  Victims in Criminal Proceedings 
(2001/200/JHA) 
• Directive 2004/80/EC relating to Comp ensation to Crime Victims, 29 April 
 
EN 87   EN 2004 
• Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
preventing and combating trafficki ng in human beings, and protecting 
victims, repealing Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA  
• Proposal for a directive on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of 
children and child pornography, repealing FD 2004/68/JHA 
• Communication from the Commission To wards an EU Strategy on the Rights 
of the Child, COM(2006) 367 and Communication 'An EU agenda for children's rights', COM (2011) 60. 
• Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European 
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions, Strategy for equality between women and men 
(2010-2015), COM(2010) 491. 
• Decision No 779/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 June 2007 establishing for the pe riod 2007-2013 a specific programme to 
prevent and combat violence agains t children, young people and women and 
to protect victims and groups at  risk (Daphne III programme). 
• Framework Decision 2002/ 475/JHa of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism. 
• Proposed Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
facilitating cross-border enforcement in  the field of road safety (not yet 
adopted) COM(2008) 151 final; Framew ork Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 
February 2005 on the application of principle of mutu al recognition to 
financial penalties. 
 
EN 88   EN  
ANNEX 9 - OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATI VE DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED 
MEMBER STATES 
 
Member State Developments in the Legislative Pipeline 
Luxembourg • A new law has been recently enacted : "Loi du 6 octobre 2009 
renforçant le droit des victimes d’infractions pénales”). 
• This law introduced the following changes : 
9 Provision of information in a language understandable to the 
victim. 
9 The need for the prosecutor to inform the victim about the 
proceeding within 18 months. 
9 The victim receives a copy of his/her accusation free of 
charge.  
Ireland  
• The ‘Justice for Victims’ initiative174 was announced in 2008. 
• A bill has been submitted in 2009  which proposes am ong others to 
reform the victim impact statement mechanism, in particular, to give a 
statutory right to make a statement  to family members in homicide 
cases or in cases where the victim is incapacitated as a result of the crime or where the victim is a child or is unable to make a statement 
due to a mental disorder.
175 
• The Criminal Procedure Act was signed in 2010 
• Up to now four legislative changes are in process to be implemented or 
finalised: 
9 Victim Impact Statements 
9 Bail 
9 Domestic violence breach proceedings 
9 Video identity parades 
Netherlands • On 1 July 2010, a new law came into force that gives victims the right 
to check the offender’s blood for contagious diseases. 
• On 1 January 2011, a new law will co me into force that significantly 
strengthens the position of vict ims in the criminal procedure. 
• A law on the Dutch Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund is pending as 
currently discussed in the parliament. The draft envisages expanding 
the rights of victims an d surviving relatives with regard to state 
compensation. A decision is expected in 2011.  
Malta • A White Paper was presented for Justice and Home Affairs on 
Restorative Justice in February 2009176. Its main aims are: 
9 To initiate public consultati on on the possibility of introducing 
new methods of dealing with the problem, shifting away from 
imprisonment as retribution to a wider concept that emphasises social protection, reform, and the problem of 
relapse.  
 
EN 89   EN 9 To outline the required institut ional framework for Restorative 
Justice, proposes the establis hment of Restorative Justice 
Procedures, namely, parole,  petition, and remission, and 
makes proposals for initiatives aimed at the education of 
offenders and the management of victim support.  
Romania • Legislative changes in it Criminal  Code as well as comprehensive 
reform are planned, and the first draft is expected to be tabled in 
autumn 2010.  
• The Ministry of Justice recently  implemented minor changes in the 
context of a "small reform". A legislative proposal to introduce two 
new articles in the Criminal Procedure Code has been approved 
by the government in its session on 23 July 2010.  
Finland • The government submitted a pr oposal (78/2010) regarding 
domestic and workplace violence to the Parliament in June 2010.  
• According to the government proposal, minor assaults at work 
would be subject to public prosecution as well. 
• The purpose of the proposal is to improve the situation of victims in 
need of special protection and take the vulnerable position of a 
victim of domestic violence better into account. 
• The amendment of the Criminal Code is proposed to come into 
force from the beginning of 2011. 
Sweden • The Swedish Budget Bill (Prop.  2007/08:1) includes several 
statements on crime victims, sa ying for example that ‘the 
increased demands on the judicial authorities embrace a 
strengthening of the crime victims’  perspective in the legal chain’ 
and that ‘it is evident that vict ims should be met by respect and 
professionalism’.177 
• The 2009 Swedish Action Plan on Violence178 lists up a number of 
measures to be undertaken by the government including a review 
of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act and stricter provisions in 
the Social Services Act clarif ying municipal responsibility for 
providing help and support to crime victims. 
Denmark • The Minister suggested an improvement of the level of information 
provided by the police/prosecution to victims of crimes, including 
the right to know when the trial ta kes place; to receive a copy of 
the court decision etc.179 
 
