Table of contents 1.Introduction 1.1 General introduction 1.2 Purpose and scope of the evaluation 2.What was the expected outcome of the intervention? 2.1 Policy/Context 2.2 Evaluation logic and objectives of the Directive 2.3 Points of comparison 3.How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? Current state of play 4.Evaluation findings (analytical part) 4.1.To what extent was the intervention successful and why? 4.1.1 Effective application of the Directive Victims’ right to information Victims’ access to support services Victims’ access to justice Right to protection Provision of training

4.1.2 Efficiency Costs and benefits linked to the implementation of the Directive Possible cost savings 4.1.3 Coherence Internal coherence Coherence and complementarity with other policy interventions Coherence with Member State legislative frameworks Coherence with relevant EU level interventions 4.2.How did the EU intervention make a difference? EU added value Improvement in the situation of victims Added value compared to national interventions 4.3.Is the intervention still relevant? 4.3.1. Relevance of scope and definitions 4.3.2. Relevance of the provisions about the treatment of victims 5.What are the conclusions and lessons learned? 5.1.Conclusions 5.2.Lessons learned Annex I: Procedural Information 1.Lead DG, Decide planning/Commission Work Programme references

2.Organisation and timing 3.Exceptions to the better regulation guidelines 4.Evidence, sources and quality Annex II. Methodology and analytical models used 1. METHODS AND SOURCES 2. LIMITATIONS Annex III. Evaluation matrix and, where relevant, details on answers to the evaluation questions (by criterion) Annex IV. Overview of benefits and costs [and, where relevant, table on simplification and burden reduction] Annex V. Stakeholders consultation - Synopsis report 1. Consultation objectives 2. Description of the consultation methods and tools by group of stakeholders 3. Targeted consultations 3.1. Results of the targeted consultations in relation to the relevance criterion 3.1.1. Relevance of objectives 3.1.2. Relevance of definitions and scope 3.2. Results of the targeted consultations in relation to the effectiveness criterion 3.2.1. General findings on effectiveness 3.2.2. Right to information 3.2.3. Access to victim support services 3.2.4. Access to justice

3.2.5. Right to protection 3.2.6. Cross-cutting issues 3.3. Results of the targeted consultations in relation to the efficiency criterion 3.4. Results of the targeted consultations in relation to the coherence criterion 3.5. Results of the targeted consultations in relation to the EU added value criterion 4. Results of the public consultation 4.1 Results of the public consultation in relation to the relevance criterion 4.2 Results of the public consultation in relation to the effectiveness criterion 4.3 Results of the public consultation in relation to the efficiency criterion 4.4 Results of the public consultation in relation to the coherence criterion 4.5 Results of the public consultation in relation to the EU added value criterion



Glossary Term or abbreviation/acronym Meaning or definition Anti-trafficking Directive Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA Child Sexual Abuse Directive Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA Counter-terrorism Directive Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA Combating Fraud Directive Directive (EU) 2019/713 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA EU The European Union FRA The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights Member States Member States bound by the Directive, i.e. all Member States except Denmark NGO Non-governmental organisation TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union The Victims’ Rights Directive/The Directive Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime Victims’ Standing Decision The Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings 1. Introduction 1.1 General introduction On 25 October 2012, the Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime (‘the Victims’ Rights Directive’ or ‘the Directive’). The Directive, replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, was adopted to strengthen the rights of all victims of crime so that victims of any crime could count on having the same basic level of rights, whatever their nationality and wherever in the EU the crime took place. It brought about major changes in the EU legal framework for victims’ rights.

The Victims’ Rights Directive is the core EU level instrument that lays down a set of rights for all victims of all crimes and imposes corresponding obligations on Member States. The Directive states that all victims of crime and their family members are to be recognised and treated in a respectful and non-discriminatory manner based on an individual approach tailored to the victim’s needs. The Directive, adopted under Article 82(2) TFEU, is binding on all EU Member States with the exception of Denmark. To facilitate timely and correct transposition of the Directive by the Member States, in December 2013 the Commission published a Guidance Document. Member States had to transpose the provisions of the Directive into their national laws by 16 November 2015. Other EU acts in the area of victims’ rights include the Compensation Directive, Regulation (EU) 606/2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters and Directive 2011/99/EU on the European protection order. The EU has also adopted several instruments that deal with the specific needs of victims of particular types of crime (such as victims of terrorism, victims of trafficking in human beings, child victims of sexual exploitation or victims of non-cash payment fraud). On 8 March 2022, the Commission presented a proposal for a Directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence. These instruments complement and build on the Victims’ Rights Directive. In May 2020, the Commission adopted a report assessing the extent to which Member States have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with the Directive, pursuant to Article 29. This implementation report concludes that the Victims’ Rights Directive contains ambitious rules capable of improving the situation of victims in the EU. However, the assessment shows that the full potential of the Directive has not been reached yet. The report raises numerous concerns about the Directive’s practical implementation. This is particularly the case for victims’ access to information and victims’ access to support and protection in accordance with their individual needs. Several infringement proceedings have been launched against some Member States for incomplete transposition of the Directive into their national laws. Since the adoption of the report in May 2020, good progress has been made in the implementation of the Directive. The Commission has been closely working with Member States on a bilateral basis and been able to progressively keep closing almost all the infringement proceedings for incomplete transposition. In 2020, the Commission also published the first ever EU Strategy on victims’ rights (2020-2025). The main objective of the strategy is to ensure that all victims of all crime, no matter where in the EU or in what circumstances the crime takes place, can fully rely on their rights. The pandemic situation became a worsening factor for victims with special needs. Seeking assistance in the event of domestic violence was already difficult before the pandemic, but confinement measures put victims of domestic violence at even greater risk. Another worsening factor is terrorism that is still a major concern for some countries in the EU. Further, migrants arriving in the EU from third countries at war are particularly vulnerable to crime and face difficulties in accessing justice and support services. Their situation, as well as the rise in hate crimes, all point to the importance of effective legislation covering victims’ needs. An aggravating factor that needs to be taken into account is the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. The war has destroyed people’s lives, leaving death and victims behind. EU legislation on victims’ rights will ensure that the specific needs of victims who are fleeing from war, such as the right to assistance, support and protection, are met. 1.2 Purpose and scope of the evaluation In line with the Better Regulation guidelines, the Commission is assessing the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the Victims’ Rights Directive. The evaluation also assesses the Directive’s incidence on fundamental rights. Annex 4 lists in detail the evaluation criteria and questions. The evaluation criteria are assessed from the date of entry into force of the Directive, i.e. 15 November 2012, until October 2021 and cover the entirety of the Directive and all Member States that are bound by it. An external evaluation study was carried out by a contractor to support the Commission’s work, following a call for services under a framework contract (see Section 2 for more information). This Staff Working Document aims to provide the Commission with a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the Directive’s incidence as well as the lessons learned from its implementation. On the basis of the evaluation, the Commission will, if necessary, decide on appropriate follow-up actions. These could range from non-legislative measures, such as providing additional guidance on implementing the Directive, to putting forward legislative proposals. This evaluation will form the basis for an impact assessment of any future action by the Commission. 2. What was the expected outcome of the intervention? The Victims’ Rights Directive provides victims with a right to information, a right to understand and be understood, a right to access support and protection in accordance with their individual needs, as well as with a set of procedural rights. The Directive is aimed at Member State authorities, who need to ensure full transposition and implementation of the Directive in their national framework. 2.1 Policy/Context Every year, millions of people in the EU fall victim to crime. The Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (the ‘Victims’ Standing Decision’) was adopted with the aim of securing minimum rights for victims of crime. The Lisbon Treaty marked a milestone in the development of victims’ rights in the EU as it created an enhanced competence for the EU to intervene in matters related to justice and home affairs. Article 82 of the Treaty sets out an explicit legal basis for setting minimum standards on the rights of both individuals in criminal proceedings and victims of crime.

