Green paper - Compensation to crime victims
Date: 2001-09-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: crime, indemnification, victim

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 28.09.2001
COM(2001) 536 final

GREEN PAPER

Compensation to crime victims

(presented by the Commission)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary of the green paper................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4

Consultation on the green paper with all interested parties................................ ................................ .. 4

Summary of questions................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 5

1.

1.1.

1.2.

1.3.

1.4.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

3.

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

3.5.

3.6.

3.7.

3.8.

4.

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

5.

5.1.

5.2.

5.3.

5.4.

5.5.

5.6.

Introduction................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 6

The crime victim and the area of freedom, security and justice................................ ............. 6

Measures and initiatives taken so far................................ ................................ ................... 6

Objective and scope................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 7

Demarcations ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 7

European norms ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 8

The principle of non-discrimination................................ ................................ ..................... 8

The right to a fair hearing................................ ................................ ................................ .... 9

The European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes.................. 10

Overview of state compensation schemes in the Member States................................ ......... 11

Introduction................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 11

Eligibility................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 11

Losses covered ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13

Subsidiary application and state subrogation................................ ................................ ...... 16

Formal criteria................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 17

Advance payment................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 17

Assessing body................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 18

Total compensation paid and number of applications received................................ ........... 18

Need for action at Community level................................ ................................ .................. 19

The background to state compensation schemes................................ ................................ . 19

Addressing state compensation to crime victims at Community level................................ . 19

The crime victim as the starting point................................ ................................ ................ 20

Compensation to crime victims – minimum standards................................ ........................ 21

Overall considerations................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 21

The components of a minimum standard – eligibility criteria................................ ............. 21

Losses covered ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 23

Subsidiary application................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 26

State subrogation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 28

Reporting the crime to the police................................ ................................ ....................... 28

2

5.7.

5.8.

5.9.

6.

6.1.

6.2.

6.3.

6.4.

6.5.

6.6.

7.

The application for state compensation................................ ................................ .............. 28

Advance payment................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 29

Other criteria................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 29

Compensation to crime victims – access for the cross-border victim................................ .. 30

The situation today ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 30

Obstacles resulting from the cross-border situation................................ ............................ 31

The mutual assistance model................................ ................................ ............................. 33

The double responsibility model................................ ................................ ........................ 35

General observations and comparisons................................ ................................ .............. 36

Horizontal implementation issues................................ ................................ ...................... 37

Concluding remarks................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 38

3

SUMMARY

This  Green  Paper  launches  a  consultation  with  all  interested  parties  on  possible
measures  to  be  taken  at  Community  level  to  improve  state  compensation  to  crime
victims in the EU. The main issues addressed in the paper are the following.

–  What  European  norms  are  relevant  for  addressing  state  compensation  to  crime

victims at Community level?

–  What  possibilities  to  get  state  compensation  currently  exist  for  crime  victims  in

the EU?

–  What is the scope and need for action at Community level, based on what exists in

the EU today?

–  How  could  the  possibilities  for  crime  victims  to  receive  state  compensation  be

strengthened through a Community initiative?

–  How  could  the  access  for  crime  victims  to  state  compensation  be  facilitated  in

cross-border situations?

CONSULTATION ON THE GREEN PAPER WITH ALL INTERESTED PARTIES

Chapters 5 and 6 of the paper contain a number of questions, also listed below, on
what the Commission sees as the most important issues to resolve in the assessment
of  a  possible  initiative  on  state  compensation  to  crime  victims.  The  Commission
would  appreciate  to  receive  reasoned  answers  from  all  interested  parties  to  these
questions. Interested parties should of course not feel confined to these questions if
other  aspects  of  state  compensation  to  crime  victims,  included  in  the  paper  or  not,
give  rise  to  comments  they  wish  to  make.  Answers  to  the  questions  as  well  as  any
other comments should be sent before the 31 January 2002 to:

The European Commission
Directorate-General for Justice and Home Affairs, unit A.3
Rue de la Loi 200
B-1049 Brussels

Fax: +32 2 2996457

E-mail: jai-coop-jud-civil@cec.eu.int

Answers  and  comments  may  be  made  public  on  the  Commission’s  website,  unless
the  sender  explicitly  requests  otherwise.  In  the  beginning  of  2002  the  Commission
will assess the need for organising a public hearing to further debate the issues raised
in the paper.

4

SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS

Question 1: Should a Community initiative on state compensation to crime victims pursue
the three objectives listed in chapter 4.2? Are there other objectives that should be pursued
as well?

Question 2: What should be the eligibility criteria for types of crime and for types of injury
covered by a minimum standard?

Question 3: Should the degree of proof required from an applicant for state compensation
be included in a minimum standard?

Question 4: Should immaterial damages be included in a minimum standard, and if yes,
could a definition of such damages be included?

Question 5: Could compensation for permanent disability be defined for the purposes of a
minimum standard?

Question  6:  Should  a  minimum  standard  allow  for  taking  into  account  the  victim’s
financial  situation,  when  determining  the  victim’s  eligibility  or  when  determining  the
amount of the compensation?

Question  7:  How  should  the  subsidiary  character  of  state  compensation,  in  relation  to
other sources of compensation to victims, be defined in a minimum standard?

Question  8:  What  other  sources  of  compensation  should  be  deducted  from  state
compensation?

Question  9:  Should  a  possibility  for  advance  payment  be  included  in  a  minimum
standard?

Question 10: Should criteria related to the victim’s behaviour in relation to the crime, to
his or her involvement in criminal activity in general, or other considerations of justice or
public policy, be included in a minimum standard?

Question  11:  What  other  criteria,  not  covered  in  this  paper,  could  be  considered  for
inclusion in a minimum standard?

Question  12:  Would  a  right  for  the  cross-border  victim  to  receive  assistance  from  an
authority in his or her Member State of residence when applying for state compensation
from  another  Member  State  be  an  appropriate  way  of  facilitating  access  to  state
compensation for cross-border victims?

Question  13:  Would  a  possibility  for  the  victim  to  get  state  compensation  in  his  or  her
Member State of residence as well in the Member State where the crime occurred be an
appropriate way of facilitating access to state compensation for cross-border victims?

Question 14: What solutions, other than those outlined in this paper, could be envisaged to
facilitate access to state compensation for cross-border victims?

Question  15:  Should  harmonised  forms,  possible  to  use  when  applying  for  state
compensation in all Member States, be established?

5

1. 

INTRODUCTION

1.1. 

The crime victim and the area of freedom, security and justice

With the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam the EU faces the challenge of
ensuring  that  the  right  to  move  freely  throughout  the  EU  can  be  enjoyed  in
conditions  of  security  and  justice  accessible  to  all.  This  challenge  involves
establishing  a  genuine  area  of  justice,  where  people  can  approach  courts  and
authorities  in  any  Member  State  as  easily  as  in  their  own,  and  where  better
compatibility and more convergence between the legal systems of the Member States
is  achieved.  The  need  to  meet  this  challenge  is  evident  from  the  ever-increasing
number of persons using their right to free movement within the EU, for example, as
workers, students or as tourists.

The  establishment  of  an  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  must  also  take  due
account  of  the  needs  of  crime  victims  in  the  European  Union.  The  Vienna  Action
Plan1  of  the  Council  and  the  Commission,  adopted  by  the  Council  1998,  called  for
addressing the question of victim support by making a comparative survey of victim
compensation schemes and assessing the feasibility of taking action within the EU.
The  Commission  presented  a  Communication2  on  crime  victims  in  1999,  covering
not  only  compensation  aspects  but  also  other  issues  that  could  be  addressed  to
improve  the  position  of  crime  victims  in  the  EU.  Having  regard  to  this
Communication,  the  conclusions  of  the  European  Council  in  Tampere  19993  called
for the drawing up of minimum standards on the protection of the victims of crime,
in particular on crime victims’  access to justice and on their rights to compensation
for  damages,  including  legal  costs.  It  also  called  for  the  setting  up  of  national
programmes to finance measures, public and non-governmental, for assistance to and
protection of victims.

1.2.  Measures and initiatives taken so far

The  European  Parliament  has,  already  since  the  1980s,  shown  a  strong  and
continuous  support  for  improving  compensation  to  crime  victims.  Reference  can  in
particular  be  made  to  its  resolution  of  19894  and  to  its  resolution5  on  the
Commission’s Communication of 1999.

The Council adopted a framework decision6 on the standing of the victim in criminal
proceedings  15  March  2001.  The  decision,  based  on  title  VI  of  the  EU  Treaty,
includes  an  obligation  for  Member  States  to  ensure  that  crime  victims  can  obtain  a
decision  on  compensation  from  the  offender  in  the  course  of  criminal  proceedings.
Member  States  shall  also  take  measures  to  encourage  the  offender  to  provide
adequate compensation to victims. Beyond these provisions, compensation to crime
victims is not addressed.

1

2

3

4

5

6

OJ C 19, 23.1.1999, p. 1. Point 51 (c).
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and
Social  Committee.  Crime  victims  in  the  European  Union  –  reflexions  on  standards  and  actions.
COM(1999) 349 final, 14.7.1999.
Presidency Conclusions, point 32.
Resolution on victims of violence. OJ C 256, 9.10.1989, p. 32.
Resolution on crime victims in the EU. OJ C 67, 1.3.2001, p. 308.
OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 1.

6

                                                
In  terms  of  preparatory  work,  a  comprehensive  study7  of  the  position  of  crime
victims in the EU was completed in 2000, with support from the Grotius programme
of  the  EU.  The  study  covered,  among  other  aspects,  the  possibilities  for  crime
victims  to  receive  compensation  from  the  State  under  the  national  laws  of  the
Member  States.  The  study  was  followed  up  by  a  conference  in  Umeå,  Sweden,  in
October  2000,  also  supported  through  the  Grotius  programme.  The  conclusions8 of
the  conference  included  a  number  of  recommendations  on  how  to  improve  the
position  of  crime  victims  as  regards  compensation 
issues  as  well  as  a
recommendation to the Commission to consider binding legislation at EU level.

1.3. 

Objective and scope

The objective of this paper is, in response to the requests of the Vienna Action Plan
and the Tampere Conclusions, to launch a consultation on possible ways forward at
Community  level  for  improving  the  possibilities  for  compensation  to  crime  victims
in the EU.

The  paper  will  focus  on  compensation  from  the  State  and  develop  the  following
issues:

–  What  European  norms  are  relevant  for  addressing  state  compensation  to  crime

victims at Community level?

–  What  possibilities  to  get  state  compensation  currently  exist  for  crime  victims  in

the EU?

–  What is the need for action at Community level, based on what exists in the EU

today?

–  How  could  the  possibilities  for  crime  victims  to  receive  state  compensation  be

strengthened through a Community initiative?

–  How  could  the  access  for  crime  victims  to  state  compensation  be  facilitated  in

cross-border situations?

1.4. 

Demarcations

The possibilities for the crime victim to obtain compensation from the offender will
not  be  covered  in  this  paper.  The  possibility  to  obtain  a  decision,  as  such,  on
compensation  from  the  offender  is  covered  by  the  framework  decision  on  the
standing of the victim in criminal proceedings. Concerning the possibility to enforce
such decisions in cross-border situations, a number of initiatives have been taken or
are  under  preparation  on  access  to  justice  for  cross-border  litigations  in  general.
These  include,  in  particular,  the  recently  adopted  Brussels  I  Regulation9  on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments. In the context of the

7

8

9

Wergens, Anna, Crime victims in the European Union, Brottsoffermyndigheten, Umeå, 2000.
The  Crime  Victim  Compensation  and  Support  Authority,  Sweden,  “Conclusions  –  The  Umeå  expert
meeting on compensation to crime victims in the European Union”, Umeå, 2000.
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments
in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p.1.

7

                                                
mutual  recognition  programme10  initiatives  are  under  way  on,  among  other  things,
uncontested  claims.  These  initiatives  will  benefit  crime  victims  as  well,  seeking  to
enforce a decision on compensation from the offender in a cross-border situation. An
initiative focussing on a specific type of civil claims, that is, compensation to crime
victims  from  the  offender,  would  need  further  reflection  to  ensure  necessary  co-
ordination with these horizontal initiatives.

The complexity of each of the issues, compensation from the State on the one hand
and  compensation  from  the  offender  on  the  other,  makes  it  desirable  also  to  treat
them separately, in view of the different legal character of each issue. In particular,
further  preparatory  work  is  needed  with  regard  to  enforcement  systems  in  the
Member States, including what specific measures are taken to assist crime victims in
this regard.