 
EN 90   EN ANNEX 10 - ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF FIVE KEY MEASURES 
 
OVERALL COSTS 
 
OPTION 2 Total costs are expected to be the lowest in this option  (excluding status quo ). Almost all costs will fall to public administrations on both a national and local 
level. Some costs could fall to the voluntary sector. Some co sts may be limited to the short run such as the development of gui delines, whilst ot hers may incur 
ongoing running costs such as victim support services.   Min - Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) Max- Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) 
Training (1 off development cost) 0 1.58 
Victim Support Services (annual running costs) < 23 < 23 
Interpretation/ translation (annual costs) < 0.03 6.88 
Restorative Justice (Annual running costs) 
Possible savings from reduced reoffending could more than offset total costs. 0 
 878 
 
Attendance of trial (annual costs)  0.146  1.58 
TOTAL  < 23.18 < 973.04 
 
EN 91   EN OPTION 3a Total costs are expected to be the in the lower middle  of the three options (excluding Status quo). Almost all costs will fall to public administrations on both a 
national and local level.   Min (Millions of euros) Max (Millions of euros) 
Training (1st year costs, range of cost reduction factors exist) 4.61 (opportunity cost: 71.27)  17.28 (opportunity cost: 72.29)  
Victim Support Services (Annual running costs) < 24 < 27 
Interpretation/ translation (annual costs) < 89.29 < 205.49 
Restorative Justice (Annual running costs)  
Possible savings from reduced reoffending could more than offset total costs. 0 878 
Attendance of trial (Annual Costs) 240 242.9 
TOTAL  357.9 1,370.67 
OPTION 3b Total costs are expected to be the in the higher middle  of the three options (excluding Status quo). Almost all costs will fall to public administrations on both a 
national and local level.   Min (Millions of euros) Max (Millions of euros) 
Training (1st year costs, range of cost reduction factors exist) 4.61 (opportunity cost: 71.27)  17.28 (opportunity cost: 72.29)  
Victim Support Services (Annual running costs) < 24 < 27 
Interpretation/ translation (annual costs) < 89.29 < 205.49 
Restorative Justice (Annual running costs) Po ssible savings from reduced 
reoffending could more than offset total costs. 20.08  2,641.58 
Attendance of trial (Annual Costs) 240 242.9 
TOTAL  377.98 3,134.25 
 
EN 92   EN OPTION 4 Total costs are expected to be the highest  of the three options (excluding Status quo). Almost all costs will fall to public administrations on both a national and 
local level. Depending on the Member States ' implementation, victim support and restorat ive justice services may bear the costs  of implementing any new 
safeguards in their sectors, such  as training or accreditation.   Min (Millions of euros) Max (Millions of euros) 
Training (1st year costs, range of cost reduction factors exist) 4.61 (opportunity cost: 71.27)  17.28 (opportunity cost: 72.29)  
Victim Support Services (Annual running costs) 4,074  6,617 
Interpretation/ translation (annual costs) 89.29 205.49 
Restorative Justice (Annual running costs) Possible savings from reduced 
reoffending could more than offset total costs. 20.08  2,641.58  
Attendance of trial (Annual Costs) 240 242.9 
TOTAL  4,427.98 9,724.25 
 