An impact assessment accompanying the proposal to the Victims’ Rights Directive was conducted in 2011. The impact assessment assessed the quality of treatment that victims received after a crime and during criminal proceedings. It also assessed their right to receive a minimum standard of treatment in all EU Member States regardless of their nationality or place of residence. The impact assessment identified a general lack of attention to victims as one of the main issues. Despite the growing awareness of victims needs in general from national policy makers, the lack of knowledge about their specific needs explains the absence of sufficient consideration given to victims. The absence of enforcement rules was also identified as contributing to the system’s shortcomings. Victims’ rights were found to be generally not enforceable. While all Member States had domestic legal provisions in place, the extent to which those would result in meeting victims’ needs and safeguarding their interests varied from one jurisdiction to another. Without further action from the EU, the likelihood of victims’ situations improving were considered minimum. In 2020, to continue improving the rights of victims of crime across the EU, the Commission adopted the first EU Strategy on victims’ rights (2020-2025). The Strategy is based on a two-strand approach: empowering victims of crime and working together for victims’ rights. The key priorities related to empowering victims of crime reflect the findings reported above and include: (i) effective communication with victims and a safe environment for victims to report crime; (ii) improving support and protection to the most vulnerable victims; (iii) facilitating victims’ access to compensation. The key priorities aimed at working together on victims’ rights are: (i) strengthening cooperation and coordination among all relevant actors; and (ii) strengthening the international dimension of victims’ rights. In addition to the EU Strategy on victims’ rights, the Commission and the Member States will continue working on the implementation of numerous strategies and initiatives that are relevant for victims’ rights. These include the Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025, the Strategy on the rights of the child, the Strategy on European judicial training, the LGBTI+ Equality Strategy, the EU Anti-racism Action Plan 2020-2025, the EU updated framework for Roma equality, inclusion and participation, the Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030, the Security Union Strategy, the strategic approach towards the eradication of trafficking in human beings and the Strategy for a more effective fight against child sexual abuse. Finally, the approach to victims’ rights supports a number of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). In particular, this is SDG 10, target 10.3, which aims to ensure equal opportunities and reduce outcome inequalities, by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action on victims’ rights. SDG 16, target 16.3 is also relevant: to promote the rule of law nationally and internationally and ensure equal access to justice for all. 2.2 Evaluation logic and objectives of the Directive This subsection describes the logic of the Directive: its objectives, all necessary inputs and actions, as well as the outcomes and impacts that should be achieved, and how all these aspects are linked to each other. The logic used for this evaluation is summed up in the figure below, showing the needs addressed. The Directive entered into force in November 2012. The Directive’s general objective is to strengthen victims’ rights in the EU, by ensuring that all victims of crime receive appropriate information, support and protection and can participate in criminal proceedings. According to the Directive, victims’ needs should be dealt with in an individual manner, based on an individual assessment and a targeted and participatory approach towards the provision of information, support, protection and procedural rights. Specific attention is given to special support and protection for victims of certain crimes, due to the high risk of secondary and repeat victimisation as well as of intimidation and retaliation. The Directive also puts forward a child sensitive approach, whereby the best interests of a child victim must be the primary consideration throughout their involvement in criminal proceedings. Victims’ needs can be put into five categories: 1. the need to be recognised and treated with respect and dignity; 2the need to be protected; 3the need to be supported; 4the need to access justice; and 5the need for compensation and restoration. 2.3 Points of comparison During the baseline period for the study carried out to support the evaluation of the Directive, the Victims’ Standing Decision was in place. Its provisions were taken as points of comparison for the Directive, as detailed below. The broad scope of the Victims’ Standing Decision resulted in Member States reforming large parts of their criminal procedure codes and adopting soft law tools, to lay the foundations for the adoption of the Victims’ Rights Directive. However, there was still room for improvement. Several victims’ rights were already enshrined in the Victims’ Standing Decision. These are: the right to respect and recognition, the right to information, the right to have access to support services, the right to have access to justice, and rights to protection. However, the reports on the Decision’s implementation have identified numerous shortcomings and concluded that EU legislation has not been effective in achieving minimum standards for victims across the EU.

For instance, the reports show that the practical implementation of the right to information (Article 4 of the Victims’ Standing Decision) was fragmented throughout the EU, with an obligation for police officers, prosecutors and judges to inform victims of most of their rights in some Member States, while in other jurisdictions, the same pre-trial information was limited to the right to compensation. Another weakness, impinging on the provision of information for victims, was that the Victims’ Standing Decision merely obliged Member States to communicate the information to victims ‘as far as possible in languages commonly understood’. As a result, some Member States had information available in several languages, including English, but with no guarantee that the victim would understand the information. Other Member States, however, had an obligation to give victims information in a language they would understand. On the right to protection, previous research has concluded that protection tools in Member States, partly stemming from the implementation of the Victims’ Standing Decision are, overall, inadequate. Victims reported that negative reactions from direct and indirect social surroundings (including the media) were a major cause of psychological distress after victimisation, equaling this to secondary victimisation. The baseline situation that the Victims’ Rights Directive is compared to is therefore one in which a legal framework was in place, but had a number of shortcomings. The Framework Decision has, however, never been comprehensively evaluated in line with the Better Regulation guidelines, but was primarily assessed with respect to transposition requirements. Building on the Victims’ Standing Decision, the Victims’ Rights Directive has introduced many new concepts and provisions aimed at strengthening victims’ rights. The Victims’ Standing Decision had already set down a right to information and protection, as well as a right to specific assistance for victims and measures to facilitate access to justice. The Victims’ Rights Directive has expanded and strengthened victims’ right and Member States’ obligations in order to make the respectful treatment of victims and access to their rights a priority. 3. How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? Current state of play EU Member States had to transpose the Directive into their national legal systems by 16 November 2015. In January 2016, the Commission launched infringement proceedings against 16 Member States that had not communicated their transposition measures by that date. As of the date of publication of the Commission’s report on the implementation of the Victims’ Rights Directive, most Member States had not completely transposed the Directive. Due to the progress made since the adoption of the Report, the Commission has progressively closed almost all infringement proceedings for incomplete transposition of the Directive. Nonetheless, a key issue that emerges from the analysis of the report on the implementation of the Victims’ Rights Directive is the interpretation of certain terms and the lack of sufficiently clear criteria for minimum standards. Although clearly defined in the Directive, the definitions of ‘victim’ and ‘family member’ have been interpreted differently in a number of Member States. This can impinge on certain rights of a victim. For example, Member States may use the possibility offered by the Victims’ Rights Directive to limit the number of family members to discriminate against certain victims/relatives (e.g. same-sex partners). The Directive gives Member States a level of discretion to define their minimum standards. This results in very different interpretations of what constitutes ‘quality’ information, support and access across Member States. The evaluation study highlighted the lack of criteria as an issue for Articles 3 (understand and be understood), 4 (receive information), 8 (access to support services) and 9 (victim support services). Victims of crime’s access to qualified professionals was also identified as problematic. This is particularly relevant for professionals in support services and professional translators and interpreters. There is a lack of professional translators and interpreters, especially in instances where the requirement to have professional interpreters has not been made mandatory (Article 5). Analysis shows that even in cases of complete transposition, access to certain rights – interpretation and translation (Article 7) and the rights of victims residing in another Member State (Article 17) – is hampered by practical difficulties. The evaluation found that financial issues had a particular impact on access to adequate support services (Article 8) and the right to legal aid (Article 13). According to the Vociare report, the infrastructure of courts has often hampered the ability to guarantee the right to avoid contact between victims and offenders (Article 19) and the rights of victims with specific protection needs during criminal proceedings (Article 23). A cross-cutting issue that impacted the ability to guarantee a majority of rights, is the training of practitioners who work with victims of crime. This seems to be particularly relevant for Articles 6 (receive information about a case), 10 (right to be heard) and 22 (individual assessment). Evidence from the evaluation study shows that practitioners were often found to lack the sensitivity, skills and knowledge required to do so. In some cases, crime victims have to search for the information they need themselves, as they cannot rely on practitioners to inform them. The Victims’ Rights Directive imposed different obligations on the different types of competent authorities. This affected the extent to which the Directive’s provisions on training were implemented. 4. Evaluation findings (analytical part) 4.1. To what extent was the intervention successful and why? 4.1.1 Effective application of the Directive Summary findings – effectiveness: This section presents the findings on the effective application of the core provisions of the Directive. They are grouped as follows: victims’ right to access information, victims’ right to access support services, victims’ right to access justice and victims’ right to protection. The analysis includes cross-references when an element applies to several rights or provisions.

