Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Green Paper on compensation to crime victims" (COM(2001) 536 final)
Date: 2002-03-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: crime, indemnification, victim

27.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 125/31

4. Conclusion

4.1. Whilst the Committee welcomes the improvements to
the Dublin Convention proposed in this Regulation, our
position remains that, harmonisation of asylum procedures,
reception conditions, interpretation of the definition of refugee
and other complementary forms of protection, should take
place before formulating a system for allocating responsibility
between Member States for examining of asylum applications.
In our view such harmonisation would reduce any perceived
incentives for asylum applicants to choose between Member
States when lodging their applications. No system of allocating
responsibility for considering asylum applications can function
fairly without harmonisation of the law and procedures.

At the European Council in Tampere the importance
4.2.
of both the European Union and individual Member States
respecting the right to seek asylum was reaffirmed, as was the

offer of guarantees to those who seek protection in, or access
to, the European Union.

4.3.
The right to seek asylum is contained in the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights is undermined by a system
which links allocation of responsibility for asylum applications
to responsibility for entry controls. Such a system encourages
States to prevent asylum applicants from ever reaching their
territory through an ever-increasing variety of control
measures.

Far from contributing to safeguarding of rights at
4.4.
national
level, this proposed regulation undermines those
rights. It encourages Member States to externalise their borders
and to take repressive measures against those seeking entry
into their territory with the result that asylum seekers are
forced into the hand of organised criminals involved in human
trafficking.

Brussels, 20 March 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Green Paper on compensation to crime
victims’

(COM(2001) 536 final)

(2002/C 125/09)

On 28 September 2001 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the ‘Green Paper on compensation
to crime victims’.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 27 February 2002. The rapporteur was
Mr Melı´cias.

At its 389th Plenary Session (meeting of 20 March 2002), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 85 votes to three with no abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The State first took on the role of the injured party in
the settlement of criminal cases in the 18th century, thereby
taking the place of the victim. Ever since then, individuals who
are the victims of crime have increasingly lost the chance to
speak for themselves and have been ignored more and more

as they ceased to play any part in proceedings. The leading
role taken by the State, and the consequent sidelining of the
victim, have brought suffering and injustice for crime victims
and disrupted the social order.

A negative and unsustainable situation has thus
1.1.1.
developed which has slowly begun to be questioned only in
the last few years.

C 125/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.5.2002

1.2.
In almost all countries for some twenty years now,
groupings of citizens’ associations — today under the umbrella
of a European forum — act as a mouthpiece and high-profile
advocate for those who suffer the psychological, physical and
material consequences of crime.

1.7.
During the Portuguese presidency in the first half of
2000, and at its initiative, the Council recognised the need for
a framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal
proceedings. The initiative was strongly backed by the Com-
mission and by succeeding presidencies, and the decision was
duly adopted in March 2001.

1.3.
In tandem with these groupings, and in response to
developments in penal systems and in the defence of the
principles of social solidarity and equity, a number of countries
have come to pay more attention to the hitherto largely
overlooked victims of crime.

1.8.
Spurred by the preparatory work undertaken by the
Swedish presidency, the Commission has now tabled a green
paper that makes a further key contribution to securing State
compensation for crime victims, providing a full response to
the Tampere Council recommendation.

1.3.1.
They are doing this not only by taking greater
account of the position of crime victims in the workings
of the criminal
justice system but also by contemplating
compensation in cases where failure to provide it would fly in
the face of basic justice.

2. Gist of the Commission document

As the institutional forum for organised civil society,

1.9.
the ESC applauds this initiative.

1.4.
The United Nations and the Council of Europe have
been conducting important work in pursuit of international
solutions to the problems faced by crime victims. The Council
of Europe approved a European Convention in 1983 (not yet
ratified by all signatories) and the United Nations adopted a
Declaration in 1985.

The Green Paper launches a consultation process on
2.1.
how to safeguard and improve State compensation for crime
victims in the EU.

The Green Paper gives an overview of European

2.2.
legislation in this field.

1.5.
The European Union has inevitably followed suit, to
safeguard a society in which safety and the justice system rest
on a culture of solidarity that implies a true sharing of
responsibility and the fundamental universal right of each
individual not to be left alone in the face of aggression, danger
or crime.