 
EN 93   EN TRAINING COSTS 
 
OPTION 2 
Internally developed by Ministry of Justice Ex ternally contracted EU Drafted, MS adaptation 
€145,615.60  (€678.60 in BG to 11,190.40 in LU) €970,000 and €1,580,000 .  €236,201  
However, some Member States e.g. FR, BE al ready have guidelines which would reduce this  cost. Alternatively, the European Netwo rk of Councils for 
the Judiciary recently produced basic gu idelines for judges at virtually no cost. Such an approach for all practitioners could significantly reduce costs 
close to zero  Training – development of guidelines:  near to zero – €1.58 million for 27 Member States 
OPTION 3a 
OPTION 3b Training – legal practitioners trained, training  available for judges, so me detail on content:  
Total training of police and judiciary – €4.61 – €17.28 million  (based on single training scenario for all practitioners assuming no Member State provides training)  
Lost police and judicial time - €71.27 million – €72.29 million No figures available for pr osecutors or court staff. 
Costs are based on estimates for a 2 hour face to face training session for police officers and judges. Costings are based on h ourly wages of trainers 
(including development of the course), number of pol ice officers and judges and their average national salaries180.  
It should be noted that the above costs could be si gnificantly reduced due to a range of factors: 
• The above scenario assumes no training is currently provided. Ho wever, although exact details are not available, we know that some Member 
States already provide training.  Respondent s in the APAV interim report, felt that pol ice officers and legal practitioners in BE, CY, FI, FR, EL, HU, 
IE, IT, MT, PL, PT, SK, SI and SE need more training programmes in order for them to meet the needs of most victims.  It was also felt that 
professionals in DE and UK who deal with victims do not have enough knowledge 
• Since training of judges is not mandatory in this option, it  can be assumed that not all judges will be trained. Costs will th erefore be lower. 
We would also anticipate that costs would be significantly lowered by providing vict ims training during basic training i.e. bef ore practitioners 
are practicing. Further reductions could be made through online or e- learning to minimise lost work time. Costs are also much l ower where 
provided by victim support organisations. The more such organi sations are strengthened the more likely they are to carry out su ch tasks.  
Finally these costs are based on the firs t year of training provisio n. Subsequent training at  this level would only be 
 
EN 94   EN needed for new recruits and thus 2nd year costs onwards would be much lower.  
OPTION 4 Training : mandatory training for police, pr osecutors, judges, court staff 
Total training of police and judiciary – €4.61 – €17.28 million (based on single training scenario for all practitioners assuming no Member State currently 
provides training)  
Lost police and judicial time - €71.27 million – €72.29 million  
Costings are based on the same calculations as in option 3. Howe ver, this option makes training for judges mandatory and is the refore expected to be 
more costly than that option  
 
EN 95   EN VICTIM SUPPORT SERVICES 
 
OPTION 2 
This option gives Member States wide flexib ility in implementation. This may result in  Member States either carrying out few ch anges or not 
implementing to the extent described below. As such it can be assumed that costs will be lower than options 3 and 4. 
Known budgets for victim support organisations range from €20,00 0 for the smallest State (Malta), through to €119,000 for HU, 1 .5 million for PT and 39 
Million for England and Wales. Given the wide  range a median of €1.5 million has been taken as an average cost . Highest costs are expected in CY, 
DK, EL, IT, LV, LT, PL, SI and ES (9 States) w here no national VS service has been identified. Running costs could total around €13.5 million.  Set 
up costs are unknown. Lower costs would be expected for BG, CZ, FR , HU, IE, LU, MT, RO (8 States) which have VS services but no t national 
coverage. We therefore estimate a lower median cost of €1 million giving a total of €10 million . This option is unlikely to impact greatly on AT, BE, 
EE, FI, DE, NL, PT, SK, SE, UK wh ich have achieved national coverage  Victim Support Services – easy, effective access: 
Total Cost – Less than €23.5 million as suming implementation by 19 States 
OPTION 3a 
OPTION 3b 
Costings based on calculations in option 2. Given that this opt ion requires that those working for victim support services shal l be competent to do so, it is 
assumed that there will be additional training costs for those serv ices which do not already provi de such training. No data is available on these costs or 
in which States such training is already provided. However, co stings have been used in relation to accreditation, which include s accreditation of training. 
These have been taken from costings in rela tion to restorative justice accreditation  (see Matrix Options Paper ., p. 108)  Victims support services – establish services or suppor t existing ones. Minimum sta ndard. Including accreditation 
Total Cost – Less than €23.5 million to establish nationwide services. 
Total cost for accreditation: From €477,000 – €3.58 million 
 