Victims’ right to information The Directive sets out broad provisions on the right to access information. It includes a right to understand and to be understood (Article 3), a right to information about victims’ rights (Article 4), a right to be informed when making a complaint and about the case (Articles 5 and 6) and a right to interpretation and translation (Article 7). The Directive significantly strengthens the right to information compared to the Victims’ Standing Decision. On the one hand, the evaluation study identified several improvements in the implementation of the right to information. These improvements could be partially attributed to the adoption of the Victims’ Rights Directive. For instance, Member States’ obligation to ensure that victims are well informed contributes to the standardisation of the existing systems of information provision. On the content of information, the study also identified progress made as a result of the Directive. The Directive prompted Member States to create information tailored to specific groups of victims. Some good practices were also identified in the provision of information to victims in additional languages. On the other hand, a number of factors still undermine the effective implementation of the right to information. Some of the main difficulties are related to the overall lack of awareness of competent authorities of certain victims’ rights. Victims also suffer as a result of a lack of knowledge about where they can find information on their rights. For instance, evidence from the evaluation study shows that neither the authorities nor the victims are aware of victims’ right to lodge a criminal complaint and the right to receive an acknowledgment of the complaint. Another problem is the fragmented provision of information in certain Member States. Some Member States have consolidated the information on a single website, but others have several information channels. This can be confusing for victims and result in incomplete access to information. The fact that the provision of information continues to depend on the reporting of the crime also obstructs victims’ access to information. Evidence from the evaluation study shows that not all crime victims report the crimes due to fear of deportation or prosecution. Other factors limiting access to information are online literacy and proximity to services. Some stakeholders pointed out that information was often not provided in a timely manner – namely at the first contact with the competent authorities. These are the cases where the first authorities victims contacted referred them to another service provider. This means that victims are not provided with the information they need upon their first contact with the authorities. Another problem is that even if information is provided at the first contact, there is no follow-up. Authorities often provide a sheet of information which victims must sign to confirm they have received it, and this is considered sufficient for respecting their right to information. The evaluation study also found that there is still significant room for improvement in the provision of information about victims’ cases. Evidence from the evaluation study shows that there are different reasons why victims do not receive information about their case. This can be because victims’ contact details are missing or incorrect, or because there is a lack of procedures or mechanisms (e.g. checklist or protocols) to provide information. With regard to the content of the information provided, the main challenge is the lack of adaptation of the information according to the victims’ needs and the use of a standardised information. The evaluation study found that in most Member States, competent authorities do not use language tailored to the victim. This is because there are no formal procedures for authorities to assess victims’ communication needs. Another difficulty, related to linguistic assistance is the lack of available interpreters and their lack of sensitivity towards victims’ needs and vulnerabilities. In particular, evidence from the study shows that there are limited capacities and funding in several Member States for remunerating interpreters and translators. This may result in the same interpreter’s being assigned to both the victim and the offender, a situation with the potential to undermine the translator’s impartiality. Lack of training for translators and interpreters on victims’ needs also affects the provision of linguistic assistance. Another shortcoming, identified by several stakeholders, is that the information is often incomplete. The VOCIARE survey from 2019 shows that only 20% of victims receive complete information, whilst 38% receive most information and 26% receive partial information. A small percentage of victims receive little information (14%) or none at all (2%) . The evaluation study identified several reasons for this, such as the lack of cooperation between the different authorities or the lack of a secure tool for exchanging information about individual situations. Several stakeholders also expressed concerns that the information provided to victims at their very first contact with the authorities was very extensive, with the result that victims were often unable to process the information. Victims’ access to support services The purpose of Articles 8 and 9 of the Directive is to ensure that victims have access to general and specialist support services in accordance with their needs. The services must be confidential, free of charge and act in the interest of victims before, during and for an appropriate time after criminal proceedings. Family members have access to support services in accordance with their needs and the degree of harm suffered. The right to specific assistance for victims was included in the Victims’ Standing Decision, but the Victims’ Rights Directive went further by introducing an obligation on Member States to ensure that victims have access to free and confidential support services in accordance with their needs. Article 9 of the Directive lists the minimum services that victim support services must provide. These include: information on specialist support services; emotional and psychological support; advice on financial and practical issues; advice on the risk and prevention of secondary and repeat victimisation, intimidation and retaliation. The evaluation study shows that the Directive in general has had a positive impact on the development and improvement of victims’ support services, and that it has helped to ensure that victims and their family members have access to support. Indeed, both the number of general and specialised support services increased across the EU in the evaluation period. However, there are still difficulties with the establishment of timely and comprehensive support services. This problem results partly from differences in the interpretation of the terms used in the Directive. In particular, stakeholders consider that ‘access to support services’ and ‘sufficient geographical coverage’ are not sufficiently clear. This results in differing distribution of support services in the Member States. Yet another difficulty is that in some Member States, victims’ support services are located mostly in urban areas. As a consequence, rural areas are deprived of these services. This leaves certain victims, such as elderly people or victims with disabilities, who often do not have the means to travel long distances, at a disadvantage. From the effectiveness point of view, the evaluation study found that the Directive had improved the accessibility of victim support services. This includes in particular the availability of 24-hour victim support services as well as the establishment of crime reporting methods tailored to victims’ needs. For instance, identified good practices include the availability of online reporting or the establishment of helplines and ‘help chats’. The Directive has also improved victims’ access to support services by introducing the requirement to facilitate the referral of victims (Article 8). A few stakeholders underlined the overall improvement in referral systems due to increased cooperation between victim support organisations and law enforcement authorities. An example of good practice is the introduction of a duty for prosecutors to refer victims of domestic violence to support servicesin a Member State. However, other stakeholders noted that the referral of victims was not conducted systematically, as there is not a clear obligation for law enforcement authorities to refer victims to support services. With regard to the quality of support services, the Directive envisages that a service should be reliable and respond to individual victims’ needs in a respectful, professional and non-discriminatory manner (Recital 63). Evidence from the evaluation study shows that the lack of more specific quality standards in the Directive has a negative impact on the quality of the services provided. As a result, services vary greatly, not only across Member States, but also within the same Member State. Nonetheless, the study identified a series of good practices across different Member States. One example is the ‘Barnahus’ model, a child-friendly, interdisciplinary and multi-agency centre for child victims and witnesses, where an interdisciplinary team of experts cooperates to decide on the most appropriate support for the children. Finally, the evaluation study highlighted cross-cutting issues that affect victims’ access to support services. The Directive states that services should be free of charge, but victims of crime still face difficulties with costs, such as travelling to the location of the services or charges for interpretation and translation. Some Member States also impose a series of administrative requirements. These may discourage victims. For example, service providers may require extensive information about or evidence of the crime before providing support. Furthermore, certain services are only available at specific times which may not correspond to the victims’ most immediate need.

Victims’ access to justice Several provisions of the Directive refer to the role of victims in the criminal justice system. Article 10 aims to ensure that all victims have an opportunity to provide information, views or evidence throughout criminal proceedings. Article 11 lays down victims’ rights in the event of a decision not to prosecute. Article 13 sets out the right to legal aid. Article 14 stipulates the right to reimbursement of expenses (e.g. travel expenses and loss of earnings) by Member States, so that victims are not prevented from actively participating in criminal proceedings by financial limitations. Article 15 states that when property has been seized but is no longer needed for criminal proceedings, it must be returned to victims without delay. According to Article 16, victims have the right to obtain decision on compensation from the offender in the course of criminal proceedings. Article 17 sets out the rights of victims resident in another Member State. Most of these are already in the Victims’ Standing Decision. In addition, the Victims’ Rights Directive introduced new rules in the event of a decision not to prosecute (Article 11). On effectiveness, the evaluation study shows that the Directive has, overall, had a positive impact on victims’ access to justice. In this context, it must be pointed out that the procedural aspects of the rights related to access to justice are regulated by national law. Thus, the implementation of these rights varies significantly from one Member State to another. This makes the assessment of their effectiveness difficult. On the right to be heard (Article 10), the study identified a few similar good practices in several Member States. One example is the introduction of a victim impact assessment which allows victims to reflect on the evidence and make a statement, as well as seek to influence the sentencing. Stakeholders also feel that the right to be heard was better enforced for victims in cross-border situations, with the help of translation and interpretation services. Nonetheless, the evaluation study identified common challenges that negatively affect the effective implementation of Article 10. They are related to judicial authorities’ lack of sensitivity towards victims or the use of extremely legal and complex language. On victims’ rights in the event of a decision not to prosecute (Article 11), practical challenges are related to the introduction of deadlines for filling the request to review in some Member States, especially if these deadlines are too short. On the other hand, research shows that, as good practice, one Member State introduced a partnership between courts and victim support services to help victims understand the reasons behind a decision not to prosecute. There are some examples of good practices for victims’ right to legal aid (Article 13) and the right to the reimbursement of expenses (Article 14). One Member State introduced free or partly funded legal representation for particularly vulnerable victims (including children). Similarly, in another Member State victims who are considered particularly vulnerable (e.g. victims of domestic violence, human trafficking, sexual coercion and rape) are exempt from the costs of proceedings. Nonetheless, evidence from the evaluation study shows that victims’ right to legal aid and to reimbursement of expenses are hindered in practice by different obstacles such as the significant delays between the request for legal aid and a final decision on the matter. Also, in several Member States, legal assistance depends on the circumstances of the crime, or on the victim’s economic circumstances. This limits access to legal aid to victims of a certain type of crime or to victims whose income per capita or household does not exceed a certain level of income. In cases where the economic criterion is applied, the victim must demonstrate that they are in a situation of economic difficulty in order to benefit from the right to legal aid. However, the evaluation found that even when legal aid is ensured, there is a lack of qualified lawyers who are able to provide it. The study also shows that there are numerous factors obstructing the return of seized property (Article 15). In particular, enforcing this right is affected by the difficulties of establishing ownership; the deadlines for claiming the return of the properties; the authorities’ lack of sensitivity in returning property; systematic delays in returning property since its return is linked to the end of criminal proceedings in many Member States. With regard to the right to a decision on compensation from the offender in the course of criminal proceedings (Article 16), stakeholders highlighted several obstacles, such as cumbersome and lengthy procedures, as well as a general lack of awareness of this right. This is because victims often have to go through two sets of proceedings to receive both criminal and civil compensation. Stakeholders also identified administrative burdens as one of the main issues competent authorities face in giving victims access to justice. Limited awareness of victims’ rights was also identified as the main obstacle to victims’ having recourse to justice. Other obstacles identified are related to the lack of specific procedures for vulnerable victims in several Member States. For instance, victims with disabilities, or children, are not always provided with procedural support they need to be able to participate in hearings. On cross-border cases, the evaluation study highlighted the lack of information on the existing cooperation mechanisms between Member States, the lack of efficient coordination and cooperation among Member States, and the lack of financial resources and/or necessary means to guarantee effective cross-border criminal proceedings. For instance, some Member States do not use video-hearing tools due to a lack of resources, or because they lack the legal framework for using them . The lack of collaborative platforms among Member States, as well as the lack of sufficient resources, hinder referral, effective cross-border criminal proceedings and, generally speaking, support for cross-border victims of crime. On digitalisation, stakeholder consultations identified significant room for improvement. On the one hand, victims’ access to justice has improved, partially due to the digitalisation of justice, for instance through the introduction of online procedures. On the other hand, several stakeholders reported that access to justice had not improved for all crime victims, in particular vulnerable victims. Right to protection In addition to the rights in the Victims’ Standing Decision, the Directive introduced a series of rights aimed at extending and strengthening the protection of victims and the recognition of their specific protection needs (Articles 18-24). These rights include the right to protection during criminal investigations (Articles 18 and 20), the right to avoid contact between the victim and the offender (Article 19), and the right to individual assessment of victims to identify specific protection needs (Article 22). The general assessment is that the Directive has significantly extended and strengthened victims’ right to receive protection.