1.6.
The sterling work done by the Commission in this field
(Communication issued in July 1999) provided a full response
to the decisions set out in the Vienna Action Plan (1) and
influenced the conclusions of the Tampere European Council
of 1999 (Point 32 of Presidency Conclusions). The establish-
ment of an area of freedom, security and justice in the Member
States,
initiated by the Amsterdam Treaty, has taken on
particular meaning and importance, as it focuses on — and
strives to resolve — practical problems faced by individual
Community citizens. The European Parliament too has firmly
supported the improvement of compensation for crime vic-
tims, adopting resolutions on the subject in 1989 and 1999.

It also provides details of the situation in the Member

2.3.
States.

It puts forward information and ideas that lead it to

2.4.
pose basic questions concerning such issues as:

— the need for, and scope of, action at EU level;

— how to enable victims of crime to obtain State compen-

sation in all Member States;

— how to make it easier for victims of crime to obtain State
compensation when the crime was not committed in the
victim’s country of residence.

2.5.
The manner in which these issues are addressed in the
Commission initiative will have important implications, as it
could:

(1) OJ C 19, 23.1.1999, p. 1-15, Action Plan of the Council and the
Commission on how best to implement the provisions of the
Treaty of Amsterdam on an area of freedom, security and justice.

— make it obligatory for all Member States to provide an
adequate level of State compensation for crime victims
by establishing a possible common denominator for this
level;

27.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 125/33

— ensure the existence of practical mechanisms, through
cooperation between national authorities and the devel-
opment of existing systems, to make it easier to obtain
State compensation whether or not the victim is resident
in the Member State where the crime was committed.

At the same time, in cases where no compensation
3.3.1.
is yet envisaged or where the level
is below the agreed
minimum, positive steps are needed to dispel the temptation
to turn the minimum level into the maximum.

3. General comments

3.1.
The EU’s Member States have very different traditions,
cultures and practices, and their treatment of crime victims
varies widely. It is clear from the study conducted following
the Umeå conference in October 2000 and from the Green
Paper that State compensation of crime vi ctims ranges from
virtually zero to highly acceptable levels which nevertheless
could not feasibly be adopted in other Member States at
present.

This is the only way to ensure that the spirit of a
3.3.2.
common system is upheld, fairness is respected, and people
are protected.

3.4.
For the Commission initiative to have any meaning,
there must be reference parameters and thus common stan-
dards to foster convergence.

3.4.1.
Once again, the aim must be to strike a balance —
notwithstanding the inherent tension that often exists —
between the interests of the individual citizen and the collective
interests represented by the concrete circumstances of each
Member State, thereby helping to build a common area of
freedom, security and justice for all the Community’s citizens.

3.1.1.
further highlights the differences.

Analysis of this issue in the context of enlargement

The questions posed by the Commission provide

3.5.
reasons and pointers for achieving this delicate balance.

3.1.2.
The exercise is thus clearly a difficult one, and must
be carried out with great caution. It is nevertheless essential as
an indication and symbol of the practical success of the
European venture, centred on the individual and his or her
practical problems.

3.2.
It is undoubtedly desirable — and acceptable for all
Member States — for all countries to have State-guaranteed
compensation systems for crime victims.

3.6.
These warnings and our common culture of solidarity
and shared responsibility should be borne in mind when the
current opinion is read.

4. Replies to the Commission’s questions

3.2.1.
systems provide an adequate level of protection.

It is also both right and proper to ensure that such

4.1. Question 1: Should a Community initiative on State compen-
sation to crime victims pursue the objectives listed in Chap-
ter 4.2? Are there other objectives that should be pursued as
well?

3.2.2.
Arriving at a consensus on how to determine the
right level and deal with the consequences will obviously be
difficult, and will require considerable commitment from the
relevant authorities of the Member States if truly positive
results are to be achieved.

4.1.1.
The answer to the first part of the question is clearly
‘yes’. The three listed objectives are fundamental and must be
addressed in a Commission initiative; a directive would appear
to be the most appropriate instrument for this. The Committee
fully supports such an initiative.

3.3.
A positive momentum must be built up, with action
to ensure that in cases where a higher level of protection has
already been set, there is no danger that the establishment of a
lowest common denominator will deter countries from retain-
ing or increasing their existing levels.