EN 96   EN OPTION 4 Victims Support Services – establish or support inde pendent services. Legal advice shall be provided. 
Total Cost – €4.07 – €6.6 billion 
Costs are based on calculations provided in  option 3. However, in this option, VSS are required to be independent, autonomous a nd to provide legal 
advice or assistance. It can be assumed that  whilst most costs should remain the same , the provision of legal advice could sign ificantly increase costs.  
It is difficult to calculate the cost of providing such advice. Some victim support organisations already do so either through in house or external lawyers. 
Costs can vary greatly depending on how advice is given but also on the nature of the advice. If it is basic and related to inf ormation on general rights 
etc this could be provided by lower qualif ied persons. However, legal counsel coul d be extremely expensive. Costings have been attempted based on 
national hourly wages of lawyers in the Member States, 1 hour of advice being provided by an external lawyer.  
According to the ICVS, on average 43% of victims reporting four types of serious crime felt help would have been useful for the m. This compares with a 
report by the UK's Victim's commissioner t hat only 20% of victims want support servic es. Since this takes account of victims of  lesser crimes an average 
of 30% of victims will be taken for costings. It is assumed that  some of these will not need advic e, nevertheless costs are pro vided for all victims who 
could potentially receive support. On this basis if around 22.5 million victims (30% of all reported and unreported crimes) rec eived 1 hour of legal advice 
at an average cost of €180 - €293 per hou r, the total EU cost would be between €4.05 – €6.59 billion  
 
EN 97   EN INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATION 
 
OPTION 2 Interpretation and Translation – mini mise communication difficulties:  
Total Cost – less than €30,000 – €6.87 million 
This option provides a wide leeway for implementation by Member  States. Costs of implementation are expected to fall on governm ent authorities at a 
national and regional level. Cost for leaflets should only be borne once and for any subsequent changes but there are unlikely  to be annual translation 
costs. Costs for translation of  proceedings are expected to remain relatively constant. 
As a minimum, this could involve providing information leaflets in a foreign language . According to the APAV study, in 6 States (LT, LU, NL, PT, ES, 
UK) information is already available in different languages . Those States may not have additional costs in this respect  and so calculations are made 
for 21 States. 
According to studies, the estimated cost of translating a short 4 page information leaflet for 21 States would range from €1,36 0.60 (minimum 1 page cost 
is €340.15) – €3,942.68 (maximum 1 page cost is €985.67)181. This cost must be multiplied by the number of languages the document is translated into. If 
all 22 EU languages were translated costs would range from €29,933.20 – €86,738.96. However,  Member States are likely to do this based on the most 
common languages used in their jurisdiction rather than for all 22 EU languages. Thus costs are likely to be lower. 
Member States could also provide a short summary of the outcome of proceedings.  
According to APAV 15 Member States (AT, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, LT, LU, NL, RO, SK, ES, SE, UK) already provide translation and  interpretation 
services for all victims. The remaining 12 States provide such services but only for victims as witnesses. Since no data is ava ilable on the number of non-
witness victims, costings are based on total foreign victim populat ion in the 12 Member States (BE, BG, CZ, CY, DK, IE, IT, LV,  MT, PL, PT, SI). 
A 1 page summary would cost from €310.15 - €722.40  per case for the 12 States above. It is estimated that around 57869  cases involving foreign 
victims  actually go to court (figures are available for 17 Member Stat es ranging from 27 cases in Cyprus to 27864 in the UK. 11 States  have less than 
1000 cases and 16 States less than 7000. As such a median of 76 8 cases has been taken for Member States for which data were not  available182). This 
works out at 9395 cases for the 12 Member States  referred to above. The cost of producing 1 p age summaries is therefore estimated to range from 
€2.91 million to €6.79 million  
 
EN 98   EN  
OPTION 3a 
OPTION 3b Interpretation and Translation – provided on basis of proportionality 
Total Costs: less than €89.29 – €205.49 million 
Translation: €87.42 – €203.61 million   
Interpretation:  €1,879,000   
As with option 1, this option is difficult to cost. A proporti onality test has been introduced to provide Member States with su fficient flexibility to ensure that 
translation and interpretation is provided only where necessary a nd to a necessary extent. This should effectively reduce cost implications in particular in 
relation to low level crimes (where for instance a simple summa ry may be provided) or where the victim has indicated they do no t wish to receive 
translations etc. 
Furthermore, additional costs are only expected to arise in rela tion to 12 Member States ((BE, BG, CZ, CY, DK, IE, IT, LV, MT, PL, PT, SI – see option 
2) remaining 15 already provide interpre tation and translation to all victims. 
Translation: To provide a baseline for translation, the total estimated costs for translating 1 page  ranges from €310.15 – €722.40  for the 12 Member 
States . It is estimated that in civil proceedings, each proceedings involves on average 30 pages . On this basis, the total cost for translating 30 pages 
for a total of  9395 cases  involving foreign victims in those States ranges from €87.42 – €203.61 million.   
Interpretation: according to the 2009 Impact assessment for a  Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the right to interpretation and to 
translation in criminal proceedings183, the average cost of interpretation for the accused for 1 case is around €200 . Based on this costing, it is estimated 
that interpretation for the 12 States that do not currentl y provide interpretation for all victims would cost around €1,879,000  at a maximum. 
However, these costings only provide a bas eline. Since Member States will apply a proportionality test, it  is assumed that costs can be reduced .  
In addition, interpretation costs are based on UK figures for in terpretation. It has been observed that interpretation in the U K is provided to a very high 
level and it can therefore be assumed that these costs are at the maximum end of the scale .  
OPTION 4 Interpretation and Translation – provid ed for all victims during proceedings 
Total Costs: €89.29 – €205.49 million 
 