Nonetheless, the evaluation found that there are still difficulties limiting the effective implementation of this right. Article 18 requires Member States to ensure that a wide range of protection measures are in place to protect victims and their family members from secondary and repeat victimisation, intimidation and retaliation. It also requires Member States to protect victims and their family members from physical, emotional or psychological harm. Different measures are in place across Member States to address this provision, such as a legal obligation to keep the number of victims’ interviews and medical examinations to a minimum, to conduct interviews without delay and to allow victims to be accompanied by a person of their choice during criminal proceedings. Other good practices include the recording of witness statements to avoid multiple testimonies, interrogations of vulnerable victims being conducted by professionals of the same sex, the introduction of electronic surveillance of offenders, and other restrictive measures against the offender. Another good practice is the introduction of an accelerated procedure to issue a protection measure when there is an imminent threat for a victim. However, 11 out of 20 of the victim support and NGOs surveyed as part of the evaluation study still consider that the Directive is not effectively ensuring that victims’ right to protection. On the availability of different entries and waiting areas for victims and offenders (Article 19), stakeholders reported that the main problem for victims is the lack of measures to avoid contact with the offender, e.g. through IT solutions or separate physical areas. At the same time, some good practices were identified in this area, including the introduction of technological tools, such as videoconferencing, to avoid contact between the two parties on court premises, and the establishment of child-friendly rooms in various courts, or a Barnahus. On the right to privacy (Article 21), stakeholders reported improvements, such as the possibility for victims’ cases to be heard without any public being present or an extension of the prohibition to take pictures of the victim outside the courtroom. However, the evaluation study also found that certain difficulties persist in this area. For instance, in a few Member States, privacy protection measures are only in place for victims of certain types of crimes, such as victims of sexual abuse or child victims. One of the Directive’s most significant achievements is the right to an individual needs assessment (Article 22). Its purpose is to determine whether a victim is in any way particularly vulnerable to secondary and repeat victimisation, to intimidation and/or to retaliation, and to protect them according to their individual needs. In addition to some implementation issues, highlighted in the evaluation study, stakeholders reported that the quality of the individual assessments could often be hampered by practical factors. These are the lack of specific guidelines, protocols and practical procedures for conducting the assessments or the lack of awareness among practitioners of the importance of the assessments and what they should consist of. Stakeholders also identified as a major flaw the lack of training of the authorities who perform the individual assessment. Furthermore, the extent to which the different stakeholders who come into contact with victims – support services, police and judicial authorities – cooperate with each other varies across Member States. There is therefore no assurance that the individual assessment is conducted consistently and effectively where cooperation is not well established. The evaluation study also highlighted that in certain cases, the lack of a secure tool for exchanging information between competent authorities prevents the effective implementation of the individual assessment when more than one authority is involved in it. Victims’ specific needs can be protected only if there is an adequate individual assessment. Therefore, the challenges related to the implementation of the right to an individual needs assessment have a negative impact on the implementation of protective measures across Member States. However, the evaluation study did identify some good practices by conducting a case study of individual assessments. These good practices relate to the development of a practical questionnaire to facilitate the individual assessment of victims and make it possible to identify specific protection needs. Other examples are a follow-up meeting with victims to avoid repeat victimisation, or the use of online tools to help professionals assess risks in cases of domestic violence. Provision of training On effectiveness, the evaluation study found that there has been an improvement in the provision of training for practitioners by Member States (Article 25). Nonetheless, shortcomings were identified in terms of the type, content and level of training, as well as in relation to categories of stakeholders receiving training. This is particularly true for judicial authorities and other relevant practitioners (e.g. victim support organisations). Evidence from the evaluation study shows that while training is available across Member States for professionals who are in contact with victims of crime at different stages, the level of training provided varies. There is also still room for improvement with regard to the quantity of trained professionals and the quality of training. On the quantity of training, the evaluation study found that there is no systematic approach to training and that there is a low level of attendance. On the quality of training, it was reported that it is mostly generic victim support training or training on specific victims, not a combination of both. Stakeholders highlighted that, in addition to generic victims’ rights training, there should be training on dealing with specific categories of victims. At the same time, national authorities overall disagreed with making training mandatory, preferring guidance on how to prepare training courses and the dissemination of resources and good practices through manuals and networks. As an example of good practice, stakeholders identified the ‘Enhancing hate crime victim support’ (EStAR) project. The project provides guidance on how to deliver training and workshops in which national authorities can discuss what works and what does not. On training for different authorities, it seems that the Directive has led to significant improvements in law enforcement training, resulting in high numbers of trained law enforcement officials. However, the evaluation study found that there is still room for improvement, in particular for the judiciary and other relevant stakeholders (e.g. victim support organisations). Some concerns were also raised about the overall lack of incentives to attend training, or follow training content. In terms of training content, stakeholders argued that more attention should be paid to topics such as recognising one’s own bias, empathetic communication or active listening. Stakeholders believe this would help to build trust in the police and could lead to an increase in the number of victims who report a crime to the authorities or who request support. The evaluation found that training for the judiciary on victims’ rights is available in most Member States. However, the level of attendance seems to be lower in comparison to the attendance level of other stakeholder categories in some Member States. The quality of training was also sometimes found to be insufficient to meet victims’ needs. For instance, training for judges, more focused on formal aspects, does not include soft skills training (e.g. communication skills). Stakeholders agreed that more training on victims’ rights, of a higher quality, should be made available, and a system put in place, with incentives for professionals to take part in training introduced to yield higher attendance rates in this group. The study also found that victim support organisations received insufficient national-level training. In most Member States training for lawyers is provided, but training for victim support organisations is organised mostly by NGOs. Most stakeholders argued that training at national level should be extended to victim support organisations. Stakeholders also pointed out that interdisciplinary training could improve coordination among different authorities. Ideally, this should include civil society representatives and community leaders, so that the training is comprehensive and enables an exchange of views on the interlinked needs of victims. 4.1.2 Efficiency