4.1.1.1.
Other objectives — e.g. providing victims with full
and clearly worded information, or the need to ensure that
victims are able to make full use of the instruments available
to them — will be driven by the three listed objectives. At all
events, the answers to several of the following questions will
go a long way towards achieving these objectives.

C 125/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.5.2002

4.1.1.2.
The Committee is fully aware of the financial
implications which the implementation of a Commission
initiative in this field will have for the Member States. However,
it feels that this is an area of crucial
importance for EU
integration, concerning as it does the status of the citizen in a
true common judicial area, the protection of particularly
delicate and essential rights, and the approximation of laws
founded on shared objectives that are accepted as the keystone
of a better common future.

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

4.3.1.
Provision must be made to ensure that sufficiently
clear evidence is submitted, together with means of proving it
(and the principle that those who abuse the system will be
punished must be established).

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

4.2.1.
Always remembering the need to avoid resorting to
lowest common denominators in the light of the situation in
each Member State, but instead to set a minimum standard
which guarantees the position and interests of victims within
the EU,
the Green Paper’s response to this question is
satisfactory.

4.3.1.1.
Provision must also be made to enshrine the
principle of the utmost facility and latitude in the submission
of proof (understood to mean ‘the highest probability of
establishing a causal link between the alleged crime and the
damages sought’), outlawing procedural mechanisms that
impede this.

Aside from the basic principles which each Member
4.3.1.2.
State must respect as a matter of solidarity (and which it is for
‘European common sense’ to judge), the minimum common
standard could be found as regards a reasonable deadline (with
due exceptions) for the submission of evidence or proof,
always bearing in mind the particularly vulnerable and uncer-
tain position which the victim is likely to be in, and the need
to avoid secondary victimisation.

4.2.2.

Analysis of the criteria put forward:

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

— Eligible victims — both direct and indirect victims; the
definitions should be standardised as far as possible,
without
forgetting dependants, bystanders and ‘good
samaritans’.

4.4.1.
The Committee fully supports the Green Paper’s
stance regarding compensation for material losses. Particular
attention must be paid to the most disadvantaged victims.

— Criteria related to types of crime and types of injury: the
most acceptable approach at present would seem to be
to provide compensation for the effects of violent crimes
that cause physical or psychological (immaterial, pain/
suffering) damage or material damage that is indissolubly
linked thereto. Purely material damage, even if inflicted
without the use of violence, must be considered if it
causes the victim serious economic hardship. Victims of
drink-driving or of driving under the influence of other
substances which impair the ability to drive should also
be considered, as in cases where the driver has acted with
intent and caused physical injury or loss of life, it must
be formally recognised that a violent crime has been
committed and that appropriate action must follow.

4.4.2.
A minimum standard for immaterial damages is vital.
The Green Paper’s proposal for this also deserves endorsement,
given the difficulty of arriving at a common definition. Special
attention must be paid to the situation of victims in cases
when the effects of the damage continue to be felt for some
time.

The principle of

following the line taken by
4.4.2.1.
national
liability would be a
major step forward, even if it would not necessarily lead to
standardisation.

legislation as regards civil

— A generic definition of the crimes covered is therefore

needed.

4.4.2.2.
However, one step towards standardisation might
be to draw up a common indicative table establishing compen-
sation levels for each category of crime and laying down the
criteria for including situations in each category in the table.

27.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 125/35

4.4.2.3.
However, there is a danger of indicative tables being
applied mechanically by the authorities, thereby depriving all
decision-taking of the human touch. To counter this, victim-
support organisations should be consulted when decisions are
taken. Because of their backgrounds and sensibilities, such
organisations could provide vital
information in real-life
situations, thus ensuring that the decisions taken are not
automatic and lacking compassion.

4.7.2.
the victim who will suffer.

If compensation procedures are very protracted, it is

4.7.3.
State compensation, and the prompt advance pay-
ment of a sufficient sum to meet the victim’s actual needs,
must be enshrined as the immediate first step wherever
necessary.

4.5. Question 5: Could compensation for permanent disability be

defined for the purposes of a minimum standard?