EN 99   EN Costing are based on calculations made in option 3. However, no flexibility is provi ded in relation to when translation and int erpretation is provided which 
will minimise the possib ility to reduce costs.  
 
 
EN 100   EN  
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE SERVICES 
 
OPTION 2 
OPTION 3a Restorative Justice Services (RJS) – safeguards where RJS exists 
Total cost - €0 – €878 millio n (accreditation and legal advi ce for 21 Member States)  
21 Member States provide some form of RJS (AT, BE, BG, CZ, EE,  FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, IE, IT, LV, LU, PL, PT, RO, SI, ES, SE, UK).  Calculations on 
safeguards will thus only be based on costs in those states. 
Member States could implement this requirem ent ranging from no significant costs since many safeguards do not impose financial burdens  (such 
as the requirement of consent to participat e in RJS), to the most expensive safeguards accreditation schemes and provision of legal advice (in 
accordance with the UN guidelines on RJS safeguards). Cost esti mates will thus only be give n on those two safeguards. 
Total cost of accreditation schemes – From €570,000 – €3.58 million (assuming implemented by all 21 States) 
Total Cost of Legal advice – from  €645 – 937 million  (assuming implemented by all 21 States) 
A range of safeguards can be applied in relation to RJS. However,  based on UN guidelines the key safeguards having cost implica tions are standards 
of competence which inevitably requires at least training but also possibly accreditation and the right to legal counsel.  
Accreditation:  Based on calculations in available studies  (using Member States wages and reported a nd unreported crime statistics), the cost of 
accreditation schemes can vary based on w hether the scheme accredits training and services only or individuals as well. It can also vary depending 
on whether accreditation is carried out thr ough paid assessors or by vo lunteers. Costings are based on a single organisation ca rrying out 
accreditation.  Based on UK research esti mated costs would result in the accreditat ion of around 350 individual practitioners, 120 training courses and 
10 restorative services/organisations over fi ve years. This was deemed to be sufficient  to meet victim/ offender demand. In add ition any organisation 
carrying out accreditation could charge for such services and coul d do so on a profitable basis. However, it should be noted th at a number of Member 
States are likely to have accreditation  schemes in place already so the costs should be lower than those provided.  
Accreditation for 21 States 
 
EN 101   EN Individuals, services, training - 
paid Individuals, services, training - 
volunteer Services, training - paid S ervices, training – Volunteer 
€413,914 - €3,420,182 €624,730 €661,395 €505,578 
Legal advice : Provision of legal counsel to victims is difficult to calcul ate due to a range of variables similar to those in relation to t he provision of 
restorative justice. However, based on an a ssumption that 50% of victims wish to re ceive RJS and do in fact receive it, costing s can be established 
based on the provision of 1 hour of legal adv ice. This provides a baseline costing but it is assumed that costs would be lower as not all 50% of victims 
would actually receive RJ (case not suitable, offender refusal)  or would get to a stage where legal advice was required or desi red. 
Based on hourly rates for legal advice for each Member State and  on the victim population for each Member State (for reported c rime) costs could at 
a maximum range from €2.4 billion to €3.7 billion.  However, a more likely costing scenario,  which we use for total costing, would be based on the 
number of cases that currently go to court. Based on available studies, this is estimated at 5,264,059 cases. With a 50% take u p rate (i.e. 2,632,045) 
costs are estimated at between €606 million to €875 million.  
OPTION 3b 
OPTION 4 Restorative Justice Services (RJS) – establish or enhance RJS based on minimum standards: 
 
Total cost  of establishing RJS a nd apply minimum standards  (including establishment costs, accreditation and legal advice:   
€20 million to €2.6 billion 
 