Summary findings – efficiency There is no conclusive evidence on the exact costs of achieving the results of the Directive. A lack of quantifiable data from Member States makes it difficult to carry out a detailed assessment of the Directive’s regulatory burden. This section looks at how cost-effective the implementation of the Directive has been cost-effective. It aims to provide, to the extent possible, an overview of the costs incurred as a result of, and the benefits of, implementing the Directive. It also looks at the extent to which the benefits of having and implementing the Directive justify the costs. In addition, it seeks to identify whether there are areas where cost savings could be made (see also Annex IV). Costs and benefits linked to the implementation of the Directive The impact assessment accompanying the Directive estimated that its implementation would require between EUR 358 million and around EUR 1.4 billion, with almost all costs falling to public administrations. These costs have been broken down into five categories: (1) training costs (expected to range from EUR 4.61 million to EUR 17.28 million); (2) the costs of establishing, supporting and/or enhancing existing victim support services (estimated to be less than EUR 24 million to EUR 27 million); (3) restorative justice services (estimated to range from EUR 0 to EUR 878 million); (4) interpretation and translation costs (expected to be less than EUR 89.29 million to EUR 205.49 million); (5) and the costs of attending trials (estimated to range from EUR 240 million to EUR 242.9 million). The extent to which costs have been incurred to implement the Directive in individual Member States largely depends on the situation in each Member State before the Directive was adopted. National laws and practices differ to a varying degree, requiring different levels of effort to meet the Directive’s requirements. It was not possible to obtain a breakdown of costs in individual Member States and across the EU overall. Nonetheless, the Directive introduced obligations that were expected to have significant cost implications, such as the requirement to provide translation services for victims, the additional resources needed to carry out individual assessments, and the costs of capacity building. In addition, it is not possible to ascertain if Member States had made additional financial resources available to help with the implementation of the Directive. On benefits, the impact assessment had assumed that meeting the victim’s needs throughout the whole criminal proceedings would, in terms of benefits, considerably mitigate the costs of victimisation and considerably reduce the total costs of crime. Lack of data means it is impossible to ascertain whether such savings actually occurred. The collection of data on the number and types of crimes reported and the number of victims supported is included in the Directive’s monitoring provisions. Article 28 of the Directive states: ‘Member states shall, by 16 November 2017 and every three years thereafter, communicate to the Commission available data showing how victims have accessed the rights set out in this Directive’. Recital 64 specifies what type of statistical data should be provided, including at least the number and type of crimes reported and, if known and available, the number of victims. Some of the difficulties encountered by Member States in collecting, monitoring and reporting data can be related to the multitude of national (and regional) authorities involved in implementing the Directive’s provisions for the different types of crimes. These difficulties concern the number and types of crimes, the number of victims and the overall budget allocated to the Directive’s implementation. The overall structural organisation of victim protection and support systems varies across the Member States and is also fragmented within most Member States. In most Member States, responsibility for victim protection and support services lies with several ministries. This fragmentation within individual Member States and the diversity of models in place across the EU often make gathering comprehensive data on the costs and benefits of implementing the Directive in individual Member States, and in the EU in general, more difficult. Possible cost savings The Directive introduced a set of obligations for Member States that entail costs for their implementation. One would therefore expect an increase in Member States’ budgets for victim protection and other activities related to the implementation of the Directive. Some Member States already had a victim protection framework in place in line with the Directive’s provisions, while others had to set up new or additional structures and services. The analysis of the Directive’s effectiveness has highlighted many problems with implementation, many of them related to a lack of financial and human resources. Training for professionals involved in protecting victims, translation and interpretation services for victims, access to compensation systems and the provision of long-term support services emerge as the most problematic areas. These findings seem to point to generalised under-funding of the victim protection system, at least from public budgets. Other sources of funding seem to be scarce and used sporadically. The stakeholders consulted reported that the budget allocated to the protection and support of victims of crimes has either remained stable or somewhat increased since the Directive entered into force. In most Member States, the entire victim protection and support system relies heavily on public funding. Resource availability for and allocation to the support and protection of victims of crime therefore depends on the economic situation within individual Member States and in the EU in general. The general fragmentation of competencies across national competent authorities has led to a variety of budget streams in most Member States. This can lead to inefficiencies and the ineffective application of victim protection measures, such as unsystematic individual needs’ assessments and disparities in access to services across national territories. Addressing these inefficiencies is not likely to solve the problem of a lack of resources for victim protection. 4.1.3 Coherence Summary findings – coherence The Directive is overall internally coherent. The evaluation also finds that it is mostly coherent with other EU level relevant interventions. Internal coherence

The evaluation study finds that the provisions of the Directive are generally internally coherent and operate well together to achieve its objectives. The different measures and obligations in the Directive fit well together, with minimum rules corresponding to and addressing victims’ different needs. For them to work, Directives must be transposed into national law. Given this, the evaluation also examined the degree of consistency in the way that Member States have implemented the Directive. Many provisions are being interpreted and applied in different ways across Member States, partly because the Directive only sets minimum rules. However, the different approaches do not seem to be inconsistent or incoherent with each other. The evaluation did not identify any inconsistencies in the implementation of the Directive at national level. Overall, the different provisions of the Directive fit well together. Nevertheless, the definitions in the Directive tend to limit its full coherence. For instance, despite the broad definition of ‘victim’, certain articles depend on the role of the victim. This limits the rights of some victims. Recital 20 of the Directive acknowledges that Member States have a diversity of traditions, practices and legal systems setting out victims’ rights in criminal proceedings, and specifies that Member States are to determine the scope of any rights set out in the Directive where there are references to the role of the victim in criminal proceedings. For example, in Member States that recognise victims as parties to proceedings, victims may be able to receive information on criminal proceedings. Conversely, in Member States that do not recognise victims as parties to proceedings, this right may be restricted in accordance with Article 6(2) of the Directive. A few stakeholders consider some formulations of the Directive to be too vague and therefore a barrier to the Directive’s full coherence. For example, the Directive requires non-discriminatory access to rights, but leaves it to Member States to ensure this. Some vague provisions were also identified on the right to information, the right to access support services and the right to protection. On the right to information, the definition of ‘simple and accessible’ information was found to be a stumbling block for many Member States. Notably, the provisions on victims’ information rights are not tailored to children, who have different needs to adults. On the right to access support services, it is not clear what the minimum standards of support are for victim support services. Stakeholders said there was scope for more involvement of support services, such as enabling NGOs to accompany or represent victims throughout criminal proceedings. On the right to protection, there is a strong emphasis on protection measures during criminal proceedings, the role of support services in enhancing protection and the implementation of this right is not reflected in the Directive. Coherence and complementarity with other policy interventions Coherence with Member State legislative frameworks There are no major inconsistencies between the Directive and national legislative frameworks, but there is some room for improvement in some national interpretations of its provisions. Most national stakeholders consulted confirmed that there were no inconsistencies between Member State legislative frameworks and the Directive. However, there is still room for improvement in the national interpretation of the Directive since it does not always ensure adequate assistance for and protection of victims. Victim support organisations suggested that further coherence at national level could be achieved by further explaining certain concepts, for example what is meant by ‘access to support services’ (e.g. what qualifies as a ‘support service’), and legal provisions on what is considered sufficient information. Coherence with relevant EU level interventions The evaluation found that the Directive is highly coherent with, and complementary to, relevant EU policy interventions. No major inconsistencies or overlaps were identified. Rather, areas for potential further synergies were identified. The evaluation showed that there is a certain degree of coherence and complementarity between the Directive and the EU instruments dedicated to specific categories of victims. Stakeholders consider the Directive to be consistent with relevant EU policies, but some suggested that there should be more cross-referencing of legal texts. The Counter-terrorism Directive is fully coherent with the Directive. This was confirmed by stakeholders working with victims of terrorism. The Counter-terrorism Directive uses the definition of victims given in Article 2 of the Directive. In addition, Article 24(7) of the Counter-terrorism Directive also specifies that ‘this Directive shall apply in addition, and without prejudice, to measures laid down in Directive 2012/29/EU’. It complements what is set out in the Directive by responding more directly to the specific needs of victims of terrorism. It sets out further measures beyond the scope of the Directive, such as assistance and support for victims of terrorism in accordance with their specific needs. For example, it requires a comprehensive response to their specific needs immediately after a terrorist attack and for as long as necessary, building on the obligations in the Victims’ Rights Directive. This complementary approach is fully in line with the Directive, the objective of which is to set minimum standards for victims of crime, which can then be supplemented by additional and tailored (legislative) measures. On cooperation between Member States in cross-border cases, both the Victims’ Rights and the Counter-terrorism Directives have room for improvement. A stakeholder highlighted that both Directives could take greater account of the specific circumstances of cross-border victims. The plight of cross-border victims of terrorism was also evident in the evaluation of the Counter-terrorism Directive. It showed that although cross-border victims of terrorism rely on swift and adequate cooperation between the Member States, there seem to be obstacles to this, such as the lack of a secure tool for exchanging information on individual situations, both in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack or during follow-up over a longer period. Overall, the Directive appears overall coherent with and complementary to the Anti-trafficking Directive. Articles 11 to 18 of the Anti-trafficking Directive contain provisions on victims’ rights, specifically victim support and assistance, which are in line with the Directive. The Directive was adopted after the Anti-trafficking Directive, so several of the Anti-trafficking Directive’s provisions form the basis for the Directive. Some provisions of the Anti-trafficking Directive are also more protective than the Directive due to the specific nature and context of human trafficking. The Victims’ Rights Directive appears to be coherent with and complementary to the Child Sexual Abuse Directive, also adopted before the Directive. The Child Sexual Abuse Directive provides additional guarantees for child victims of sexual abuse which are not enshrined in the Directive. For example, Member State authorities shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a child is provided with assistance and support as soon as they believe the child might have been subjected to the offences the Directive covers. In addition, assistance and support for a child victim should not be made conditional on the child victim’s willingness to cooperate in the criminal investigation, prosecution or trial. Prior to the proposal for a Directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence that was presented by the Commission on 8 March 2022, the legal framework for gender-based violence (GBV) and domestic violence (DV) consisted of several instruments. The new proposal contains several provisions on victims’ rights, such as: the protection of victims of violence against women and domestic violence; access to justice and specialised support for such victims. The evaluation found that there is a good level of coherence between the Directive and the Combating Fraud Directive. The main developments of the Combating Fraud Directive include the assistance provided to victims and greater attention to computer-related fraud. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increase in cases of online fraud and phishing. The Combating Fraud Directive refers to the Directive in Recitals 33 and 34 on victims’ rights. Opportunities exist for the Directive to more extensively cover support and assistance provided to victims in line with the Combating Fraud Directive. Assistance to and support for victims is enshrined in Article 1 of the Combating Fraud Directive and detailed in Article 16, which states that fraud victims must receive information not only on the dedicated service providers, but also on preventive measures to protect themselves from the negative consequences of such crimes. Such preventative measures are not entailed in the Victims’ Rights Directive and neither is the provision of Article 16(2) which encourages Member States to have single national online information tools to facilitate access for assistance and support. The evaluation found that EU rules on state and offender compensation for victims are mostly coherent, with potential for closer alignment.