Thus  leaving  aside  the  issue  of  compensation  to  victims  from  the  offender  for  this
paper, the Commission will nevertheless further reflect on possible future initiatives
on this issue, initiatives that could be seen as accompanying measures in the context
of the mutual recognition programme.

2. 

EUROPEAN NORMS

The  principle  of  non-discrimination  and  the  right  to  a  fair  hearing  will  be  briefly
reviewed in this chapter, based on what has been established in Community law, in
the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. A brief description
will be made also of the 1983 European Convention on the compensation of victims
of violent crimes, the only international instrument on this subject.

2.1. 

The principle of non-discrimination

The  scope  of  the  non-discrimination  clause  in  article  7  of  the  EEC  Treaty11  was  in
focus  in  a  case12  for  a  preliminary  ruling  by  the  European  Court  of  Justice  under
Article 17713 of the Treaty. The case concerned a British national who was subjected
to  a  violent  assault  while  visiting  France  as  a  tourist.  The  assailants  were  never
identified  and  the  victim  turned  to  the  French  State  for  compensation  under  the
national compensation scheme. A condition for the awarding of compensation under
the scheme was that the victim was either a national of France, a national of a State
with reciprocal agreements with France regarding state compensation, or a holder of
a  residence  permit.  The  Law  Officer  of  the  Treasury  argued  before  the  authority
responsible  for  reviewing  the  application  that  as  none  of  the  conditions  referred  to
above  were  fulfilled,  the  application  should  be  rejected.  The  authority  asked  the
European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on whether these provisions were
compatible with the prohibition of discrimination contained inter alia in Article 7 of
the EEC Treaty.

10

11

12

13

Programme of measures for implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil
and commercial matters, OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 1.
Now Article 12 of the TEC.
Case 186/87 Ian William Cowan v. Trésor public [1989] ECR 195.
Now Article 234 of the TEC.

8

                                                
The Court stated that by prohibiting “any discrimination on grounds of nationality”
the Treaty requires that persons in a situation governed by Community law must be
placed on a completely equal footing with nationals of the Member State. Examples
of  concrete  situations  referred  to  in  this  Article  include  the  freedom  to  provide
services.  That  freedom  includes  the  freedom  for  the  recipients  of  services  to  go  to
another Member State in order to receive a service there, without being obstructed by
restrictions,  and  that  tourists,  among  others,  must  be  regarded  as  recipients  of
services.

When  Community  law  guarantees  a  natural  person  the  freedom  to  go  to  another
Member State, it is a corollary of that freedom that the person is protected from harm
on  the  same  basis  as  that  of  nationals  or  persons  residing  in  the  Member  State  in
question.  Thus,  the  principle  of  non-discrimination  is  applicable  to  recipients  of
services  within  the  meaning  of  the  Treaty  as  regards  protection  against  the  risk  of
assault  and  the  right  to  obtain  financial  compensation  provided  for  by  national  law
when that risk materialises.

Consequently the Court held that the prohibition of discrimination laid down by the
Treaty prevents a Member State from making the award of state compensation to a
crime victim subject to the condition that he holds a residence permit or is a national
of a country which has entered into a reciprocal agreement with that Member State.

2.2. 

The right to a fair hearing

In a ruling14 from the European Court of Human Rights regarding state compensation
to a crime victim, the Court came to conclusions on the application of Article 6(1) of
the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms in the case before them.

The  case  concerned  a  Swedish  citizen  who  claimed  to  have  been  a  victim  of
kidnapping  and  extortion  and  who  had  filed  for  damages  within  the  course  of  the
ensuing  criminal  proceedings.  The  Court  of  Appeal  rejected  his  claim  for  damages
on the grounds that the charges against the defendant were not proven. A subsequent
application  for  state  compensation,  reviewed  by  the  authority  responsible  for  such
matters in Sweden, was refused on the grounds that the victim had not proved that he
had suffered damage as a result of a crime. The victim turned to the European Court
of Human Rights, alleging that Swedish law did not provide the possibility of having
a claim for state compensation reviewed by a court and that therefore there had been
a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention.

Article 6(1) read, in so far as is relevant, ”In the determination of his civil rights…
everyone  is  entitled  to  a  fair  and  public  hearing…by  an  independent  and  impartial
tribunal established by law.”

The Court stated that the Swedish Act governing state compensation defined in clear,
regulatory  terms  the  conditions  and  procedures  that  a  claimant  had  to  comply  with
before compensation could be awarded. Accordingly, a claimant who complied with
those conditions  and  procedures had a right to be awarded compensation under the
Act. The right asserted by the applicant [in the case in question] could be categorised

14

Case of Rolf Gustafson v. Sweden, judgment of 27 May 1997.

9

                                                
as civil within the meaning of Article 6(1), the Court noting that the right invoked by
the  applicant  was  intended  to  confer  on  him  a  pecuniary  benefit  in  the  form  of
compensation.  Consequently  the  requirements  prescribed  by  Article  6(1)  in  respect
of a tribunal were applicable to the authority in question. The Court concluded that,
for the purposes at hand, the authority complied with these requirements.

The conclusion that can be drawn from this case is that a state compensation scheme
could be considered to award a civil right, within the meaning of the Convention, to
crime  victims  complying  with  the  conditions  and  procedures  established  by  the
scheme.  Consequently  the  requirements  set  by  Article  6(1)  of  the  Convention  must
be complied with as concerns the treatment of applications under the scheme.

Moreover it should be noted that in Community law, the right to a fair hearing is not
confined to disputes relating to civil law rights and obligations but covers all types of
disputes.15  This  rule  is  repeated  under  article  41  of  The  Charter  of  Fundamental
Rights of the EU.16

2.3. 

The European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes

The  Council  of  Europe  addressed  the  issue  of  compensation  to  crime  victims  from
public funds already in the early seventies, eventually leading to the establishment of
the  European  Convention  on  the  Compensation  of  Victims  of  Violent  Crimes  in
1983.  The  Convention  entered  into  force  1988.  Twelve17  Member  States  of  the
European  Union  have  signed  the  Convention  and  in  nine18  Member  States  the
Convention has been ratified and entered into force. The aims of the Convention are
to introduce or develop schemes for compensation to crime victims and to establish
minimum provisions for such schemes.

The  Convention  states  that  compensation  shall  be  paid  by  the  State  on  whose
territory the crime was committed to nationals of the States party to the Convention
as  well  as  to  nationals  of  all  Member  States  of  the  Council  of  Europe  who  are
permanent residents in the State on whose territory the crime was committed.

Regarding eligibility, those who have sustained serious bodily injury or impairment
of  health  directly  attributable  to  an  intentional  crime  of  violence  as  well  as  the
dependants of persons who have died as a result of such a crime shall be eligible for
compensation. This shall apply also if the offender cannot be prosecuted or punished.
Compensation  shall  cover,  at  least,  loss  of  earnings,  medical  and  hospitalisation
expenses  and  funeral  expenses  and,  as  regards  dependants,  loss  of  maintenance.
Compensation may be made subsidiary to compensation obtained by the victim from
any other source.

The compensation scheme may include conditions such as requiring the crime to be
reported  to  the  police  and  the  lodging  of  the  application  within  an  established

15

16

17

18

Case 294/83 Parti écologiste v. European Parliament [1986] ECR 1339.
OJ C 364, 18.12.2000, p. 1.
Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Luxembourg,  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Spain,
Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Luxembourg,  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Sweden  and  the  United
Kingdom. The Convention has been ratified also by Azerbaijan, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Norway
and Switzerland.

10

                                                
timelimit.  Compensation  may  be  reduced  or  refused  with  reference  to  the  victim’s
conduct in relation to the crime, on grounds of his or her involvement in organised
crime, or if an award would be contrary to a sense of justice or to public policy. It
may also be refused or reduced on account of the applicant’s financial situation.

The  Convention  obliges  the  Contracting  States  to  designate  a  central  authority  to
receive and take action on requests for assistance from any other Party in connection
with the matters covered by the Convention.

3. 

OVERVIEW OF STATE COMPENSATION SCHEMES IN THE MEMBER STATES

3.1. 

Introduction

This  chapter  will  give  an  overview  of  state  compensation  schemes  in  the  Member
States  of  the  EU.  The  purpose  is  to  identify  the  main  features  of  the  different
schemes,  not  to  go  in-depth  on  the  particular  characteristics  of  each  scheme.  The
definition of the criteria used to identify these main features should be seen against
this background also, and are thus somewhat simplified.

When references below are made to all Member States, this means all Member States
that  have  state  compensation  schemes  with  a  general  scope  of  application  in  place.
Greece  and  Italy  are  therefore  not  included  in  the  overview,  although  it  should  be
noted  that  the  latter  has  a  scheme  in  place  compensating  victims  suffering  serious
injury as a result of a terrorist act or of organised crime. For the United Kingdom, the
description  is  based  on  the  scheme  in  place  for  England,  Scotland  and  Wales,  thus
not  taking  into  account  the  differences  that  exists  with  regard  to  the  scheme
applicable  in  Northern  Ireland.  Possible  differences  that  may  exist  within  federal
states are neither covered.

3.2. 

Eligibility

3.2.1.  Eligible victims

Victims  eligible  for  compensation  from  the  schemes  can  be  divided  in  two  groups,
the direct victim (the person towards whom the crime is directed) which needless to
say is covered in all schemes, and the indirect victim (dependants and other relatives
of  a  direct  victim).  Certain  schemes  cover  also  a  third  group:  persons  accidentally
hurt in the turmoil (so called “bystanders”) or persons helping the victim or helping
the police to prevent a crime or to apprehend the offender (so called “samaritans”).
This  third  group  is  often  compensated  as  direct  victims  in  schemes  that  cover  also
non-intentional crimes.

All  Member  States  offer  compensation  to  persons  who  were  depending  on  a
deceased  victim  for  financial  support.  Often  this  group  consists  of  children  and
spouse,  but  it  may  also  include  former  spouses  who  received  alimony  and  old  or
incapacitated parents of the victim. A few Member States also award compensation
for immaterial damages to the relatives of a deceased victim, where compensation is
not conditional upon the relative being financially dependent on the deceased. This
will be further elaborated upon in the section on immaterial damages in general.

11

Regarding  bystanders  and  samaritans,  Austria’s  scheme  covers  bystanders,  the  UK,
Irish  and  Portuguese  schemes  cover  samaritans  and  the  Belgian,  Danish,  Finnish,
French, German and Swedish schemes cover both.

3.2.2.  Criteria related to territoriality, citizenship and nationality

All  Member  States  except  Austria,  France,  Germany,  Luxembourg  and  Spain  have
schemes  covering  all  persons  subjected  to  crime  on  their  territory,  thus  embracing
non-EU  nationals.  France,  Germany,  Luxembourg  and  Spain  compensate  non-EU
nationals  that  are  either  permanent  residents  or  are  from  countries  that  offer
reciprocity,  that  is,  has  a  scheme  in  place  which  would  compensate  their  own
nationals if victimised in that country. Luxembourg compensates also nationals from
countries  that  are  members  of  the  Council  of  Europe  regardless  of  reciprocity.
Austria offers no possibility for non-EU nationals, except for nationals of the EEA-
countries, to be compensated for criminal injuries.

Several Member States (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Portugal,
Sweden)  offer  a  possibility  for  compensation  when  a  resident  or  citizen  is  injured
abroad, but this is usually subject to a number of restrictive conditions, including that
the victim must first seek compensation in the State where the offence occurred.

3.2.3.  Criteria related to types of crime and injury

When referring to crime, a common requirement for eligibility is that the crime must
have  been  intentional  and/or  violent.  Regarding  injuries,  it  is  sometimes  stipulated
that  the  injury  must  have  led  to  a  certain  time  of  incapacity  to  work,  or  it  is  more
generally held that the injury must be serious in order for the victim to be eligible.

Denmark,  Finland,  France,  the  United  Kingdom,  Ireland  and  Sweden  cover  both
intentional and non-intentional crimes. The United Kingdom and Ireland require that
the  crime  is  violent.  All  of  these  six  Member  States  except  Sweden  exclude  traffic
offences from the scope of the scheme.

Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal  and  Spain
require  that  a  sustained  injury  is  serious  for  it  to  be  covered  by  the  scheme.  It  is
generally held among the Member States that an injury entitling to compensation can
be either physical or psychological.