Total cost of establishing RJS for all victims who want it – from €19.6 million (at €75 per case) to €1.7 billion (at €6570 per  case) (in 6 Member States 
that do not have RJS) 
 
Total cost of accredit ation schemes – from €477,296 to €3.58 million (assuming im plemented by all 27 States) 
 
Total cost of legal advice – from €645 million to €938 million (ass uming implemented by all 27 St ates) – NB – this cost will on ly be included in the 
 
EN 102   EN maximum costing since Member States are not obliged to carry it out.  
Cost of establishing and running RJS:  
Based on a recent report184, 21 Member States have some form of RJS in place(AT, BE, BG, CZ, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, IE, IT, LV, LU, PL, PT, RO, 
SI, ES, SE, UK). The cost estimates are thus made on the basis of only those States which do not have RJS  (CY, DK, LT, MT, NL, SK).  
Various studies show that 30% to 50% of all victims are interested in a personal m eeting with the offender. This percentage inc reases up to 70% or 
more when the possi bility for indirect mediat ion is also presented185. For the purposes of costings an average take up rate of 50% is used which 
amounts to 261,507 cases  based on 523,013 cases going to court in these six Member States. 
Given that this option does not specify what  type of RJS should be provided, in relation  to which offences, nor at what point i n the formal process or 
indeed whether it should act as a diversion to the criminal just ice system, calculation of costs are extremely difficult to mak e. A study carried out in the 
US shows that the cost per case  can vary widely from $97 (€75) in France (for the category of less time-consuming cases) to $25 0 (€193 – 11.01.11 
exchange rates applied) in the US/California and $1.069 (€827) in Germany186. More recently, analysis of pilot rest orative justice projects in the UK 
have shown costs of the schemes varied bet ween £248 and £1,458 per case referred,  or between about £3,261 and £5,457 (€6570) pe r case in which 
restorative justice was completed (these costs include staffing, premises, communications etc)187. 
Thus costs could range from €19.6 million (at €75 per case) to €1.7 billion (at €6570 per case).  
Accreditation and Legal advice:  
It should be noted that this option establish certain standards to be achieved including that practitioners are competent in re storative justice. This 
implies that they will receive training an d that accreditation will be carried out. Co sting are not available for training but accreditation costs are based 
on restorative justice calculations. Member States may also choose  to ensure that legal advice is provided. Costing have theref ore been established. 
However, since they are not obliged to provide this servic e, such costs are only included in the maximum total cost. 
Cost estimates for accreditation and legal advice are provided for all 27 Member States since no data is available on which Sta tes provide these 
safeguards. 
Accreditation:  Based on calculations in available studies  (using Member States wages and reported a nd unreported crime statistics), the cost of 
accreditation schemes can vary based on w hether the scheme accredits training and services only or individuals as well. It can also vary depending 
on whether accreditation is carried out thr ough paid assessors or by vo lunteers. Costings are based on a single organisation ca rrying out 
 
EN 103   EN accreditation.  Based on UK research esti mated costs would result in the accreditat ion of around 350 individual practitioners, 120 training courses and 
10 restorative services/organisations over fi ve years. This was deemed to be sufficient  to meet victim/ offender demand. In add ition any organisation 
carrying out accreditation could charge for such services and coul d do so on a profitable basis. However, it should be noted th at a number of Member 
States are likely to have accreditation  schemes in place already so the costs should be lower than those provided.  
Accreditation for 27 States 
Individuals, services, training - 
paid Individuals, services, training - 
volunteer Services, training - paid S ervices, training – Volunteer 
€477,296 - €3,580,278 €693,242 €730,800 €571,190 
Legal advice : Provision of legal counsel to victims is difficult to calcul ate due to a range of variables similar to those in relation to t he provision of 
restorative justice. However, based on an a ssumption that 50% of victims wish to re ceive RJS and do in fact receive it, costing s can be established 
based on the provision of 1 hour of legal adv ice. This provides a baseline costing but it is assumed that costs would be lower as not all 50% of victims 
would actually receive RJ (case not suitable, offender refusal)  or would get to a stage where legal advice was required or desi red. 
Based on hourly rates for legal advice for each Member State and  on the victim population for each Member State (for reported c rime) costs could at 
a maximum range from €2.6 billion to €4.2 billion.  However, a more likely costing scenario,  which we use for total costing, would be based on the 
number of cases that currently go to court. Based on available studi es, this is estimated at 5,787,102 cases in the 27 Member S tates. With a 50% take 
up rate (i.e. 2,893,551) costs are estimated at between €645 million to €938 million.  
This total costing is expected to only be established over a pr olonged period of time since the full establishment of such serv ices will not be possible 
immediately. It will take time to establis h service providers, train per sonnel and attain complete national coverage. In the sh ort term costs are 
therefore likely to be lower.  
It should be noted that based on UK study, for all the projects and counting only reductions in t he frequency of offending, RJ saved the Criminal 
Justice System around 8 times what it cost  to deliver i.e. for every 1 euro spent, 8 euros were saved. The savings in relation to restorative justice for 
more serious crimes such as burglary are higher at around 14:1.188  
Based on this ratio, RJS could result in significant savings to the total criminal justice budget  purely based on a reduction in reoffending which 
could more than offset the costs of establis hing and running restorativ e justice services.  
The benefits to victims and offenders of t he process would further enhance cost-value ca lculations. These calculations are also  based RJS where the 
formal process continues. Where cases are diverted from the formal justi ce system, further significant savings can be made.  
 