The Committee broadly supports the Commission’s
4.5.1.
line on this. It stresses that the abovementioned minimum
standard of compensation for immaterial damages must not
overlook all possible cases of permanent disability or cases of
immaterial damage resulting from a long-term disability. A
common graduated table of disability might be helpful here.

4.6. 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?

4.6.1.
The Committee’s answer has to be no. The fairest
solution would seem to be compensation based on actual
damage.

The Committee also broadly supports the Com-
4.6.2.
mission’s stance regarding the level of compensation. For
immaterial damages, the most viable solution seems to be for
each Member State to decide for itself how to determine the
amount of compensation. The use of a common table, as
mentioned above, should not however be ruled out, despite
the difficulties.

4.6.3. When dealing with cross-border victims, account
must be taken of possible differences in Member States’
treatment. This matter will be dealt with at a later point.

4.7.4.
The State will then have a right to recourse in the
light of any subsequent compensation payments received from
the offender.

4.7.5.
Affirmation of the principle of the subsidiary charac-
ter of State compensation must not lead to a failure to
intervene or to a solution that creates secondary victimisation.

4.7.6.
to be the first answer.

In practice, State compensation will frequently have

If a victim cannot obtain State compensation until
4.7.7.
he has proved that he has unsuccessfully explored all other
possible avenues (compensation from the offender,
from
insurance, etc.), the slow and difficult nature of the process
will victimise him still further and make State assistance appear
somewhat hypocritical.

4.8. Question 8: What other sources of compensation should be

deducted from State compensation?

4.8.1.
in relation to private insurance.

As the Green Paper notes, this question arises mainly

4.8.1.1.
to that of the victim’s economic situation.

In this context the question of insurance is similar

4.8.1.2.
Nevertheless, one could countenance the aid paid
by the State being returned when the victim receives compen-
sation through an insurance policy. If the sum received under
this policy is equal to or less than the amount provided by the
State, the repayment should be the exact sum received under
the policy.

4.7. 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?

4.8.1.3.
protect the interests of the victim.

It might be argued that this would adequately

4.7.1.
It is not necessary to wait until the end of the
proceedings before countenancing the possibility of receiving
compensation either from the offender or by some other
means.

4.8.1.4.
However, the key question here is complementarity
rather than subsidiarity. The existence of any private insurance
cover should be ignored and the State should proceed as if the
victim had no cover, as otherwise the victim would be
penalised for his circumspection.

C 125/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.5.2002

4.8.1.5.
If State compensation is to be treated as a subsidiary
form, the State should promote wider use of private or social
insurance by providing special incentives or tax rebates for
them.

4.10. 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?

4.9. Question 9: Should a possibility for advance payment be

included in a minimum standard?

4.9.1.
From the paragraphs which lead up to this question
(points 5.5 to 5.8 of the Green Paper), it follows that as a
matter of principle, State subrogation in the victim’s right to
compensation arises from the declared subsidiary nature of the
State’s intervention.

4.9.1.1.
However, from the standpoint of the needs of the
victim, this principle could have unacceptable implications for
the sequence of State intervention.

4.9.2.
Relegating the State’s action until all other possibiliti-
es have been exhausted does not defend the victim’s interests,
and condones solutions which are inherently contradictory.

The victim’s behaviour cannot be overlooked if the
4.10.1.
breach of law and the resultant damage stemmed from it. Such
behaviour may negatively influence — or actually rule out —
State compensation. However, the victim’s social, moral or
other conduct hitherto — even if
illegal — cannot be
automatically linked to a particular instance of victimisation
in order to justify refusal of State compensation. This would
open the way to all kinds of discrimination that would be
unacceptable in terms of human rights and a common area of
free movement, freedom and guarantees.

4.10.2.
To protect the victim and ensure that he or she is
treated fairly, there are therefore grounds for reviewing and
tightening up the principles set out in the 1983 European
Convention. For instance,
it is unacceptable that a victim
should be penalised because of past criminal activity that is
completely unrelated to the crime of which he is a victim.
Similarly, it would be unacceptable to invoke public policy
considerations in order to discriminate against certain forms
of behaviour or groups of people in relation to State compen-
sation.

In any situation, advance payments are the most
4.9.3.
effective way to give the victim prompt assistance and rule out
the possibility of the victim suffering exclusion.