3.2.4.  Assessment of compensation - eligibility

In  those  cases  where  the  offender  remains  unknown  or  cannot  be  successfully
prosecuted  the  assessing  body  responsible  for  state  compensation  must  normally
decide whether an applicant for state compensation has indeed been the victim of a
crime.  It  must  also  assess  whether  the  injury  the  applicant  has  suffered  has  been
caused  by  that  crime.  The  burden  of  proof  rests  with  the  applicant  in  all  Member
States,  but  the  degree  of  proof  varies  and  is  not  always  set  down  in  the  legislation
establishing  the  scheme.  It  is  probably  safe  to  say  that  in  most  Member  States  a
lower standard is applied as compared to what applies in criminal procedure, but it is
difficult  to  define  more  precisely  the  standards  applied  in  each  Member  State.  In
certain  Member  States  there  is  a  connection  to  tort  law,  that  is,  the  applicant’s
eligibility is to be determined in the same way as if the victim had filed a civil suit.

12

3.3. 

Losses covered

3.3.1.  Medical expenses, loss of earnings, compensation to indirect victims

Medical  expenses  are  covered  in  all  Member  States  although  Spain  restricts  it  to
merely covering psychiatric treatment to victims of sexual offences. In addition, most
Member States will cover expenses that the victim might have incurred for transport
to  and  from  the  hospital.  Denmark  and  Sweden  compensate  transport  expenses,
Sweden loss of earnings as well, for relatives visiting the victim in hospital.

Loss of earnings is compensated in all Member States but there are differences as to
how  this  is  done.  The  United  Kingdom  bases  their  compensation  on  a  tariff
calculated so as to include compensation for loss of earnings, with a possibility for
additional compensation for long-term injuries. The Netherlands also has a tariff and
Spain does not refer to loss of earnings but awards a daily aid during sick leave.

When  the  victim  dies  from  his  injuries,  all  Member  States  offer  compensation  to
dependants for loss of maintenance or financial support. All Member States will also
cover funeral expenses within reasonable limits.

3.3.2.  Property damage

Most  Member  States  offer  some  kind  of  compensation  for  property  damage.  A
distinction can be made between compensating property damaged in connection to a
violent crime and compensating stolen goods.

When  assaulted  or  robbed,  all  Member  States  except  Spain  and  Luxembourg
compensate items damaged in the turmoil with certain variations, for example, torn
clothes, broken spectacles and items that are medically necessary such as prostheses.
Denmark covers also mobile phones and jewellery.

Regarding  stolen  goods,  where  there  is  no  connection  to  a  violent  assault,  only
Denmark, Finland, France and Sweden offer compensation for such losses. Finland,
France and Sweden will do so if the loss caused exceptional financial hardship on the
victim,  France  also  if  it  caused  exceptional  psychological  hardship.  Denmark,
Finland  and  Sweden  will  also  cover  stolen  goods  if  the  crime  was  committed  by  a
convict who committed the crime while escaped from a prison or an institution.

3.3.3.  Permanent Disability

All Member States offer compensation to victims whose injuries lead to permanent
disability. It can be difficult to assess if this compensation includes a non-pecuniary
element or if the compensation is meant to cover expenses caused by the disability.
Some  Member  States  clearly  indicate  that  they  offer  compensation  for  estimated
future  loss  of  earnings  (or  potential  loss  of  earnings)  as  well  as  non-pecuniary
compensation that is not connected to any specific costs but calculated with regard to
the severity of the disability. This non-pecuniary part is sometimes calculated as to
include  compensation  for  aesthetic  changes  such  as  scars,  while  in  other  Member
States scars and disfigurements are compensated independently.

Austria,  Ireland,  the  Netherlands  and  Portugal  link  their  compensation  to  costs
incurred  by  the  victim.  They  all  offer  compensation  for  future  loss  of  income  or
earning  potential.  In  addition  to  that,  Ireland  and  Portugal  compensate  future

13

medical- and other expenses that may follow, as does the Netherlands, who will also
compensate  expenses  related  to  assistance  in  the  home  and  rehabilitation.  Austria
awards also a nursing allowance if the victim needs help to perform basic activities
and  also  compensates  for  special  expenses  incurred  by  the  victim  due  to  the
disability.

In  Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  Luxembourg  and  Sweden,  non-pecuniary
compensation  is  added  to  or  included  in  the  compensation  for  the  actual  costs  and
loss  of  earnings  incurred  by  the  victim.  The  assessment  is  based  on  the  degree  of
disability established, sometimes calculated as a percentage, where increased severity
of the injuries or of the disability will render a higher amount of compensation. The
French scheme covers material losses as well as non-pecuniary compensation but the
assessment is based on the future loss of earnings and the same degree of disability
may thus result in different compensation between persons of different age and with
different employment background.

In  the  other  Member  States  it  is  more  difficult  to  assess  whether  compensation  for
permanent  disability  includes  non-pecuniary  compensation  or  not.  Germany  has  a
system where the injury pension is awarded in addition to a pension for income loss.
In Spain, the disability is graded on a scale from 1-4 where one is permanent partial
incapacitation  and  four  is  gross  incapacitation  and  the  compensation  is  then  paid
accordingly.  The  tariff-based  scheme  in  the  United  Kingdom  does  not  divide  the
compensation  in  different  items.  The  tariff  is  calculated  so  as  to  include
compensation for costs as well as for pain and suffering. In addition, compensation
for special expenses incurred for treatment due to the injury or for related equipment
and  care  may  be  awarded.  Belgium,  Finland,  France,  the  Netherlands  and  Sweden
compensate scares and disfigurements as a separate item.

3.3.4.  Other immaterial damages

Apart  from  material  losses  such  as  medical  expenses  and  loss  of  earnings,  a  crime
will also give consequences that can not be restored and which are difficult to value
in  terms  of  money.  These  can  be  described  as  pain  and  suffering  (physical  and
mental),  infringement  of  personal  integrity,  long-term  mental  suffering  etc.  These
effects of the crime can not be restored in the sense of putting the victim in the same
position as if the crime had not occurred, but they can be considered as immaterial
damages that can be compensated.

Consequently,  certain  Member  States  have  included  immaterial  damages  in  their
compensation  schemes,  as  a  separate  item  from  what  may  be  compensated  as
immaterial damage for permanent disability. It aims at compensating the victim for
the  suffering  (both  physical  and  mental)  that  the  victim  experiences  because  of  its
injuries  and/or  for  the  violation  of  the  personal  integrity  that  (certain)  crimes
constitute. Compensation for bereavement or grief to relatives of a deceased victim
can also be put in this category.

The way that this kind of compensation is denominated differs between the Member
States,  and  it  is  therefore  difficult  to  assess  and  compare  the  scope  of  the  various
schemes in this regard. Sometimes, common denominations are found, but this is not
a guarantee that the content of the compensation is the same.

14

Pain and suffering is a concept that is found in several Member States. Compensation
for pain and suffering is awarded in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, the United
Kingdom,  Luxembourg  and  Sweden.  Of  these,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  France
and Sweden offer an additional compensation for moral damages or for the violation
of the personal integrity. In Denmark, Finland and Sweden, compensation for moral
damage is only awarded for certain offences that are particularly offensive. In these
States,  it  could  be  said  that  compensation  for  moral  damage  is  more  objectively
assessed on the basis of the crime committed, while pain and suffering is subjectively
assessed  on  the  basis  of  the  injuries  sustained  by  the  victim.  France  awards  moral
damages for sexual offences only.

In  the  Netherlands,  the  compensation  awarded  for  immaterial  damages  appears  to
contain elements of both pain and suffering and moral damages, while Luxembourg
appears to consider pain and suffering as a kind of moral damage.

Concerning compensation to relatives of deceased victims, Belgium, Finland, France,
the United Kingdom, Ireland, Luxembourg and Sweden offer such compensation. It
is referred to as (or covers) compensation for bereavement, suffering, grief or moral
damages.

Austria,  Germany,  Portugal  and  Spain  offer  no  compensation  of  the  kind  assessed
above.

3.3.5.  Determining the amount of the compensation

In  several  Member  States  there  is  a  link  to  the  national  tort  law  regarding  the
assessment of the amount of compensation to be awarded in each particular case. It
may be that compensation can be claimed for the same types of losses as in a civil
claim,  or  the  calculation  of  a  loss  follows  the  general  rules  of  tort  law.  Certain
Member  States  indicate  that  full  compensation  can  be  awarded  under  the  scheme.
This  presumably  means  that  the  same  compensation  is  available  from  the  State  as
would  have  been  available  in  the  course  of  a  civil  suit,  that  is,  compensation  for
actual  expenses  in  terms  of  material  losses  and  fair  compensation  for  immaterial
losses  (as  defined  in  each  State).  A  relevant  factor  in  this  context  is  also  if  the
scheme can be seen as establishing a legal right to compensation for victims or if the
scheme merely operates on an ex gratia basis, where in the latter case “fair and just”
compensation is awarded rather than full compensation.

Almost  all  Member  States  have  maximum  ceilings,  either  for  the  total  amount  that
can be awarded for an individual victim or for the separate items.

Regarding taking the victim’s financial situation into consideration when estimating
the claim, this appears to apply only in those Member States that awards fair and just
compensation.

The schemes of all Member States lay down further grounds on which compensation
may be refused or reduced. A ground for refusal that is found in all Member States is
when the victim is considered as partly to blame for being victimised. This may be
because of the victim’s behaviour in connection with the crime through provocation.
In some Member States, membership in unlawful criminal organisations may exclude
from  compensation  and  in  others  a  previous  criminal  record  may  be  taken  into
account.  In  a  few  Member  States,  the  victim’s  relationship  with  the  offender  is  a

15

ground for refusal. Some also has a generally held exclusion rule with reference to
public order or inequitability.

Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Luxembourg  and  Sweden  aim  at  providing  full
compensation,  that  is,  the  same  compensation  as  would  have  been  available  under
national tort law. The assessment of compensation in this group is thus connected to
the  tort  law  in  the  respective  country  within  the  limitations  that  maximum  ceilings
may constitute.

Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain do not offer full compensation
but  rather  fair  and  just  compensation.  Austria  and  Germany  offer  various  kinds  of
awards  for  material  losses  and  rehabilitation  but  it  is  not  possible  to  receive  non-
pecuniary  compensation  as  under  tort  law.  Belgium,  Germany,  the  Netherlands,
Portugal and Spain take the victim’s financial situation into account when estimating
the award though Belgium and the Netherlands will only do so for the compensation
of material losses, and Germany will not do so if the compensation is made by means
of a pension. However, the schemes of Austria, Belgium, Ireland and Portugal also
have a certain connection to national tort law in the calculation of some of the items
of the compensation.

The scheme in the United Kingdom has no link to tort law. The tariff system implies
that  some  victims  will  receive  more  than  full  compensation,  others  less.  The
possibility to increase the award beyond the tariff and award additional compensation
for  expenses  and  loss  of  earnings  serves  as  a  guarantee  for  victims  more  seriously
affected by a crime.

3.4. 

Subsidiary application and state subrogation

The  principle  of  subsidiary  application  in  its  strictest  form  is  when  state
compensation is seen as the last resort and the victim consequently need to eliminate
all  other  possibilities  for  compensation  before  turning  to  the  State.  The  obvious
source for compensation is the offender, but also private and public insurance must
be exhausted. This is the case at least in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and
Sweden.  In  Belgium,  Denmark  and  Finland,  this  principle  is  applied  less  strict,
is  ultimately  responsible  for  paying
meaning 
compensation,  the  victim  must  exhaust  other  sources  to  a  reasonable  extent  only.
Austria,  the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  do  not  apply  the  principle  of  subsidiary
application at all, and the victim can thus choose where to turn for compensation. In
France the principle is only applied with regard to property crimes.

that  although 

the  offender 

Subsidiary application should not be confused with double compensation, that is, any
compensation  received  for  the  same  loss  (whether  material  or  immaterial)  will  be
deducted from the compensation from the State. In most States this means that if the
victim subsequently receives compensation for the same loss, the State will reclaim
part of or the whole compensation awarded. In this respect, Austria and Ireland will
not deduct any compensation awarded from private insurance and Portugal will only
deduct such compensation if it is considered fair and just.

When  the  State  compensates  the  victim  for  damages  that  the  offender  should  have
paid, the State can reclaim the amount awarded to the victim from the offender. In all
Member States but the United Kingdom the State has such a right, but to what extent
it is actively used is difficult to assess.

16

3.5. 

Formal criteria

3.5.1.  Reporting the crime to the police

All  Member  States  except  France,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands  and  Portugal
require  that  the  crime  is  reported  to  investigating  authorities  for  the  victim  to  be
eligible for compensation. It is sometimes more generally expressed as an obligation
for the victim to co-operate with the legal authorities. Often it is stipulated that the
report must be made “without undue delay”. In all Member States except Austria and
Belgium  it  is  possible  for  the  awarding  authority  to  accept  an  application  for
compensation  even  if  no  report  has  been  made.  This  may  be  the  case  if  the  victim,
due  to  his  medical  condition,  was  unable  to  report  the  crime.  In  Finland  an
acceptable excuse can be that the victim was victimised abroad, making it difficult to
report the crime to the police, and the United Kingdom accepts language difficulties
as an excuse.