EN 104   EN  
 
 
ATTENDANCE OF TRIAL 
 
OPTION 2 Attendance of trial – establish guidelines –  
Total cost: between €146,000 to €1,580,000 
This policy option involves the establishm ent of guidelines to better inform victim s concerning trial dates and possibility of reimbursement.  
Based on the analysis of guidelines on training in studies, the following costs are expected:  
Guidelines attending trial  
Internally developed by Ministry  of Justice Externally contract ed EU Drafted, MS adaptation 
€145,616 
(€679 in BG to €11,190 in LU) between €970,000 and €1,580,000 €236,201 
 
OPTION 3a 
OPTION 3b Attendance of trial: assessment on ex clusion, trial date info, reimbursement 
Total cost – €240 – €242.9 million 
Cost of providing information - €0 – €2.9 million 
Reimbursement – €240 million 
Key costs relate to informing the victim of the trial date and reimbursing the victim for att endance. Assessment of exclusion o f the victim is not 
expected to impose significant financi al costs though some a dditional administrative burden will be experienced.  
 
EN 105   EN Information on trial date: According the APAV Study, 8 Member Stat es (AT, BE, BG, CZ, IE, LT, LV, NL) already inform all victim s of the trial date with 
the remaining 19 States informing witnesses.  Additional Costs are calculated for these 19 States though in reality they will be  lower since many 
victims are witnesses. 
It is assumed that such communication will be made in writing. If th is is done by letter, it is es timated that the cost would b e in the range of €2.9 
million for 19 Member States based on an estimated cost of stamps of €0,50 and around 5,787,102 cases going to court189. It should be noted that 
these costs could be reduced to near zero by sending the official communication by E-mail. 
Reimbursement for attendance : In 17 Member States (AT, BG, CZ, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, LV, LT, LU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SI, SE)190 reimbursement is 
already provided for victims. Those States should have no additional  costs in this respect. In 7 Member States (BE, CY, DK, EE,  IE, IT, UK)191 only 
witnesses are eligible for reimbursement of expenses of att ending a trial. MT and ES have no prov isions concerning reimbursemen t of attendance of 
trial192. The calculations are made for these 9 Member States consideri ng the requirement of reimbursemen t of all their foreign cases. 
Based on available studies, the total costs for these 9 states amounts to around €240 million.193  
OPTION 4 Attendance of trial – right to attend trial, info rmed of date and reimburse d, availability considered. 
Attendance of trial: Total cost – > €240 – 242.6 million 
Cost of providing information - > €0 – 2.6 million 
Reimbursement – > €240 million  
Costs are based on calculations made in option 3. However, as a re sult this requiring that full information is provided to vict ims about the attendance 
of trial and also taking into account the victims av ailability when determining the date of the trial, the costs of reimburseme nt are likely to be higher, 
since more victims are likely to attend and due to po ssible delays where the vi ctims is unavailable. 
There are no figures available in relation to victims attendance  of any matter related to proceedi ngs, but even if we assume as  a minimum that the 
victim has to attend two further sessions of questioning during the investigation process this would treble reimbursement costs . 
 