Overall, the evaluation found that the EU tools aimed at protecting victims of crime at EU level are coherent with and complementary to the Victims’ Rights Directive. Despite the intended complementarity, the application of protection orders in cross-border situations rarely functions as it should. A range of challenges have been identified including a lack of knowledge of the system amongst victims and practitioners, a lack of training and the diversity of measures between Member States. 4.2. How did the EU intervention make a difference? EU added value Summary findings – EU added value The Directive has generated added value beyond what could have been achieved unilaterally by Member States or internationally. It has also provided added value compared to the Framework Decision. The EU added value of the Directive is that it sets out binding rights for all victims of crime and imposes concrete obligations on Member States. It acts as a safety net for specific categories of victims for whom there is no specific legislation (lex specialis) in place. This harmonisation could not have been achieved by Member States alone. Instead, it was necessary for the EU to set such rules on the legal basis of Article 82(2) TFEU. It is unlikely that such harmonisation would have happened in the absence of the Directive; criminal law takes shape incrementally and often reflects national circumstances. Without EU intervention, it is highly unlikely that Member States would have taken a harmonised approach to developing their criminal law frameworks. Improvement in the situation of victims The Directive brought significant added value in the area of victims’ rights, expanding on the provisions of the Framework Decision, thereby prompting further action and investment. It introduced crucial new elements, such as the right to an individual assessment. A majority of stakeholders agreed that progress had been made on addressing victims’ rights and needs since the entry into force of the Directive. A minority of stakeholders believed that no significant improvements had been made, especially for some categories of victims. Some stakeholders said that their national legislative framework had been strong before the introduction of the Directive, but most agreed that the Directive had contributed to a certain extent to progress made since 2015. Stakeholders agreed that while the provisions of the Directive brought very significant added value across the different sets of rights for victims of crime, the fact that some provisions are not drafted in a mandatory or sufficiently specific way diminishes the Directive’s added value. For example, a lack of clarity on what constitutes ‘simple and accessible’ language means that in many Member States, information is still provided in legal language that is difficult for most victims of crime to understand. Added value compared to national interventions The Commission proposal for the Directive highlighted the need for a new Directive, building on the Framework Decision. In the explanatory memorandum, the proposal stated that the objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States alone, since the aim of the proposal is to build trust between Member States. It is therefore important to agree on common minimum standards that apply throughout the EU. There is also a major cross-border aspect of victimisation, with significant numbers of EU citizens living, working and travelling around the EU and falling victim to crime while abroad. People in such situations can find accessing their rights particularly difficult and criminal proceedings can impose an additional burden on them. Citizens should be able to rely on having access to a minimum level of rights across the EU. The evaluation study found that national situations varied widely when the Directive was introduced, with some Member States already having strong national legislation on victims’ rights prior to the Directive, while others recognised that this was not, and would not have been, a priority without impetus from the EU. Stakeholders’ views on the extent to which the same level of progress could have been achieved by individual Member States diverge. Several recognised that such progress would have been slower or patchier in their Member State without the Directive . None of the Member States had rules in place covering all provisions contained in the Directive before it came into force. On victim support services, in some Member States, relevant services and specialised agencies dealing with specific types of crime were already quite well developed prior to the Directive. Some Member States either had a historically stronger victim support service culture or had strong administrative structures and highly active NGOs and a sufficient legal framework in place that allowed them to provide a relatively high standard of victim protection. The evaluation study suggests that national legal frameworks focused mostly on the offender’s procedural rights, overlooked the specific needs of victims during criminal proceedings. In that respect, the Directive’s victim-centred approach is seen as innovative and of added value in better protecting and paying more attention to the place of victims in criminal proceedings.