3.5.2.  Time limits for filing the application

Most Member States (Austria, Denmark, Finland, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the
Netherlands and Spain) set the time limit as from when the crime was committed. Of
these,  Ireland  has  the  shortest  time  period,  only  three  months,  and  Finland  has  the
most  generous  giving  the  victim  latitude  of  ten  years.  In  Spain,  the  time  stops
running upon the initiation of the criminal justice procedure and starts running again
when the procedure is ended. Belgium and Sweden both set their time limits as from
the ending of the court proceedings. France, Luxembourg and Portugal have set the
time limit from when the crime was committed, but prolong the limit with one year
from  the  date  when  the  criminal  procedure  was  ended.  Austria  has  different  limits
depending on the type of loss compensation is sought for, but it is always possible to
apply  after  the  time  limit  has  expired.  However,  the  consequence  is  that
compensation  will  not  be  awarded  retroactively,  that  is,  for  the  period  between  the
crime and the date when the application is made. Germany does not stipulate a time
limit. Compensation is granted from the month when the application was submitted
and,  if  the  application  was  filed  within  one  year  from  the  day  the  injury  was
sustained, retroactively from that day.

Generally  there  is  a  possibility  for  exceptions  from  the  time  limits  for  filing  the
application in special cases, for example, due to force majeure or in cases when the
victim is a child and therefore dependent on an adult to make the application for him.

3.5.3.  Content of the application

It  is  generally  required  that  an  application  is  made  in  writing,  although  the
Netherlands  will  accept  applications  submitted  by  telephone  also.  Several  Member
States  use  specific  application  forms  and  these  are  sometimes  available  on  the
Internet. The applicant must in many cases provide documents to prove income loss
or  receipts  for  medical  expenses.  The  assessing  body  may  also  ask  for  a  police
report, a medical report and proof of the victim’s financial situation.

3.6. 

Advance payment

All  Member  States  except  Sweden  and  Germany  offer  some  form  of  advance
payment. The reasons for awarding advance payments are connected to the financial

17

situation of the victim, or that the court procedure or the final establishment of the
long-term  medical  consequences  of  the  crime  may  be  delayed.  In  Belgium,  an
emergency  award  can  be  an  independent  claim  or  an  advance  on  the  final
compensation.

3.7. 

Assessing body

The  bodies  assessing  the  applications  and  deciding  on  the  claims  in  the  Member
States are largely organised in three different ways. Eight of the Member States have
an  independent  body,  referred  to  as  a  Commission  (Belgium,  France  and  the
Netherlands),  a  tribunal  (Ireland)  or  an  authority  or  board  (Finland,  the  United
Kingdom,  Denmark,  and  Sweden).  In  three  Member  States  (Luxembourg,  Portugal
and  Spain)  the  applications  are  decided  upon  at  a  section  of  a  Ministry,  where  in
Luxembourg  and  Portugal  a  Commission  prepares  the  case.  Germany  and  Austria
have  decentralised  organisations  where  the  federal  states  are  responsible  for
awarding compensation under the schemes.

3.8. 

Total compensation paid and number of applications received

The table19 below gives estimates for the total amount of compensation paid and the
total number of applications received during one year under the state compensation
schemes  in  each  Member  State.  The  estimates  are  provided  for  the  purpose  of
illustration only, to indicate the size of the schemes. The table should not be taken as
a basis for drawing any conclusions on the scope or functioning of the schemes.

Total compensation paid (€)

Applications received

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Ireland

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

1 400 000

6 307 000

5 456 000

5 130 000

200-300

740

3 156

4 770

147 550 000

13 353 (*)

106 694 000 (*)

3 329 000

42 000

4 706 000

972 000

1 540 000

7 421 000

9 787

232

16

3 650

68

1 468

6 522

19

All  estimates  are  from  2000  except  for  (*)  which  are  from  1999.  Source:  Mikaelsson,  Julia,  and
Wergens,  Anna, Repairing  the  irreparable  -  State  compensation  to  crime  victims  in  the  European
Union, The Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority, Umeå, Sweden, 2001.

18

                                                
United Kingdom

340 926 000

78 165

4. 

NEED FOR ACTION AT COMMUNITY LEVEL

4.1. 

The background to state compensation schemes

The national compensation schemes reviewed in chapter three have been created for
a  variety  of  reasons.  For  several,  social  policy  forms  the  main  reason,  with  the
purpose  being  to  avoid  inequitable  results,  although  it  should  be  noted  that  within
this  group  substantial  differences  exist  between  the  schemes  with  regard  to  the
amounts  of  compensation  available  in  practice  and  to  the  restrictions  on,  for
example,  eligibility.  Equity  and  social  solidarity  constitute  the  basic  principles
behind the 1983 European Convention also. Other Member States connect the need
for state compensation schemes to considerations of criminal policy. These reasons
have needless to say influenced the design of the schemes in each Member State and
explain part of the differences between them.

However,  a  common  feature  of  all  Member  States,  while  adhering  to  the  principle
that  the  responsibility  to  compensate  the  crime  victim  lies  with  the  offender,  is
recognition  of  the  fact  that  victims  cannot  always  get  compensation  from  the
offender.  This  may  be  the  case  when  the  offender  remains  unknown  or  cannot  be
successfully  prosecuted  or  where  the  offender  lacks  the  means  to  compensate  the
victim. Other sources, such as compulsory or private insurance, may neither provide
an  adequate  cover  for  the  losses  sustained  by  the  victim.  Consequently  victims  can
be  considered  as  being  in  a  worse  situation  than  other  groups  who  suffer  injury  or
losses  of  various  kind,  for  example,  due  to  illness,  accidents,  or  unemployment.
Thus, the function of state compensation schemes can be seen as providing a safety
net for victims.

4.2. 

Addressing state compensation to crime victims at Community level

The overview given in chapter three of state compensation schemes in the Member
States gives, at least prima facie, the impression that the possibility for victims in the
EU to get compensation leaves something to be desired. The absence of a possibility
to state compensation to victims in all Member States, and the lack of convergence
between  the  existing  schemes,  creates  differences  for  the  individual,  depending  on
his  or  her  place  of  residence  or  on  where  a  crime  is  committed.  For  example,  two
persons  becoming  the  victim  of  a  crime,  under  identical  circumstances  but  in
different Member States, may receive widely differing amounts in compensation for
similar  injuries.  There  are  also  differences  peculiar  to  cross-border  situations.  A
citizen  from  a  Member  State  with  a  compensation  scheme  travelling  to  a  Member
State  without  or  with  a  very  limited  scheme  will  see  his  or  her  possibilities  to  get
compensation  (in  case  of  becoming  a  crime  victim)  decrease  or  virtually  disappear
for the extension of the stay. On the contrary a person going in the opposite direction,
between  the  same  Member  States,  will  enjoy  a  drastic,  albeit  temporary,
improvement in his or her rights as a crime victim. A person falling victim to a crime
in a Member State where he or she is not a resident may find it difficult to get access
to state compensation in the first place, due to a lack of assistance in coping with the
administrative procedures involved. These effects, which must appear arbitrary from
the individual’s  perspective,  are  clearly  not  satisfactory  in  view  of  the  objective  of
establishing the EU as an area of freedom, security and justice for all.

19

Based  on  these  considerations,  three  objectives  for  possible  action  at  Community
level can be distinguished.

–  Firstly,  whether  a  possibility  to  get  state  compensation  for  victims  in  the  EU

should be ensured, that is, a safety net for all EU residents.

–  Secondly,  whether  action  should  be  taken  to  limit  unfair  effects  that  may  result
from  the  widely  differing  levels  of  compensation  available  in  the  different
Member  States  and  which  are,  in  practice,  dependant  on  the  victim’s  Member
State of residence or on in which Member State he or she becomes the victim of a
crime.

–  Thirdly,  whether  access  to  state  compensation  for  victims  in  cross-border
situations  should  be  facilitated,  that  is,  the  access  to  state  compensation  for
victims should not be significantly influenced by where in the EU the crime takes
place.

It  should  be  stressed  that  these  three  objectives  are  closely  intertwined.  Without  a
possibility for state compensation in all Member States, access to state compensation
in  a  cross-border  situation  cannot  be  facilitated.  Without  easy  access  to  state
compensation in cross-border situations, the safety net will, in practice, not cover all
situations where victims are in need of state compensation.

Question 1: Should a Community initiative on state compensation to crime victims
pursue the three objectives listed above? Are there other objectives that should be
pursued as well?

4.3. 

The crime victim as the starting point

The  starting  point  for  the  considerations  will  be  the  needs  of  victims  from  a
European  perspective.  The  aim  is  to  address  this  need  in  an  unconditional  and
unbiased  way,  with  a  view  to  finding  the  best  possible  solutions  to  the  three
objectives  outlined  in  the  previous  section.  The  purpose  is  therefore  not  to  identify
the  least  common  denominator  among  the  schemes  in  place,  but  rather  to  identify
how  further  progress  could  be  made.  However,  having  said  that,  any  Community
initiative  must  also  seek  to  build  upon  the  achievements  already  made  in  many
Member  States,  to  avoid  “reinventing  the  wheel”  and  disrupting  well-established
practices.

In  the  remaining  part  of  the  paper,  chapter  five  will  cover  how  the  objective  of  a
safety  net  for  all  EU  residents  could  be  achieved.  This  is  in  essence  a  question  of
how  common  minimum  standards  could  be  created  at  Community  level.  It  thereby
addresses also, in part, how the second objective of limiting unfair effects could be
achieved. When cross-border situations are addressed in this chapter, it will be based
on  an  assumption  that  the  territoriality  principle  applies  without  restrictions  in  all
Member  States,  that  is,  the  victim  has  the  right  to  submit  an  application  for  state
compensation  in  the  Member  State  where  the  crime  took  place.  In  chapter  six  the
objective  of  ensuring  easy  access  to  state  compensation  in  cross-border  situations
will be covered.

20

5. 

COMPENSATION TO CRIME VICTIMS – MINIMUM STANDARDS

5.1. 

Overall considerations

The  more  harmonisation  that  can  be  achieved,  the  lesser  the  risk  for  unfair  effects
resulting from differences between the Member States. On the other hand, there are
several  demarcations  that  must  be  kept  in  mind.  Compensation  levels  vary  widely
between  the  Member  States,  due  to  differing  views  or  priorities  when  it  comes  to
action in support of victims but also due to differences in standards of living between
the Member States. Thus, compensation levels expressed in pecuniary terms cannot
be  made  uniform.  The  principles  underlying  compensation  levels,  in  terms  of  what
losses  are  covered,  are  on  the  other  hand  possible  to  address  at  Community  level.
Moreover, and as already stressed, the aim must be to build upon what already exists
in the Member States rather than seeking to set in place something totally new.

A  Community  initiative  would  consequently  aim  at  setting  in  place  minimum
standards rather than achieving harmonisation.

Seeking  to  identify  minimum  standards  means  in  essence  seeking  to  identify  the
restrictions to state compensation for victims that Member States should be allowed
to set in place. It deserves to be emphasised that, conversely, nothing would prevent
Member  States  from  maintaining  or  setting  in  place  rules  that  are  more  generous
towards  the  victim.  Needless  to  say,  the  introduction  of  minimum  standards  should
not be used to justify any deterioration in current practices in the Member States.

The remainder of this chapter will consider the components of a common minimum
standard with a particular attention to cross-border situations. The purpose is not to
exhaustively cover all considerations that can be raised in relation to each issue, but
rather to raise some of the principal aspects that present themselves with a view to
stimulating the discussion on ways forward. Before going into the individual criteria,
the need for clear and well-defined criteria must be stressed. It is difficult to see any
strong reason for why the criteria applied in state compensation schemes should be
less  clear  than  those  that  apply  under  national  tort  law  or  under  national  social
benefit  schemes.  In  order  to  ensure  transparent  and  predictable  rules  the  room  for
discretion  for  the  responsible  authority  applying  the  system  should  be  kept  to  a
minimum. This will form a guiding principle for the consideration of each criterion.

5.2. 

The components of a minimum standard – eligibility criteria

5.2.1.  Eligible victims

Following  the  Cowan-case  it  is  clear  that  the  possibility  to  compensation  must  be
awarded to all EU nationals on the same terms that it is awarded to nationals of the
Member State where the crime was committed. It would be appropriate to extend this
possibility  to  all  legal  residents  (by  virtue  of  Community  law  or  national  law)  of  a
Member  State  of  the  EU,  thus  including  those  who  has  the  nationality  of  a  third-
country  and  who  becomes  victims  of  crime  on  the  territory  of  any  Member  State.
This scope reflects that of the Framework Decision on the standing of the victim in
criminal proceedings. It is in line also with the principles of the Commission’s recent

21

proposal  for  a  Council  Directive20  concerning  the  status  of  third-country  nationals
who are long-term residents.