 
 
EN 106   EN ANNEX 11 – POTENTIAL MONITORING  AND EVALUATION INDICATORS 
 
The core indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives of the proposal could be listed 
as follows:  
 
p. Objective q. Indicator 
r. A -specific Objective : 
s. Specific objective: to ensure 
that victims are recognised 
and treated with respect and 
dignity  • Number of positive responses to the following 
range of questions:  
• Did the staff of victim support, police, 
judiciary, prosecution service: 
• treat you politely, respect  your rights, show 
interest in your pe rsonal story, take you 
seriously, show understa nding of your situation, 
respect your privacy, trea t your personal details 
confidentially, leave you waiting a long time before you could report the crime? show compassion, refer you to medical or mental health services? behave  in a professional 
fashion? 
t. A.1  To ensure that that the 
needs of indirect victims (co-
victims of murder and immediate family members of victims of crime in general) 
are met . • Practical – number of positive responses from 
co-victims of murder to the question did you 
receive the following services where you wished to receive such services (Services determined by content of Directive). 
• Practical - number of positive responses from 
indirect victims did you receive the support and protection you had expr essed a need for? 
• Number of police, prosecutors and court staff 
that have received appropriate victims training 
in comparison with the total number of staff. 
• Details of training plan s to ensure staff are 
trained u. A.2  To ensure that police, 
prosecutors and court staff receive appropriate victims training. To ensure that the judiciary have access to judicial studies opportunities. 
• Evidence of what training programmes are 
available to judges a nd on what basis. 
v. A.3   To establish needs 
assessment mechanisms  to • Evidence of what needs assessments have been 
established. 
 
EN 107   EN • Number of needs assessments carried out 
compared with the number of victims reporting 
crimes. 
• Number of identified vulnerable victims and 
trends in numbers. 
• Number of victims who received specialist 
treatment having been identified as vulnerable. 
• Number of victims confirming that they had 
been identified as vulnerable compared with the 
number of victims who felt themselves vulnerable but had not been identified as such. identify the needs of victims and to identify vulnerable victims and their specific needs. 
• Number of victims confirming that they felt 
vulnerable compared with the number who confirmed they had received appropriate services. 
w. B. Specific objective: to 
ensure that victims are 
protected  x.  
y. B.1   To ensure that victims do 
not lose the protection they have been given when they travel or move abroad. • Number of victims receiving protection 
measures as a result of using the Directives mechanisms compared with those who would have liked such measures but did not receive them. 
• Number of new courts built with separate 
waiting areas compared to those without. z. B.2   To ensure contact between 
the offender and victim can be avoided during proceedings. • Evidence of the establishment of guidelines for 
court staff. 
aa. C Specific objective: to 
ensure that victims are 
supported  bb.  
• Evidence of how support services have been 
established or facilitated. 
• Number of victims r eceiving victim support 
services compared w ith number of known 
victims cc. C.1   To ensure that effective 
victims support services are available to victims. 
• Number of victims expressing a wish for 
support and receiving that support. 
 
EN 108   EN • Legislation: evidence th at trusted persons are 
not excluded from accompanying a victim 
except in certain circumstances. dd. C.2   To ensure that victims have 
the rights to be accompanied by a trusted person or victim support organisation during proceedings. • Number of persons who were accompanied by a 
trusted person having expressed a wish for this. 
ee. D. Specific objective: to 
ensure victims have effective 
access to justice  ff.  
• Legislation or other measures conforming with 
the objective. gg. D.1  To ensure victims are only 
excluded from attending trial in exceptional circumstances and that they are informed of the trial date and receive reimbursement for attendance. • Number of victims attending trial who 
expressed a wish to do so. 
• Number of victims who expressed a wish for 
interpretation and transl ation or documentation 
in their own language who received it. hh. D.2  To ensure that victims are 
assisted in understanding their rights, obligations and the proceedings • Number of victims stating that they had 
difficulties understanding information or proceedings. 
• Number of reviews of prosecution decisions. ii. D.3   Ensure that victims have a 
right to have prosecution decisions reviewed. • Number of requests for review which have been 
rejected. 
jj. E. Specific objective: to 
ensure victims have access to 
restorative justric  
kk.  ll.  
mm. E.1   To ensure victims 
have access to effective Restorative Justice Services.  • Number of victims who expressed a wish to 
take part in restorative justice services 
nn.  • Number of victims who expressed a wish to 
take part in restorative justice services and who 
received those services 
oo.  • Number of victims who expressed a wish to 
take part in restorative justice services but didn’t take part due to the refusal of the offender. 
 
EN 109   EN