4.11. Question 11: What other criteria, not covered in this paper,

could be considered for inclusion in a minimum standard?

4.9.4. Where sufficient elements are in place to justify it,
the use of advance payments as the priority mechanism can
reduce the problem of deadlines for compensation claims, as
it gives the victim a strong incentive to submit the claim as
quickly as possible and obliges the State to conduct a
preliminary examination and take a decision that will generally
facilitate the subsequent procedure.

4.9.5.
At all events, the Committee agrees that the deadlines
should be as long as possible and that exceptions should be
made for special cases where the deadlines should be made
even longer (e.g. sexual abuse of minors), always remembering
that the interests of the victim come first. This would not seem
likely to cause particular damage for the State.

4.11.1.
Pursuing its line of thinking from the previous
question, the Committee does not see any point in devising
other criteria.

4.12. 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?

4.9.6.
Reporting the crime to the authorities, under the
terms and subject to the exceptions set out in point 5.6 of the
Green Paper, should be included in a minimum standard, with
exceptions for cases where it is acceptable or inevitable for the
victim to do otherwise.

A viable solution in many cases could be interactive
4.12.1.
cooperation via the network of national bodies dealing with
victim compensation, or the European network of associations
and other organised civil society bodies dealing with support
for crime victims, alongside cooperation between the countries
involved in the European Judicial Network. It is right that there
should be a national body — preferably involving the civil

27.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 125/37

society organisations which provide victim support — respon-
sible for all national relations and action and acting either
singly and/or in cooperation with other bodies in the Member
State.

4.13.1.1.
tially diverging decisions arising for procedural reasons.

Application of this system could lead to poten-

Complementary action between Member States can
4.12.2.
help overcome some of the obstacles mentioned in point 6.2
of the Green Paper, once the common procedural points which
all Member States must follow have been established.

4.13.2.
The hybrid system mooted in the answer to the
previous question would allow similar cases to receive the
same treatment in all Member States and, at the same time,
would ensure that nationals of a Member State with a more
favourable system were not treated less favourably than fellow
victims of a crime within that country.

4.12.3.
avoid the principle of territoriality.

It seems difficult in the present circumstances to

4.13.2.1.
On the other hand, it is clear that such a system
would do little to encourage the less generous countries to
move towards convergence.

Given that this is the best known and most
4.12.3.1.
developed basis for cooperation and mutual assistance,
it
might be worth considering a hybrid system in which the
primacy of territoriality was backed by a complementary
‘double responsibility’ system which the victim could use to
top up the compensation which he or she could receive in
the State where the crime occurred,
in cases where the
compensation system of his or her Member State was more
favourable.

4.12.4.
For the complementary process, and using a form
of mutual recognition, the victim’s Member State of residence
would be obliged to accept the result of the compensation
procedure in the State where the crime occurred.

4.13.3.
To avoid this system leading to stratified solutions
in each Member State, a benchmark should be established
based on the best features of the various Member States’
systems. This would be the optimum convergence point.

4.13.3.1.
Each Member State should be required to reach
this point within a reasonable time-frame, depending on their
initial situation.

4.13.3.2.
determining the action to be taken:

There would thus be two common standards for

4.12.4.1.
However, this would not of course prevent the
victim submitting an application for complementary assistance
in his or her Member State of residence, enabling him or her
to receive advance payments where justified.

— a standard below which the system would lose its
credibility; the less generous systems would have to attain
this standard immediately as an initial step towards
further improvement;

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

— another standard representing a quality response which
would serve as a development benchmark and incentive,
and as a yardstick for assessing the progress made during
the commonly accepted reasonable time-frame.

4.13.4.
The possible harmonisation could be reached in
successive stages, tempered by the hybrid territoriality/comp-
lementarity mechanism or by a joint standardisation fund.

4.13.1.
The intrinsic difficulty in the double responsibility
system is that the victim’s Member State of residence has to
deal with a situation arising in another country, and with all
the related information (the need for close relations between
Member States has to be remembered here, as do the difficulties
which the victim will face in obtaining proof).

4.13.5.
A schedule for reaching the benchmark standard
could be established, e.g. in three or four stages, and Member
States could be placed in a grid to chart their progress towards
that standard.