In  all  Member  States  indirect  victims  are  also  eligible,  and  should  therefore  be
included in a minimum standard. Provided the direct victim was a legal resident of a
Member  State,  the  indirect  victims  should  be  eligible  for  state  compensation  also,
that  is,  regardless  of  the  state  of  residence  of  the  indirect  victims  themselves.  An
issue  for  consideration  is  whether  the  terms  “dependants”  or  “relatives”  should  be
defined  in  a  minimum  standard  or  whether  this  should  rather  be  decided  by  each
Member State.

5.2.2.  Criteria related to types of crime and types of injury

Several options present themselves with regard to this criterion based on what exists
in  the  Member  States  and  what  can  be  found  in  the  1983  European  Convention.
Criteria  can  be  considered  in  terms  of  types  of  crimes  and  in  terms  of  types  of
injuries sustained by the victim.

One  possibility  would  be  to  cover  all  crimes  and  to  limit  the  eligibility  by
introducing various specific restrictions. Crimes considered to be commonly covered
by  insurance  could  be  excluded,  such  as  traffic  offences  or  offences  in  the  work
place.  A  more  far-reaching  limitation  would  be  to  exclude  crimes  committed
recklessly  or  carelessly,  that  is,  non-intentional  crimes.  It  could  be  argued  that
individuals  have  the  possibility  to  arrange  protection  through  private  insurance
against losses caused by all such crimes. However, this could lead to the exclusion of
certain  violent  crimes,  such  as  involuntary  manslaughter,  where  compensation  to
dependants  and  other  relatives  could  be  particularly  called  for.  A  further  restriction
would be to only cover serious crimes, but this would in itself be a term difficult to
define in a similar way in the Member States, and it would also make the scope very
narrow.  A  different  approach  would  be  to  cover  only  violent  crimes,  thus  avoiding
the need for distinguishing between intentional and non-intentional crimes.

In terms of injury, compensation could be restricted to personal injury, physical and
psychological,  thus  excluding  property  losses per  se.  The  latter  could  be  covered
only to the extent the victim has suffered losses in direct connection with a violent
crime  against  the  person,  such  as  is  the  case  in  many  Member  States.  Excluding
property damage could be justified by that individuals have the possibility to arrange
insurance  cover  against  such  losses.  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  stressed  that
property  damage  may  also  give  rise  to  grave  negative  effects  in  certain  cases.  For
example, where a person is deprived of property necessary to earn his or her living,
or  where  a  person  is  living  under  such  circumstances  that  insurance  cover  is  not
affordable, it could be considered inequitable not to compensate property damage.

Requiring that an injury is serious would risk making the coverage too restrictive and
raise the problem of defining what is serious and what is not. Minor injuries suffered
could rather be excluded through a  de minimis rule on the amount of compensation
that can be awarded.

20

COM(2001) 127 final, 13.3.2001. OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001, p. 79.

22

                                                
Combinations of criteria related to the type of crime and the type of injury suffered
could of course be considered, although care should be taken that this does not result
in overly restrictive criteria. At first sight, a minimum standard should at least cover
intentional  crimes  causing  personal  injury.  Noteworthy,  such  a  restriction  would
nevertheless  exclude  certain  groups  considered  eligible  under  many  schemes  in  the
Member States, such as bystanders and samaritans.

Question 2: What should be the eligibility criteria for types of crime and for types
of injury covered by a minimum standard?

5.2.3.  Principles for assessment of eligibility

In  cases  where  the  offender  is  unknown  or  where  he  or  she  could  not  be
(successfully)  prosecuted,  the  question  arises  as  to  what  degree  of  proof  should  be
required from the victim when applying for compensation. The injuries sustained, as
such,  would  appear  to  pose  a  minor  problem,  as  the  victim  in  most  cases  has  the
possibility  to  submit  a  medical  report  drawn  up  following  the  crime.  However,  the
victim must also prove that he or she has actually been the victim of a crime and that
the injuries suffered have been caused by that crime. This is an important issue as the
coverage  of  situations  where  the  offender  is  not  known  or  not  prosecuted  is  a  key
function  for  state  compensation  in  the  first  place.  A  balanced  solution  must  be
sought,  taking  into  account  the  need  for  awarding  compensation  in  such  cases
without encouraging abuse of the system.

To  ensure  uniformity  among  the  Member  States,  a  common  principle  for  the
assessment  could  be  introduced.  This  could  be  expressed,  for  example,  as  the
strongest  degree  of  probability  the  Member  States  would  be  allowed  to  apply
(bearing in mind that it is a question of minimum standards). However, the difficulty
in finding a common principle acceptable to all Member States, as a matter of theory
as well as a matter of practical application, should not be overlooked. In addition, it
is not easy to assess more precisely the degree of proof that is actually applied in the
Member  States  today.  The  alternative  would  consequently  be  to  leave  this  issue  to
the Member States, although this could lead to substantial differences within the EU
in the practical possibilities for victims to obtain compensation.

Question  3:  Should  the  degree  of  proof  required  from  an  applicant  for  state
compensation be included in a minimum standard?

5.3. 

Losses covered

5.3.1.  Material losses

In  most  Member  States  compensation  is  given  for  medical  and  hospitalisation
expenses, loss of earnings, and, in the case of dependants, funeral expenses and loss
of  maintenance.  These  items  should  be  covered  by  a  minimum  standard  as  well.
Medical expenses should be taken as including mental health counselling, psychiatric
therapy or similar that may be needed as a cause of the crime. A possible extension
could  be  that,  even  if  damage  to  property  as  such  would  not  be  eligible  (provided
eligibility  is  restricted  to  personal  injury),  material  losses  directly  resulting  from
crimes against the person could be covered. This could involve, for example, losses
resulting from damage to personal belongings that the victim was carrying at the time
of the crime, such as glasses or clothes.

23

5.3.2. 

Immaterial damages

Immaterial  damages,  such  as  pain  and  suffering  (pretium  doloris),  presents  greater
difficulties. These are damages suffered by the victim that have not given rise to any
actual expenses and they are therefore sometimes referred to as non-pecuniary losses.
The underlying factors that can be taken into account in the assessment of immaterial
damages may include the negative effects for the victim during the most acute period
of rehabilitation and care following the crime, long-term mental suffering, emotional
distress,  violation  of  the  personal  integrity,  invalidity  (apart  from  strictly  medical
effects),  loss  of  amenities,  loss  of  expectation  of  life  etc.  Both  objective
circumstances,  related  to  the  situation  of  the  victim  in  the  particular  case,  and
subjective circumstances, such as the nature or severity of the crime as such, may be
taken into account. It is not possible, for the purpose of this paper, to consider further
these  concepts  in  detail,  as  the  definition  and  the  very  existence  of  them  differ
between the Member States.

However,  recalling  the  need  to  take  the  perspective  of  the  victim,  immaterial
damages  are  not  to  be  neglected.  A  victim  may  recover  physically  fairly  quickly
following  the  injuries  he  or  she  has  sustained,  but  the  psychological  effects  of  the
crime may be long-term and cause severe suffering. For this reason, compensation in
certain Member States under current practices may in fact cover as its main element
(as  share  of  the  amount  awarded)  such  losses.  This  is  the  case  also  regarding  the
possibility to compensate dependants, or other relatives, of persons who have died as
a  result  of  a  crime,  apart  from  compensation  for  loss  of  maintenance.  Excluding
immaterial  damages  would  also  create  large  differences  between  what  the  victim
could get from the offender in a civil action and what he or she could get from the
State. In view of these considerations, there appears to strong reasons for including
immaterial damages in a minimum standard.

The  question  then  arises  whether  a  common  definition  of  immaterial  damages,  for
the  purposes  at  hand,  should  be  introduced.  At  the  very  least  a  general  principle
should  be  considered,  for  example,  that  compensation  should  cover  pain  and
suffering and other immaterial damages. However, going further seeking to introduce
a definition of what such compensation should cover could be very difficult in view
of the differences between the Member States. To make an explicit reference to that
the compensation is to be assessed in the same way as under national tort law could
be an option, although not much would be achieved in terms of uniform application,
considering the differences between such laws between the Member States.

Question 4: Should immaterial damages be included in a minimum standard, and
if yes, could a definition of such damages be included?

5.3.3.  Permanent disability

As  was  seen  in  chapter  three  most  Member  States  compensate  as  a  separate  item
permanent disability, and this should be included in a minimum standard also. Often
this  item  may  include  compensation  for  immaterial  damages.  In  addition  it  may
involve compensation for scars or disfigurements. It could be argued that this latter
item  should  also  be  compensated  for  when  it  is  sustained  without  any  relation  to
permanent  disability,  thus  in  effect  becoming  a  separate  type  of  compensation  for
immaterial damages. Returning to the issue of permanent disability, it would be very
difficult to reach any further definition, to include in a minimum standard, as to what

24

losses would be eligible for compensation under this item. The only requirement that
could be considered is that state compensation to victims, under this item, should not
detract  to  any  major  extent  from  normal  practice  in  the  Member  States  in  the
assessment of damages under tort law or of compensation from other sources, such
as private insurance.

Question  5:  Could  compensation  for  permanent  disability  be  defined  for  the
purposes of a minimum standard?

5.3.4.  Determining the amount of the compensation

A  straightforward  solution  for  a  minimum  standard  on  this  issue  would  be,  for  the
material losses suffered, to compensate fully the actual losses as proven by the crime
victim. In other words, the victim should, as a result of the compensation for these
losses, be put back in the financial situation he or she would have been in had he or
she not been injured. This would ensure full compensation in cross-border cases also,
where the victim returns to his or her Member State of residence and sustains most of
the actual losses in that State, such as medical expenses and loss of earnings.

Concerning the use of tariff-based systems for calculating the compensation for such
expenses, it could be considered compatible with a requirement to compensate actual
losses,  provided  that  the  tariffs  are  determined  on  the  basis  of  actual  medical  and
hospitalisation  expenses.  It  would  however  not  appear  to  take  into  account
complications that may arise in individual cases, neither the need to assess the loss of
earnings in each individual case. Tariffs may also entail a risk for unfair effects in a
cross-border  situation,  as  the  calculation  of  such  tariffs  is  made  on  the  basis  of
national conditions, and may not suffice to cover actual expenses incurred in another
Member  State.  On  the  other  hand,  tariff-based  systems  may  simplify  the
administration  of  state  compensation,  allowing  the  crime  victim  to  receive
compensation  more  quickly,  and  such  aspects  must  also  form  part  of  the  overall
considerations of how the amount of compensation is to be determined.

Complications  arise  in  relation  to  compensation  for  pain  and  suffering  and  other
immaterial  damages,  as  there  are  no  actual  losses  to  base  the  amount  of
compensation  on.  However,  it  would  probably  not  be  possible  to  set  any  common
guiding  principles  for  determining  the  actual  amount  of  compensation  for  such
losses, in spite of the risk of unfair effects. This assessment will therefore have to be
left  to  each  Member  State,  possibly  connected  to  applicable  scales  used  when
determining  social  security  benefits,  private  insurance,  or  damages  under  national
civil law.

As  a  further  consideration  in  this  part,  it  deserves  to  be  recalled  that  from  the
perspective of the crime victim, the actual amount received is what counts in the end,
not how the total amount can be broken down on compensation for various types of
losses  suffered.  The  need  to  define,  for  the  purpose  of  a  minimum  standard,  how
each item should be compensated, should therefore not be exaggerated. The ambition
could  rather  be  that  all  losses,  be  they  material  or  immaterial,  are  covered  by  the
standard, regardless of under which specific item such losses are taken into account.

A related question is in what form the compensation should be paid, with the main
options  being  a  lump  sum  or  a  periodic  amount.  This  will  however  not  be  further
treated, as it can be considered unnecessary to address this issue at Community level.