Other Member States used the Directive to further boost services for victims. The introduction of the right to an individual assessment for all victims of crime is an innovation of the Directive. In Member States with limited pre-existing rules on victims’ rights, most national authorities recognised that progress would not have been made without the Directive. The Directive’s added value was most obvious in Member States where no legal framework covering all types of victims previously existed. Civil society organisations, notably those representing more vulnerable categories of victims, were supportive of the Directive as it had led to improvements in legislation in this area across the EU, which could not have been achieved by Member States alone. However, they noted that there were shortcomings, some of which are related to the Directive’s implementation, in particular the treatment of certain victims in practice.. Stakeholders generally agreed that the Directive’s added value was to lay the foundations of minimum standards on which to build further, be it either for Member States who lacked standards applicable to all victims of crime, or for certain types of victims who also benefit from more protective measures through other instruments. A stakeholder from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) pointed to the added value the Directive had as both a binding instrument and as a prompt for countries to adapt and rethink their national legislation, even countries outside the EU. 4.3. Is the intervention still relevant? Summary findings – relevance The evaluation’s findings show that both the scope of the Directive and the definitions it contains remain broadly fit for purpose. Nonetheless, issues related to its scope were identified, particularly with regard to crime coverage and the ability for certain victims to access the rights set out in the Directive. The evaluation found that the discretion left to national jurisdictions in assessing the definitions of ‘family member’, ‘dependant’ and ‘child’ limits their relevance. Challenges also exist with regard to the relevance of the provisions, related to respectful and non-discriminatory treatment of victims by competent authorities, as well as to the child-sensitive approach of the Directive. 4.3.1. Relevance of scope and definitions This subsection examines the relevance of the scope and definitions of the Victims’ Rights Directive. The evaluation’s findings show that both the Directive’s scope and its definitions remain broadly fit for purpose. Stakeholders agree that the Directive’s strength is its ‘all-encompassing’ nature. Nonetheless, issues related to its scope were identified, particularly with regard to crime coverage and the ability for certain victims to access the rights set out in the Directive. Reporting is crucial and constitutes a starting point for victims to be able to benefit from their rights. For various reasons, however, a large proportion of criminal offences are not reported by victims to authorities. These findings do not discredit the relevance of the Directive, but they do highlight the need to improve or facilitate the reporting of crime. The evaluation highlighted some challenges in identifying a crime which is important for victims in the process of accessing their rights. While some crimes are easier to identify and establish, some offences and damages are intangible and therefore difficult, if not impossible, to prove. This is particularly the case for crimes committed using new technologies, such as cybercrime and online harassment. Stakeholders reported that in such cases the relevance of the current provisions of the Directive can be questioned. New technologies also bring with them a higher risk of re-victimisation (harmful content online may be difficult to remove or may reappear). Stakeholders also encouraged consideration of how the Directive could better take into account victims for whom the harm done/crime is more difficult to prove and therefore to report. At the same time, the evaluation found some good practices. These could be adopted in law or elsewhere and are designed to improve evidence collection. They include giving victims information on, and raising their awareness of, how to preserve evidence, or best practice models of support. The broadness of the geographical scope of the Directive is positively seen by stakeholders. However, the evaluation found that as a general rule victims in cross-border situations are more vulnerable and have greater difficulty exercising their rights. For instance, complaints made to competent authorities outside the EU, such as embassies or consulates, do not trigger the fulfilment of the obligations set out in the Directive. In this context, there may be scope for extending certain rights, such as the right to information, the right to referral, and the right to have the report of the crime passed on to police authorities. Research also showed that cross-border victims are disadvantaged compared to national victims when seeking to enjoy victims’ rights. In this respect, additional measures to ensure equality of access to rights could be considered. Migrants and refugees are particularly vulnerable in this context. Illegally staying third country nationals are fearful of reporting crimes due to document checks. Asylum seekers must have their status recognised in order to access services. Some (good) practices are recommended in the case of migrants, such as the setting up of (i) specialised contact points for migrant workers, or (ii) a ‘firewall’ between immigration enforcement, child protection, other services and competent authorities. This last right concerning the ‘firewall’ was deemed to be especially important for all migrants, whether in work or undocumented. The Directive states that Member States may limit the number of family members who can benefit from victims’ rights and define priority of one family member over another. This is to avoid a situation in which the definition gives rise to disproportionate demands on criminal justice actors, since all the rights in the Directive apply to all family members of deceased victims and the rights to support and protection apply to family members of surviving victims. At the same time, this provision could also be used to discriminate against and prevent certain victims/relatives from benefiting from the Victims’ Rights Directive, such as same-sex partners, as seen in one Member State, or non-married partners as this is the case in another Member State. Another issue is related to the definition of family members that includes ‘dependents of the victim’. Stakeholders reported that children are not always considered ‘dependents’ when parenthood is not recognised in a household. The implementation of the definition of child victim also sometimes appears problematic. According to the Victims’ Rights Directive, a ‘child’ is ‘any person below 18 years of age’. However, the age to be considered a child/adult, for the purposes of accessing victims’ rights, differs across Member States. This may jeopardise access to enhanced rights and protection of children, including in cross-border situations. Stakeholders also indicated that the ‘clear-cut’ definition of ‘child’ in the Directive is not flexible enough as it does not allow for specific rights to be granted according to the particular needs of a person who is over 18 transitioning to adulthood. Recognising this transition as a vulnerability factor may be one way to address some of the issues. 4.3.2. Relevance of the provisions about the treatment of victims

This section examines the relevance of the provisions on victims’ recognition and their non-discriminatory treatment in a respectful, sensitive and tailored manner. The relevance of the Directive’s child-sensitive approach is also analysed. Compared to Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA, the Directive introduced many new concepts and provisions aimed at strengthening victims’ rights. Some of its major achievements are the obligation for the competent authorities of the Member States to carry out an individual assessment of victims’ protection needs and the obligation to ensure that victims have access to free and confidential support services. By introducing a wider range of rights for victims and calling for their proper recognition and treatment, the Directive remains highly relevant for supporting and protecting victims of crime. However, practical challenges in relation to the application of these minimum standards on recognition and treatment still remain. Part of the reason for this is the way certain provisions have been formulated. First, victims’ recognition remains problematic, mainly due to a certain legal vagueness of the Directive in this regard. In situations where victims do not report a crime (e.g. for fear of being returned to their country of origin or prosecution, or lack of awareness, etc.), they risk not being recognised as victims and as such, are unable to access their rights. Indeed, for some rights or within criminal proceedings, formal recognition may be needed, but in practice it is not necessary to report a crime in order to receive support. Victims also lack recognition in some Member States due to the absence of legislation that acknowledges victims of violent crime as parties to criminal proceedings. On the non-discriminatory treatment of victims in accordance with Article 1 of the Directive, research shows that there are still significant obstacles for victims in cross-border situations, as well as vulnerable victims, to actually enjoy their rights. Some of the main difficulties for cross-border victims are related to the lack of access to information about proceedings and information available in their language. Undocumented migrants are less likely to report a crime for fear of being returned if they seek help or report their mistreatment. Evidence from the evaluation study shows that information is not always available in a format suitable for victims with disabilities, such as sign language or Braille, or for children, who need more simplistic information. Explicit provisions on how discrimination and equality should be achieved could be an area for further reflection. According to the results from the evaluation study, the treatment of victims across Member States has improved since the entry into force of the Victims’ Rights Directive. However, stakeholders also pointed out that the language of the Directive is often vague, leaving too much leeway in the transposition of its provisions into national law and their practical implementation. This means that the Directive ultimately fails to ensure that victims are treated in a respectful, sensitive and tailored manner. Evidence from the evaluation study shows that problems victims encounter also relate to the lack of recognition as a victim by law enforcement authorities, and a general lack of commitment of the latter in investigations. It also appears that interviews are not always carried out in a respectful manner. Overall communication during trial with victims was often considered ‘insufficient, abstract and distant’. Also, although competent authorities shall assess and identify victims’ protection needs in accordance with Article 22 of the Victims’ Rights Directive, several victims highlighted the police’s initial reluctance to assess their risk of repeat victimisation. On the child-sensitive approach, there appears to be no consensus as to whether the Directive’s provisions are specific enough to ensure such an approach is achieved in practice. Stakeholders reported that the Victims’ Rights Directive has brought about important child-friendly changes across the Member States. Examples of such measures are: the possibility to use audio-visual recordings as evidence; access to psychological examination and support; accompaniment of child victims during criminal proceedings; the obligation for those interrogating child victims to have been trained; and the development of information for children using adapted means and language. On the other hand, a large majority of stakeholders consulted consider that the provisions in the Victims’ Rights Directive are not clear or specific enough to ensure a child-sensitive approach. It has been argued that the Directive provides guidance but lacks clear recommendations for implementation measures. These shortcomings seem compounded by the intersectionality of some child victims. For instance, evidence from the evaluation study shows that some child victims like – child victims of human trafficking, child victims with disabilities, child victims of gender-based violence – seem less likely to receive child-sensitive justice in certain Member States. Another issue is that in one Member State, children older than 15 do not have the same protection as other child victims, contrary to what it says in the Victims’ Rights Directive. An example of the wide divergence in ensuring the best interests of the child is that in some Member States, age, rather than maturity, seems to be the deciding factor for hearing a child victim. Finally, research shows that the Directive’s scope does not seem to be broad enough when it comes to child victims, as it does not take account of more recent forms of victimisation. For instance, the Directive is silent on digitally enabled offences such as online harassment. In particular, it does not set out specific measures even when such crimes are recognised nationally. Stakeholders’ consultations indicate that there is room for improvement in relation to the role that both the digital space and the use of communication technology could play The COVID-19 pandemic led to increasing digitalisation of criminal procedures. Digital participation in criminal proceedings can be beneficial, provided that the procedural safeguards for both parties are guaranteed and there is a sufficient personal/human dimension to the technological solutions. In particular, the use of digital tools should not always replace physical intervention, e.g. in the case of suspicions of domestic violence. 5. What are the conclusions and lessons learned? The overall objective of this Staff Working Document is to evaluate the Directive, using five evaluation criteria: effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, coherence and EU added value. The evaluation also assesses the Directive’s impact on fundamental rights (mainly by assessing its effectiveness and coherence). This section presents the main findings and lessons learned from the evaluation. 5.1. Conclusions On effectiveness, the evaluation shows that the Directive has had a generally positive impact on the right to information, on access to victim support services, access to justice, protection measures and the provision of professional training. That said, several shortcomings were identified. They are described in detail in the next section on lessons learned. On relevance, the evaluation study shows that the Directive in general remains relevant and adequate, with its scope and definitions considered fit for purpose. That said, several limitations potentially affecting its relevance have been identified. For instance, victims can only benefit from the rights the Directive grants from the moment they report a crime. They must also go through a process of formal recognition that limits their access to certain rights in some Member States. The Directive may also not adequately address the needs of victims of online crime or of crime enabled by new technology.