25

5.3.5.  The financial position of the victim

Several Member States take into account the financial position of the victim not only
when determining the amount of compensation but also when assessing the right to
compensation as such. This can be based on the consideration that an assessment of
the  needs  of  the  victim  in  each  individual  case  is  necessary,  including  his  or  her
ability  to  cope  with  financial  losses  resulting  from  the  crime.  However,  this  can
substantially  reduce  the  eligibility  of  victims  of  compensation.  It  introduces
discretion  in  the  system,  making  it  difficult  for  the  individual  to  predict  what
possibilities  he  or  she  actually  has  to  get  state  compensation  following  a  crime.
Moreover, the justifications for compensating immaterial damages apply with equal
strength regardless of the financial position of the victim. The risk of unfair effects in
cross-border  cases  is  substantial  also.  The  income  level  of  an  individual  could
disqualify from compensation in one Member State but not in the other. A common
means  test  to  be  applied  in  all  Member  States,  taking  into  account  differences  in
standards of living, would be very difficult to design. A condition of this type does
therefore not appear to be justified.

Question 6: Should a minimum standard allow for taking into account the victim’s
financial situation, when determining the victim’s eligibility or when determining
the amount of the compensation?

5.3.6.  Minimum and maximum levels

A further issue to consider for a minimum standard is whether to set a minimum and
a  maximum  level  for  compensation,  as  is  included  in  most  national  compensation
schemes. One purpose of a minimum threshold would be to avoid having to handle a
large number of applications for very small amounts, where the administrative costs
involved  would  be  substantially  higher  than  the  compensation  actually  paid  out.
Moreover,  the  possibility  for  the  crime  victim  to  obtain  compensation  from  the
offender is greater when more modest amounts are involved. A maximum level could
be justified by budgetary constraints but also by the argument that the State should
not  assume  limitless  responsibility  for  compensating  the  victim.  A  maximum  level
could serve to avoid extreme situations such as compensating exceptionally high loss
of  earnings.  It  is  questionable  whether  common  levels  could  be  established  in  a
minimum  standard,  for  the  same  reasons  as  outlined  in  relation  to  compensation
levels  in  general.  However,  a  maximum  minimum  threshold  and  a  minimum
maximum level could be considered.

5.4. 

Subsidiary application

In most Member States the possibility to get state compensation is subsidiary to the
compensation the victim can obtain from other sources. This is justified by that it is
the offender who bears the responsibility for making good the losses suffered by the
victim and also by the desire to avoid double compensation. There is no reason for
abandoning this principle in the consideration of common minimum standards. The
issue  is  rather  how  strict  the  principle  should  be  applied  -  what  efforts  should,  in
practice, be required from the victim in getting compensation from the offender?

The question is complicated by differences between the Member States in the means
and procedures available to the crime victim to get compensation from the offender.
In a cross-border situation it may be difficult for the victim to make such a claim in

26

the first place, and even more difficult to enforce the judgment or the decision. It is
clear  that  the  more  that  is  demanded  from  the  victim  in  this  respect,  the  longer  the
time before he or she can turn to the State for compensation. A cross-border situation
is likely to make this period of time longer as compared to a national situation, thus
further increasing the risk of secondary victimisation.

Noteworthy,  in  national  as  well  as  in  cross-border  situations,  a  crime  victim  could
actually be in a better situation where the offender remains unknown. In such cases
there  is  no  need  to  await  the  outcome  of  court  proceedings  on  the  liability  of  the
offender  to  pay  compensation,  nor  the  outcome  of  enforcing  such  a  decision  or
judgment,  the  latter  which  may  in  many  cases  prove  to  be  fruitless  because  the
offender is insolvent. This somewhat contradictory effect is increased if the principle
of subsidiary application is applied strictly.

In addition to seeking compensation from the offender, the crime victim may also be
obliged  to  exhaust  other  sources  such  as  private  insurance.  This  can  however  be
presumed to be less time-consuming compared to court proceedings, and the cross-
border  context  is  likely  to  have  less  impact,  as  normally  an  individual  would  be
insured in his or her Member State of residence.

One  solution,  in  order  to  introduce  certain  flexibility,  could  be  to  mitigate  this
requirement by saying that the victim should exhaust other means for compensation
to a reasonable extent. Thus, there would be no absolute requirement for pursuing, in
all  circumstances,  a  court  action  to  get  compensation  from  the  offender.  Neither
would  there  be  an  absolute  requirement  to  await  the  outcome  of  such  proceedings,
nor any need for a definite establishment of the offender’s insolvency. The criterion
could thereby accommodate cases where, at an early stage, it becomes obvious that
the  offender  will  not  be  able  to  pay  any  damages  at  all.  Moreover,  any  obstacles
caused  by  a  cross-border  situation  could  be  taken  into  account.  The  reasonableness
criterion  could  also  apply  in  cases  where  the  victim,  as  a  result  of  the  injuries
suffered, has severe difficulties in filing a civil claim.

Question 7: How should the subsidiary character of state compensation, in relation
to other sources of compensation to victims, be defined in a minimum standard?

Related  to  this  issue  are  what  other  types  of  compensation,  which  the  victim  has
actually been able to get, should be deducted from the compensation to be paid from
the  State.  Compensation  paid  out  under  compulsory  insurance,  social  benefits  and
similar  sources  should  be  deducted,  but  whether  compensation  from  private
insurance should be deducted is less obvious. It could be argued that the crime victim
should  not  be  penalised  by  his  own  prudence.  Deducting  compensation  paid  under
private  insurance  would  mean  that  the  individual  has  taken  out  a  private  insurance
policy “for nothing”. On the other hand, not deducting such compensation means in
practice  that  the  victim  can  receive  double  compensation  for  the  same  loss.  This  is
especially  the  case  where  state  compensation  would  offer  full  compensation  for
material  losses.  In  any  case,  issues  such  as  the  coverage  of  insurance  policies  of
losses  resulting  from  crime  and  the  extent  to  which  such  insurance  is  taken  out  by
individuals  may  differ  considerably  between  the  Member  States,  making  this  issue
difficult to assess at European level. A number of other complicated considerations
arise also, such as the particular nature of life insurance policies, but it would take it
too far to exhaustively treat these problems here.

27

The line should in any case be drawn at the actual compensation from other sources
the crime victim has been able to get, or can be expected to get (with a certain degree
of surety). To  also deduct compensation the crime victim should have been able to
get  had  he  or  she  arranged  for  an  appropriate  insurance  cover  would  on  the  other
hand  be  too  restrictive  and  very  difficult  to  apply  with  some  uniformity  across  the
EU.

Question  8:  What  other  sources  of  compensation  should  be  deducted  from  state
compensation?

5.5. 

State subrogation

In  most  Member  States,  when  compensation  has  been  paid  to  the  victim  from  the
compensation  scheme,  the  State  subrogates  in  the  rights  of  the  victim  to
compensation from the offender. A more active role of the State in this regard could
go  some  way  towards  mitigating  the  financial  consequences  of  paying  state
compensation in cases where it is still unclear whether the crime victim will be able
to receive compensation from the offender, as argued for above. On the other hand,
those  Member  States  that  do  pursue  more  vigorously  redress  from  the  offender
appear  to  enjoy  only  limited  success,  implying  that  in  budgetary  terms  the
subrogation of the State cannot provide for any real impact. It may also be presumed
that  it  is  difficult  for  the  State  to  actively  use  this  right  in  a  cross-border  situation,
that is, where the offender is resident in another Member State.

5.6. 

Reporting the crime to the police

As  was  seen  in  chapter  three,  most  Member  States  apply  the  requirement  that  the
crime victim must have reported the crime to the police. This requirement should be
included  in  a  common  minimum  standard  as  well.  An  exception  for  those  cases
where the victim may have had substantial reasons for not filing a complaint may be
to  make  eligibility  for  state
considered.  However, 
compensation dependent on the victim having filed a complaint to the police within a
certain time. A complaint made a long time after the crime is mainly to the detriment
of the victim, in any case, as it makes it more difficult to establish whether he or she
has  actually  been  the  victim  of  a  crime  and  what  injuries  he  or  she  sustained.  It  is
therefore in the victim’s own interest to file such a complaint as soon as possible.

is  doubtful  whether 

it 

5.7. 

The application for state compensation

Most  Member  States  have  set  time  limits  within  which  the  application  for  state
compensation  must  be  made.  These  time  limits  may  be  calculated  from  the  time  of
the  crime,  from  the  end  of  court  proceedings,  or  from  the  closure  of  police
investigations  if  court  proceedings  are  not  initiated.  Such  limits  appear  to  be
justified. The issue for consideration is whether to include common (minimum) time
limits  in  a  minimum  standard.  Such  limits  could  contribute  to  the  creation  of
transparent and simple rules on procedures for state compensation, across the EU.

A  number  of  issues  arise  in  this  regard,  in  a  national  context  as  well  as  in  cross-
border cases. It may be necessary to take into account the need to await the outcome
of  court  proceedings  and  the  efforts  by  the  crime  victim  to  get  compensation  from
the offender, both of which may be very time-consuming. In a cross-border situation
it may be more difficult for the victim to exercise his or her rights to compensation

28

from the offender, and that part of the procedure may therefore be even more time-
consuming.  In  a  cross-border  situation  the  victim  may  use  his  or  her  right,  as
established  by  the  framework  decision  on  the  standing  of  the  victim  in  criminal
proceedings,  to  file  the  complaint  to  the  police  in  his  or  her  Member  State  of
residence. In view of these examples it would appear that rather generous time limits
should be applied. It may be justified also to let the time limit run from the moment
when  criminal  proceedings  have  ended.  In  addition,  there  are  several  exceptional
situations  where  the  crime  victim  may  make  an  application  for  state  compensation
many years after the crime. One such example could be children who have been the
victim of a sexual offence. Consequently any limit would need to be accompanied by
an exception to accommodate such situations.

Concerning  the  content  of  the  application  as  such,  it  appears  fairly  straightforward
that  the  victim  should  include  all  documentation  that  is  available,  such  as  police
reports, medical reports, income statements, insurance statements etc. The issue for a
minimum  standard  is  whether  harmonised  forms  should  be  created,  available  in  all
Community languages. This could facilitate greatly the access to state compensation
for  victims  and  contribute  towards  making  administrative  procedures  more
transparent.  This  issue  will  be  further  elaborated  upon  in  chapter  six,  in  relation  to
facilitating access to state compensation in cross-border situations.

5.8. 

Advance payment

It is often stressed that current practices for compensation in the Member States are
not entirely in tune with the needs of the victim. Expenses related to hospitalisation
and  loss  of  earnings,  for  example,  are  incurred  immediately  following  the  crime
while compensation, be it from the offender or from the State, is usually not awarded
until  after  a  long  time,  sometimes  several  years.  This  time  lapse  may  be  due  to
inefficiencies in the judiciary and in the administration, but a basic cause is of course
also the need for a proper investigation and assessment of each individual case.

One  solution,  to  remedy  or  mitigate  the  negative  effects  for  the  victim  of  these
delays,  is  the  possibility  to  award  an  advance  payment  on  the  state  compensation.
Such a measure can be of great benefit to the victim and contribute to the prevention
of  secondary  victimisation.  It  may  be  more  time-consuming  for  a  victim  to  obtain
compensation  in  a  cross-border  situation,  making  the  possibility  of  an  advance
payment even more beneficial. However, in cases where it is still unknown whether
the victim will be able to get compensation from the offender, an advance from the
State  may  raise  principal  objections.  It  could  be  argued  that  the  victim  has  the
possibility  to  arrange  for  immediate  assistance  by  taking  out  travel  insurance.  The
assistance  available  from  embassies  or  consulates  to  its  own  citizens  abroad  also
needs to be taken into account.

Question 9: Should a possibility for advance payment be included in a minimum
standard?

5.9. 

Other criteria

A number of criteria which can lead to the refusal or reduction of state compensation
are usually  included in the national compensation schemes  and  can  be  found  in the
1983 European Convention also.

29

Firstly,  this  may  involve  the  victims  conduct  before,  during  or  after  the  crime.  In
essence this is related to the concept of the victim having caused or contributed to his
or her own injury, a concept well known in tort law. Although the definition of the
concept,  as  to  how  it  is  applied  for  the  purpose  of  state  compensation,  could  be
somewhat unclear it should be included in a minimum standard as well.

Secondly,  a  victim’s  involvement  in  organised  crime  or  membership  of  criminal
organisations  may  also  be  reason  for  refusing  compensation.  This  criterion  raises
more principal objections, as it concerns the victims conduct outside the context of
the  crime  in  question.  It  would  appear  that  this  criterion  is  not  commonly  found  in
the  tort  law  of  any  of  the  Member  States.  Situations  can  be  imagined  where  the
application may lead to difficulties or even unfair results, such as where a victim has
previously been involved in organised crime but has subsequently renounced his or
her former “life-style”. A questionmark may also be put on the possibility for a fair
assessment of this criterion in cross-border situations.

Thirdly,  compensation  may  be  refused  where  it  would  be  considered  contrary  to
justice  or  public  policy  to  award  it.  This  appears  to  be  a  very  vague  and  unclear
criterion where it is difficult to see concrete examples of its practical application. It
provides also for a very large discretion in the compensation system, decreasing the
predictability of a victim’s possibility to get compensation in any given case.

Question  10:  Should  criteria  related  to  the  victim’s  behaviour  in  relation  to  the
crime,  to  his  or  her  involvement  in  criminal  activity  in  general,  or  other
considerations of justice or public policy, be included in a minimum standard?

Question  11:  What  other  criteria,  not  covered  in  this  paper,  could  be  considered
for inclusion in a minimum standard?

6. 

COMPENSATION TO CRIME VICTIMS – ACCESS FOR THE CROSS-BORDER VICTIM

6.1. 

The situation today

This  chapter  will  analyse  what  measures  could  be  called  for  to  facilitate  access  to
state compensation throughout the EU for the cross-border victim. The term “cross-
border victim”, which will be used throughout this chapter, is to be understood as an
EU  citizen  who  becomes  the  victim  of  a  crime  in  a  Member  State  other  than  that
where he or she is permanently resident.

Community  legal  principles,  as  established  by  the  Cowan-case,  requires  that  the
possibilities  afforded  by  a  Member  State  to  its  own  nationals,  in  terms  of  state
compensation,  must  be  afforded  to  all  EU  citizens  also.  It  could  therefore  appear
sufficient that if all Member States gave a right to state compensation, as such, the
cross-border  victim  would  not  run  the  risk  of  falling  between  two  chairs.
Noteworthy,  this  does  not  cover  non-EU  nationals  legally  residing  in  one  Member
State  and  becoming  victims  of  crime  in  another,  but  that  is  rather  an  issue  to  be
addressed in the context of a minimum standard.

However, differences between the compensation schemes of the Member States may
create unfair effects depending on where in the EU an individual becomes the victim
of  a  crime.  This  problem  has  partly  been  addressed  in  chapter  five.  More

30

importantly, it was clear from the overview of European norms in chapter two and of
the existing schemes in chapter three that no mechanism exists to facilitate the access
to  state  compensation  for  a  cross-border  victim.  The  problems  that  a  cross-border
victim  may  face,  and  possible  solutions  that  could  mitigate  these  problems,  will  be
developed in this chapter.

6.2. 

Obstacles resulting from the cross-border situation

The  obstacles  resulting  from  the  cross-border  situation  that  can  impair  the  victim’s
ability to apply for state compensation can, for the sake of illustration, be grouped in
three: obstacles related to information on the possibilities to get state compensation,
obstacles  related  to  making  an  application  for  state  compensation,  and  obstacles
related to the necessary investigation that must accompany the application.

6.2.1. 

Information

Taking the example of a crime victim that leaves the Member State where the crime
took place shortly afterwards, such as a tourist, he or she has a very limited time to
get information on the spot regarding the possibilities to get state compensation for
the  injuries  sustained.  In  his  or  her  Member  State  of  residence  there  are  limited,  if
any,  possibilities  for  finding  such  information.  To  find  out,  at  a  distance,  which
authority to turn to in the Member State where the crime took place, and overcoming
possible language differences, could prove difficult. It may be noted also that many
Member States have experienced difficulties in reaching victims with information on
possibilities to compensation in strictly national situations as well. It can therefore be
assumed that the cross-border situation makes this problem worse.

6.2.2.  The application

Provided  that  the  crime  victim  has  been  able  to  find  the  necessary  information
regarding  his  or  her  possibility  to  apply  for  state  compensation,  he  or  she  may  still
face language difficulties in completing the application. National rules setting short
time limits within which the application must be submitted may be more difficult to
comply with in a cross-border situation. The crime victim may need to follow, again
at a distance, the outcome of the criminal proceedings in the Member State where the
crime took place, as he or she may not be eligible to apply until the proceedings have
been concluded. The victim may also find it difficult to be heard (in person) before
the  authority  reviewing  the  application.  Again,  the  victim  has  limited  if  any
possibilities  to  obtain  assistance  in  this  regard.  Moreover,  the  authority  in  the
Member  State  where  the  crime  took  place  may  be  unused  to  handling  applications
from victims resident in another Member State, or maybe even not fully informed of
their responsibilities in such situations.

6.2.3.  The investigation

The crime victim usually needs to complete the application with various reports that
in a cross-border situation is likely to come from different Member States. The police
report will, usually, have been drawn up in the Member State where the crime took
place. The medical report may have been made in either the Member State where the
crime  took  place  or  in  the  Member  State  of  residence,  or  there  may  in  fact  be  one
report  from  each  Member  State,  if  more  long-term  care  was  necessary  due  to  the
severity of the injury suffered. In case the victim wishes to claim compensation for

31

loss of earnings he or she has to supply an income statement from his or her Member
State of residence. Certain Member States also require the crime victim to show that
the  offender  is  indeed  insolvent  and  unable  to  pay  any  damages;  again  the  cross-
border situation may make it difficult for the victim to acquire such information from
another Member State. All the accompanying reports from his or her Member State
of  residence  may  not  only  need  to  be  translated,  but  they  must  also  contain  the
information  required  according  the  rules  in  place  in  the  Member  State  where  the
application is to be made. Further to this, the victim may need to arrange for that a
copy  of  the  decision  or  judgment  resulting  from  court  proceedings  against  the
offender is joined to his or her application.

6.2.4.  Other observations

There are consequently a number of practical obstacles that impair the cross-border
victims  access  to  state  compensation.  A  financial  burden  can  result  from  that  the
victim  may  have  to  ensure  the  necessary  translation  of  the  application  and  the
accompanying investigation. These obstacles must be seen against the background of
the  already  sensitive  situation  that  the  victim  is  in  following  the  crime.  The
difficulties  caused  by  the  cross-border  situation  can  give  rise  to  secondary
victimisation, possibly to the extent that the victim chooses not to apply in the first
place. It is therefore clear that the very existence of state compensation schemes in
all Member States, coupled with the principle of non-discrimination as established by
the Cowan-case, is not sufficient. Neither can the ratification by all Member States of
the  1983  European  Convention  be  expected  to  improve  the  situation,  as  the
Convention  does  not  include  concrete  provisions  assisting  cross-border  victims.
Measures at Community level therefore appears necessary to facilitate the access of
cross-border victims to state compensation in any Member State as easily as in their
Member State of residence.

6.2.5.  Possible solutions to ensure easy access in a cross-border situation

In the search for a solution on how to implement the objective of easy access to state
compensation for the cross-border crime victim, a number of guiding principles can
be identified. Firstly, any solution must be simple, transparent and practical, for the
crime  victim  as  well  as  for  the  authorities  involved  but  with  priority  given  to  the
interests of the victim. Secondly, the solution must apply with a satisfactory degree
of uniformity across the EU, to avoid distortions and unfair effects.

With  these  principles  in  mind,  two  model  solutions  for  ensuring  the  access  to  state
compensation  for  victims  will  be  presented.  In  order  to  focus  on  the  particular
problems connected to cross-border situations, both model solutions are based on the
assumption  that  a  possibility  for  all  victims  to  get  an  adequate  level  of  state
compensation  exists  in  all  Member  States,  through  the  introduction  of  a  minimum
standard  at  Community  level.  The  models  have  been  chosen  for  the  sake  of
structuring the discussion on how to move forward. They are certainly not the only
solutions that can be envisaged, and neither are they to be taken as “ready-made”; the
purpose is to identify the main pros and cons of each model to facilitate comparisons
between them.

32

6.3. 

The mutual assistance model

The  practical  obstacles  confronting  the  cross-border  victim  could  be  reduced  by
providing  the  victim  with  a  right  to  assistance  in  his  or  her  Member  State  of
residence.

The  basis  for  this  solution  would  be  the  territoriality  principle,  that  is,  the  Member
State  where  the  crime  took  place  is  responsible  for  paying  the  compensation  and
reviews the application according to its national rules.

This principle would be complemented by a right for the crime victim to submit his
or  her  application  to  an  authority  in  his  or  her  Member  State  of  residence.  This
authority  (hereafter  the  transmitting  authority)  would  be  obliged  to  transmit  the
application  to  the  competent  authority  (hereafter  the  receiving  authority)  in  the
Member  State  where  the  crime  took  place,  thus  providing  a  certain  degree  of
administrative assistance to the victim. The main purpose of this model is, therefore,
to  provide  concrete  rules  on  cooperation  between  the  relevant  authorities  in  the
Member States, similar to what has recently been set in place for judicial cooperation
between  the  Member  States  for  service  of  documents  and  for  taking  of  evidence21.
These regulations could serve as inspiration for a number of practical aspects in this
context also, for example, the setting of precise deadlines and the use of languages
and of standard forms.

The main question that arises is how far the obligation for the transmitting authority
to  provide  administrative  assistance  to  the  victim  should  extend.  Some  of  the
obligations that could be envisaged include:

–  To  assist  the  victim  with  information  on  his  or  her  possibility  to  get  state
compensation  in  the  Member  State  where  the  crime  took  place,  that  is,
information on the material content of the rules applicable.

–  To  assist  the  victim  in  getting  the  necessary  material  for  completing  the
application  (such  as  the  necessary  forms)  and  to  make  sure  that  all  the  required
accompanying reports are included.

–  To arrange for any necessary translations, ensuring that the application (including
the  accompanying  reports)  is  submitted  in  a  language  accepted  by  the  receiving
authority.

The obligations of the transmitting authority would on the other hand not include any
review or preliminary assessment of the application.

6.3.1.  Responsible authorities in the Member States

It  would  be  necessary  to  decide  which  authority  in  each  Member  State  that  should
assume  the  obligations  outlined  above.  For  the  sake  of  clarity  and  simplicity  the

21

Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial
and  extrajudicial  documents  in  civil  or  commercial  matters,  OJ  L  160,  30.6.2000,  p.  37.  Council
Regulation  (EC)  No  1206/2001  of  28  May  2001  on  cooperation  between  the  courts  of  the  Member
States  of  the  European  Union  in  the  taking  of  evidence  in  civil  and  commercial  matters,  OJ  L  174,
27.6.2001, p. 1.

33

                                                
authority responsible for managing the compensation scheme, in each Member State,
appears to be the natural solution. Regardless of whether an individual has been the
victim of a crime in his or her Member State of residence or abroad, he or she can
turn to the same authority in order to submit an application for state compensation.
These authorities have also built up a substantial expertise in handling their own state
compensation  scheme,  experience  which  would  be  vital  for  assuming  the  task  of
providing  information  on  foreign  schemes  to  the  victim.  It  would  however  be
necessary to further assess whether the existing authorities are actually suitable, and
able, to assume this task. It should be considered also whether the responsibility for
some  of  the  obligations,  such  as  translations,  should  rather  be  put  on  the  receiving
authority  instead.  The  second  question  is  how  to  implement  this  responsibility  in
Member  States  with  several  (decentralised)  authorities.  Should  all  of  these  assume
this  obligation,  or  should  one  be  appointed?  The  answers  to  these  questions  would
have to be found through a balance between the desired degree of uniformity within
the EU and the respect for the principle of subsidiarity.

6.3.2. 

Information and cooperation between the authorities

Whichever  solution  is  chosen  for  appointing  responsible  authorities  in  the  Member
States,  information  must  be  available  for  these  authorities  on  the  compensation
schemes of other Member States, to enable them to give adequate information to the
victim. How detailed this information needs to be would be determined by the exact
content  of  the  obligations  for  the  transmitting  authorities  towards  the  crime  victim.
At the very least a list of the competent transmitting and receiving authorities in all
Member  States  needs  to  be  established,  together  with  information  on  how
applications are made under each set of national rules. To this may need to be added
information  on  the  actual  content  of  the  national  rules,  as  this  would  allow  the
transmitting authority to give detailed information to the victim on what possibilities
to state compensation under the foreign system that he or she has. A standard form
for 
transmitting
applications,  could  be  considered.  The  use  of  modern  communication  technology
could further facilitate and speed up the communication between the authorities.

the  communication  between 

the  authorities, 

to  use  when 

A solution will need to be found for compiling and managing the above information,
possibly  in  the  form  of  a  continuously  updated  directory  drawn  up  at  Community
level, including information on all compensation schemes of the Member States. As
previously  mentioned,  inspiration  could  be  sought  in  this  regard  from  other
legislation  in  the  field  of  judicial  cooperation  in  civil  matters.  A  complementary
aspect to such a directory, and useful also for the day-to-day handling of applications
in  cross-border  situations,  could  be  the  creation  of  a  network  at  experts  level  to
facilitate  cooperation  and  direct  contacts  between  the  authorities  in  the  Member
States.  In  this  regard  the  use  of  the  European  Judicial  Network  in  civil  and
commercial  matters22  could  be  considered  also,  to  exchange  experiences,  identify
problems and, notably, improve dissemination of information.