Another issue the Directive does not address is victims’ period of transition from childhood to adulthood. There are also concerns about the rights of victims being limited to their role in criminal proceedings in different Member States. Evidence also suggests that the Directive may have overlooked the practical challenges in ensuring non-discriminatory treatment of victims. On the Directive’s scope, evidence shows that there is room for improvement on the role of the digital space and use of common technologies. On efficiency, evidence shows that the aspects that are the most costly to implement have differed greatly from one Member State to another. This is due to the varied national laws and practices regarding victims’ rights. The same conclusion can be drawn on the availability of general resources and the costs associated with implementing specific provisions of the Directive. Certain limitations, such as the lack of complete monitoring and reporting by Member States, affected the assessment of the Directive’s efficiency. For instance, by the time this Staff Working Document was published, some Member States had provided the Commission with only partial data and statistics, as required by Article 28 of the Victims’ Rights Directive. Evidence shows that data on support services’ resources are also very scarce and fragmented. There is a variety of budget streams in most Member States, linked to the fragmentation of competences across national authorities. The under-funding of the victim protection system from the public budget and the sporadic use of other resources were identified as a potential cause of inefficiencies in victim protection measures. Although difficult to quantify, the evaluation of the Directive confirms that it has broadly generated the benefits it was expected to. This is particularly the case for the overall treatment of victims by competent authorities, victims’ being able to count on their right to information and protection being enforced, as well as their right to access support services and justice. Member States have also started to pay more attention to the privacy of victims. In general, the Directive has enhanced victims’ safety and reduced the risk of secondary victimisation and retaliation. The evaluation shows that the Directive is internally and externally coherent to a satisfactory degree. On internal coherence, potential inconsistencies were identified in relation to the status of victims. The lack of a clear legal concept for the status of a victim in criminal proceedings potentially raises practical issues for the achievement of the Directive’s objectives. On external coherence, there are no major inconsistencies between the Directive and national legislation. Some of the difficulties identified can be attributed to the fact that some of the Directive’s provisions remain vague. Still, the evaluation shows that the Victims’ Rights Directive is in general coherent with the sectorial legislation on victims’ rights, such as the Counter-terrorism Directive, the Anti-trafficking Directive, the Child Sexual Abuse Directive and the Combating Fraud Directive. Evidence from the evaluation shows that the Directive has provided added value by extending the provisions of the Victims’ Standing Decision, prompting further action and investments and introducing crucial new aspects. The Directive’s added value on access to information is the introduction of specific rights, such as the right to understand and be understood and the right to receive information. As regards access to support services, the added value of the Directive is linked to the wider establishment of generic victim support services and their extension to all types of victims. In terms of the right to protection, the added value included the introduction of minimum standards for victim protection and support and the individual assessment of victims’ needs. On access to justice, evidence from the evaluation study suggests that the Directive has contributed to enhancing provisions related to procedural rights. An important added value of the Directive is also related to the handling of cross-border cases, which enhances the cooperation of victim support services. In certain cases, the Directive’s added value was limited by a lack of specificity of some provisions. The conclusion of the assessment of this criterion also varies across Member States, with some having strong national legislation on victims’ rights prior to the Directive, while others recognised that this would not be prioritised without EU impetus. 5.2. Lessons learned Lessons learned and some possible measures are set out below. They should not be understood as exhaustive. These recommendations should be understood as food for thought based on the findings of this evaluation and should not prejudge any decision to review the Directive. Victims’ ability to access information The right to information was significantly strengthened by the Directive, even though victims of crime still face several difficulties when trying to access this right. A number of challenges were identified regarding the content and the provision of information, at the different stages of the victim’s experience (i.e. first contact/during criminal proceedings). On the content of the information provided, some of the main challenges identified were a lack of comprehensive information, low awareness of services and rights, and information that is not sufficiently tailored to victims’ needs or accessible enough. The main difficulties with the provision of information are the lack of awareness of where to find it, language barriers, information provision’s being too reliant on the crime’s being reported, and insufficient information accessibility (i.e. online literacy and proximity to services). Possible actions ·The Directive could provide more details on the information requirements for victims at different stages of the process, including on the content of information. ·It could establish an obligation to operate the single victim helpline in every Member State. ·It could introduce a requirement that the provision of information be coordinated through governmental organisations and NGOs coming into contact with victims to ensure consistent and systematic provision of information. ·It could introduce a requirement that information be provided in multiple formats: written, online or through visual media. It could also ensure that those who come into contact with victims are trained to provide information in a way that takes into account victims’ needs. ·It could introduce a requirement that information be made widely available and accessible to victims permanently, even if they do not report the crime. Victims’ access to support services The Directive has improved victims’ access to support services. However, there is room for improvement in the provision of specialised expertise to meet specific victims’ needs. Other remaining problems include uneven information distribution at national level and the lack of certain services. Part of the reason for this is the difficulty in interpreting certain provisions of the Directive, such as ‘access to justice’ and ‘sufficient geographical coverage’. The evaluation also shows that the quality criteria are vague (support services having to be reliable and to respond to victims’ needs in a respectful, professional and non-discriminatory manner) and a lack of proper standards. This is partly the result of the discretion given to Member States on access to support services, with some of them choosing to do little, while others adopt a more extensive approach. Possible actions ·Development of guidelines on how support services should operate (e.g. clarification of minimum standards) and be more available (i.e. accessible by victims in remote areas or by victims who do not report the crime). Possible alignment with the terms of the Istanbul Convention could allow a harmonised approach towards support services.

·Adoption of a one-stop shop approach by Member States, whereby several agencies or centres work together in one network victims can turn to to obtain all relevant support and advice. ·Provision by Member States of free psychological support and medical treatment for as long as vulnerable victims need them (as a minimum) – this could be streamlined with the provisions of the Counter-terrorism Directive. ·Provision by Member States of single national online information tools to facilitate access to assistance and support. Victims’ access to justice On victims’ access to justice, the Directive has introduced a set of rights for victims in the event of a decision not to prosecute and has established the right to be heard. Nonetheless, evidence from the evaluation study suggests that some groups of vulnerable victims seem to have difficulties accessing justice because Member States still lack specific procedures for vulnerable victims. The procedural aspects of the rights related to access to justice are regulated by national law and their effectiveness in practice is difficult to assess as it can be limited by national procedural requirements. Common challenges to access to justice stem from competent authorities’ limited awareness of victims’ rights and victims’ own limited awareness, judicial authorities’ lack of sensitivity towards victims, or the use of highly legal and complex language. Possible actions ·Ensure that victims can be accompanied by a legal/administrative representative throughout criminal proceedings and that they have access to legal remedies. ·Provide guidance on the application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the context of victims’ rights to ensure greater consistency. ·Adopt certain rights, normally reserved for parties to proceedings, for all victims of crime to better meet their needs and enhance their participatory rights. This could include greater powers for victims of crime to request evidence to be taken into account. Victims’ right to protection Significant challenges were also identified with regard to victims’ right to protection. Indeed, the Directive has introduced the victims’ right to individual needs assessment. This is considered a major achievement. However, the evaluation study shows that the implementation of this right is partially hampered because of the lack of specific guidelines for conducting assessments, the lack of awareness or the lack of training for practitioners. It was pointed out that the Directive does not provide measures for victims’ physical protection. This may explain the great diversity of existing measures and affect the mutual recognition of protection orders. Remaining factors limiting victims’ right to protection are the lack of measures to avoid contact with the offender and the uneven level of protection of victims’ privacy. Possible actions ·Encourage Member States to cooperate with support services. Support services could follow up on the individual needs assessment to ensure that the protection of victims is adjusted to their changing needs. ·Examine the possibility of establishing additional minimum standards for physical protection measures such as restraining orders, setting up a telephone line available 24/7, providing shelters and ensuring support services are available in remote areas. ·Consider strengthening privacy measures – for example by providing more specific requirements on how privacy should be ensured. ·Explore the possibility of introducing a template for a cross-border referral mechanism. Provision of training The problem with the provision of training was that there was often a lack of quantity and quality. The degree of training provided differed from one authority to another. The most progress was made on the availability of training for law enforcement officials, but training for the judiciary and other relevant stakeholders (e.g. victim support organisations) could be further improved. This is partially a reflection of the different approach in the Directive between an obligation and an encouragement to provide training. Possible actions ·Encourage Member States to introduce interdisciplinary training (i.e. training with different authorities and communities to improve cooperation and build more trust).

·Ensure that training is available and relevant professionals are encouraged to attend. ·Give stakeholders guidance on the types of training (e.g. the introduction of training on ‘soft skills’ to deal with different vulnerabilities). Cross-cutting elements: The evaluation study identified cross-cutting elements that have a negative impact on the implementation of the Directive. In particular, this is the lack of cooperation between different authorities in Member States and between Member States. Collaborative platforms among Member States are not well developed, hindering the referral of and support for cross-border victims. Possible actions ·Encourage Member States to nominate one nat