6.3.3.  The right to be heard

A victim may find it difficult to be heard before the receiving authority, when he or
she has returned to his or her Member State of residence. One possibility would be

22

Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001, OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 25.

34

                                                
for  the  transmitting  authority  to  also  assist  in  this  regard,  by  using  modern
communications technology. The transmitting authority could arrange for the victim
to  be  heard  by  the  receiving  authority  through  the  use  of,  for  example,
videoconferencing.

6.3.4.  Other observations

The  considerations  outlined  above  shows  that  in  essence,  the  “mutual  assistance
model”  entails  shifting  the  administrative  burden  involved  in  applying  for
compensation in another Member State from the victim to an authority in his or her
Member  State  of  residence.  Noteworthy,  this  solution  would  mirror  that  chosen  in
the  Framework  Decision  on  the  standing  of  the  victims  in  criminal  proceedings.  In
that  decision  the  victim  may  make  a  complaint  before  the  competent  authorities  in
his or her Member State of residence, if he was unable to do so in the Member State
where  the  offence  was  committed.  This  latter  condition  may  be  considered  also  in
this context.

In the implementation of this model, nothing would of course prevent Member States
currently giving victims a right to compensation for crimes abroad from continuing
to  apply  this  right.  Neither  would  it  prevent  the  victim  from  applying  for
compensation  directly  to  the  competent  authority  in  the  Member  State  where  the
crime took place.

Question 12: Would a right for the cross-border victim to receive assistance from
an  authority  in  his  or  her  Member  State  of  residence  when  applying  for  state
compensation  from  another  Member  State  be  an  appropriate  way  of  facilitating
access to state compensation for cross-border victims?

6.4. 

The double responsibility model

A more ambitious and more extensive solution would be to give the crime victim the
right  to  apply  for  and  receive  compensation  in  two  Member  States:  in  the  Member
State  where  the  crime  was  committed  as  well  as  in  his  or  her  Member  State  of
residence.  Consequently,  two  authorities  in  two  different  Member  States  would  be
responsible,  in  a  mutually  exclusive  way,  for  the  compensation  in  any  given  case.
Each authority would treat the application in accordance with its national rules.

6.4.1.  Administration and cooperation between authorities

The  administrative  burden  from  the  authorities’  point  of  view  is  clearly  less  of  an
issue for this model compared to the mutual assistance model, as there would be no
need  for  the  national  authorities  to  assist  victims  with  applying  in  another  Member
State.  The  double  responsibility  model  neither  requires  the  drawing  up  of  any
directory of the compensation schemes of each Member State. Consequently it would
be  simpler  to  design  as  there  would  be  no  need  for  designating  transmitting  and
receiving  authorities.  Without  the  need  for  transmission  of  applications  between
Member  States  the  handling  of  applications  could  be  expected  to  be  quicker,  an
important  aspect  for  the  victim.  However,  coordination  would  still  be  necessary  to
avoid  the  risk  of  double  compensation,  that  is,  a  victim  applying  for  and  receiving
compensation in two Member States.

35

As  regards  the  investigation,  an  authority  in  a  given  Member  State  may  find  it
difficult to accurately assess the crime victim’s right to compensation in cases where
the crime has been committed abroad. It would have to base itself on a police report,
and  possibly  also  a  medical  report,  from  another  Member  State.  It  would  have  to
find,  where  appropriate,  information  on  the  outcome  of  court  proceedings  in  the
other  Member  State,  where  the  crime  victim  may  have  pursued  a  court  action  for
compensation from the offender. The requirement for exhausting all other means for
compensation, prevalent in most Member States, may therefore be difficult to apply.

6.4.2.  Compensation levels

An advantage of the double responsibility model, from the perspective of the victim,
is related to the level of compensation. A cross-border victim may sustain most of his
or her losses in the Member State of permanent residence, especially in the case of
more  severe  injuries  resulting  from  the  crime.  This  may  include  future  loss  of
earnings  and  long-term  hospital  costs.  The  compensation  for  such  losses  may  vary
considerably between the Member States due to, for example, differences in standard
of  living.  For  the  victim,  receiving  compensation  from  his  or  her  Member  State  of
residence may therefore result in a more accurate compensation for the actual losses
caused  by  the  crime.  There  would  therefore  be  less  need  for  harmonising  the
compensation  schemes  of  the  Member  States  through  the  establishment  of  a
minimum standard with this model.

The possibility for victims to deliberately choose which system is most advantageous
for  them  may  however  create  unjust  effects  also.  Two  persons  falling  victim  to  the
same  crime  at  the  same  place  may  in  fact  receive  very  different  amounts  in
compensation, as a result of differences between the compensation schemes in their
respective  Member  States  of  residence.  The  model  entails  a  risk  for  “forum
shopping”,  that  is,  the  victim  actively  seeking  to  apply  under  the  scheme  which  is
most advantageous in terms of compensation levels.

6.4.3.  Budgetary issues

The budgetary consequences for each Member State are of course difficult to predict
for  this  model,  but  they  are  unlikely  to  be  reciprocal.  It  would  be  easy  to  find
examples  of  two  Member  States  between  which,  for  example,  tourist-streams  or
streams of temporary workers are basically one-directional. The financial effects for
the two Member States involved when paying compensation to cross-border victims
would, in such cases, be close to the opposite of applying the territoriality principle.
In addition to this, the possible increase in applications for certain Member States are
difficult  to  predict,  but  could  demand  an  increase  in  the  administrative  resources
required.

Question 13: Would a possibility for the victim to get state compensation in his or
her  Member  State  of  residence  as  well  in  the  Member  State  where  the  crime
occurred  be  an  appropriate  way  of  facilitating  access  to  state  compensation  for
cross-border victims?

6.5. 

General observations and comparisons

The “double responsibility” model appears simple and straightforward and it is more
generous from the perspective of the crime victim. Several Member States do in fact

36

apply  this  model  today,  by  offering  a  possibility  for  compensation  to  citizens  or
residents  injured  abroad.  The  model  would  also  guarantee  the  coverage,  across  the
EU,  of  legally  residing  non-EU  nationals  by  the  scheme  of  at  least  one  Member
State,  regardless  of  whether  such  nationals  are  covered  by  a  minimum  standard  or
not.  On  the  other  hand  this  model,  if  introduced  at  Community  level,  could  be
regarded  as  less  proportionate  compared  to  the  mutual  assistance  model.  It  raises  a
number of issues related to its application, from the perspective of the victim as well
as  from  the  perspective  of  the  administration.  Until  the  moment  the  victim  has
submitted his or her application, it is unclear which authority is actually responsible
for  the  compensation  in  a  given  case.  In  relations  between  the  Member  States  the
solution  provides  for  less  reciprocity  than  applying  the  territoriality  principle.  The
mutual  assistance  model,  on  the  other  hand,  would  require  a  more  far-reaching
harmonisation of compensation levels in order to avoid unfair results in cross-border
situations.

Recalling the principle to build upon what exists already in the Member States, the
mutual  assistance  model  appears  to  be  the  most  appropriate.  The  territoriality
principle, albeit with some modifications, is recognised by all Member States today.
Notably,  the  mutual  assistance  model  would  of  course  not  prevent  those  Member
States that today compensate citizens or residents injured abroad from continuing to
do  so.  Neither  would  it  prevent  other  Member  States  from  introducing  such  a
possibility. Thus, the mutual assistance model does not require any change in current
practices as such, but rather assuming an additional responsibility for assisting cross-
border  victims.  The  latter  may  be  the  central  question  –  are  the  authorities  in  the
Member  States  able  to  assume  this  responsibility,  or  would  further  administrative
resources need to be allocated?

Question  14:  What  solutions,  other  than  those  outlined  in  this  paper,  could  be
envisaged to facilitate access to state compensation for cross-border victims?

6.6. 

Horizontal implementation issues

6.6.1.  Harmonised forms

In the context of both models the possibility to create harmonised forms, available in
all  Community  languages  and  possible  to  use  for  a  crime  victim  regardless  of  in
which  Member  State  the  application  is  made,  should  be  considered.  However,  it  is
necessary to be aware of the limitations of such forms, as applications in most cases
need to be accompanied by police reports and medical reports. These reports can in
fact constitute the most important elements of the application. In addition, the forms
in  use  today  in  the  Member  States  are  quite  divergent,  reflecting  differences  in  the
national  rules  on  compensation  in  themselves.  The  creation  of  harmonised  forms,
possible to use for all victims regardless of in which Member State the application is
made,  would  however  be  made  more  feasible  through  a  greater  degree  of
harmonisation, through the establishment of a common minimum standard.

Question  15:  Should  harmonised  forms,  possible  to  use  when  applying  for  state
compensation in all Member States, be established?

37

6.6.2. 

Information to the citizen

A  necessary  element  in  the  implementation  of  any  of  the  two  models  is
comprehensive  and  easily  available  information  to  the  citizens.  Such  information
campaigns would have to be conducted at all levels, European, national, regional and
local,  and  would  benefit  from  being  available  in  all  Community  languages  as  a
minimum.  In  terms  of  common  regulatory  measures,  an  obligation  for  all  police
authorities in the EU to give information on victims’  rights to state compensation, in
all  languages,  could  be  envisaged.  Such  an  obligation  exists  already  in  many
Member  States.  This  information  could  include,  for  example,  the  possibilities  to
compensation  that  exist  and  how  the  crime  victim  can  apply,  including  responsible
authorities  as  well  as  application  procedures  and  required  accompanying
information.

The  cooperation  between  national  authorities  that  is  envisaged  by  the  mutual
assistance model would be useful also for the mutual understanding of the schemes
of  the  different  Member  States.  The  European  Judicial  Network  in  civil  and
commercial  matters  could  play  an  important  role  in  improving  dissemination  of
information  at  a  European  scale.  Finally,  reference  must  be  made  also  to  the
activities of non-governmental organisations such as victims’  service support groups,
who can play an important role in improving the access to information for victims.

7. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The  overview  of  state  compensation  schemes  in  the  Member  States  and  the
considerations of possible measures at Community level, with a particular focus on
cross-border  situations,  would  appear  to  confirm  that  a  Community  initiative  on
compensation  to  crime  victims  could  indeed  provide  real  added  value.  Such  an
initiative could constitute an important building stone in the construction of an area
of freedom, security and justice, creating a basic level of protection for all residents
of the EU, easily accessible regardless of where in the EU they may become victims
of crime.

In relation to the possible establishment of a common minimum standard, it is clear
that each component of such a standard raises a number of considerations, difficult in
themselves  and  highlighting  also  the  differences  that  exist  between  the  Member
States. However, these difficulties should not be allowed to obscure the importance
and  the  desirability  of  reaching  the  objectives  of  a  common  minimum  standard.  In
particular the considerations have revealed that, in relation to most of the criteria that
could  be  included  in  a  minimum  standard,  cross-border  situations  are  very  relevant
for the assessment of different solutions.

The  objective  of  improving  access  to  state  compensation  for  cross-border  victims
appears more straightforward. Noteworthy, the level of harmonisation that could be
achieved through a minimum standard is highly influential on the choice of solutions
on how to reach this objective. It confirms therefore that the objectives of providing a
safety  net  and  of  limiting  unfair  effects  are  closely  linked  to  the  objective  of
facilitating access to state compensation for the cross-border victim.

Apart from the issues directly related to the creation of a minimum standard and to
an improvement of the position of the cross-border victim, other considerations arise

38

also. For some Member States, making progress in the possibility for crime victims
to  get  state  compensation  will  involve  a  need  for  increasing  budgetary  and
administrative resources, compared to what is currently allocated. While such issues
have only been briefly touched upon in this paper, as it would make little sense for
the  Commission  to  launch  a  consultation  on  such  matters,  the  Commission  clearly
recognises the relevance of such considerations.

However, the Commission would like to stress, as a final remark, the need to seize
this  opportunity  to  make  further  progress  on  state  compensation  to  crime  victims.
Since  the  1983  European  Convention,  whereby  a  first  step  was  taken  towards
converging  minimum  provisions,  significant  advances  have  been  made 
in
understanding and caring for the situation of victims of crime. At the same time, the
EU has set itself the objective of creating an area of freedom, security and justice. It
would appear that the conditions are now in place for achieving, at Community level,
ambitious objectives to the benefit of victims of crime.

The  need  for  careful  considerations  of  how  concrete  measures  could  be  designed
shows that an active participation of all interested parties in the consultation on this
Green Paper is vital, in order to realise the potential for making substantial progress
in this field.

39