C 125/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.5.2002

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

5. Summary conclusions

4.14.1.

The hybrid system outlined above is one possibility.

4.14.2.
It is also worth mentioning the work being done at
the United Nations to set up a support fund for cross-border
crime victims. From the standpoint of the current opinion, this
fund could provide compensation to top up that offered by
Member States which are unable to meet the minimum sums
deemed reasonable. The fund would also help with the
publicity and information campaigns that will be needed
within the Union.

5.1. While reiterating the cautionary remarks made at the
beginning of this opinion, and mindful of the difficulties in
making the final decisions, which will inevitably reflect the
level of consensus that proves possible, the Committee thinks
that solid steps are being taken in the right direction.

5.2.
Given that the main issue here is the best way to deal
with the situation of cross-border victims, the Committee
reiterates the view that in order to avoid the difficulties raised
it is necessary to strive for the most stringent common
standard possible, setting different starting levels and estab-
lishing subsequent steps to bring about a gradual alignment.

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

4.15.1.
As already noted, harmonised forms — including
translations in the main languages — are vital for the strategy
advocated in the Green Paper.

5.3.
A strong emphasis must be placed on the principle of
solidarity and equal treatment for people throughout the
common area, without forgetting that convergence is a process
and not just a goal, and that the idea of ‘European citizen’
should be a quality benchmark and must never mean a
downgrading.

4.16. Other aspects to be covered by standards

5.4.
In other words, the adoption of a maximum reference
standard must mean that the Member States reach a minimum
common denominator.

4.16.1.
For victims of cross-border crime in particular, a
common standard is needed covering the type of information
that should be available throughout the Union, how to access
it and the bodies which provide it.

4.16.2.
In cross-border cases, the use of the main European
working languages (and sign language in the case of victims
with hearing impediments) should be accepted — together
with their interpreting — by all countries. As already noted,
the use of common bilingual or trilingual forms is vital.

4.16.3.
Consideration should be given to a standard estab-
lishing a maximum time limit for the processing of compen-
sation applications by the relevant authorities.

The official documents which the victim needs to
4.16.4.
prepare his or her application should be provided free of
charge. The authorities should provide assistance in the use of
these documents, the contents and wording of which should
be comprehensible, whether directly or indirectly, to the
victim. Preference should be given to ultra high-speed com-
munication technologies.

5.5.
To this end, the progressive development targets must
be defined in terms of both content and timescale, and
penalties must be devised for those who fail to meet them.

5.6.
The proposal to apply a complementarity principle
might prove difficult in practice, as most State compensation
decisions are based not on objective legal criteria but on
principles of fairness. This could lead to a dual assessment. It
is just one point for discussion, as is the possibility of achieving
complementarity by setting up a European fund in which the
Member States would — via their respective contributions —
converge towards the standard and to the agreed level of
compensation. The use of a fund would mitigate the fact that
the same people always pay the most.

5.7.
As stressed at the start, the Commission’s sterling work
marks the culmination of a vital stage in the building of an
important framework for the establishment of a common area
of freedom, security and justice.

27.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 125/39

5.8.
The realisation of the Commission initiative on State
compensation for crime victims will form a crucial step in
meeting the needs of citizens, and a visible and exemplary step
by the Member States in the construction of a true European

justice area, based on a culture of solidarity — in the sense of
real sharing of responsibility — and on the universal basic
right of all human beings not to be left alone in the face of
aggression, danger or crime.

Brussels, 20 March 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘EU/Russia strategic partnership: What are
the next steps?’

(2002/C 125/10)

On 28 February and 1 March 2001 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph
of Rule 23 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on ‘EU/Russia strategic partnership:
What are the next steps?’

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the
subject, adopted its opinion on 28 February 2002. The rapporteur was Mr Filip Hamro-Drotz.

At its 389th Plenary Session of 20 and 21 March 2002 (meeting of 20 March), the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 86 votes with two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.3.
The intention of this opinion is to table conclusions
that an
and recommendations, which indicate above all
engagement of organised economic and social actors in the
EU-Russia cooperation, as well as raising public awareness of
this cooperation, would facilitate a successful outcome of the
efforts to improve the EU-Russia partnership.

The EU-Russia relations have advanced substantially in
1.1.
recent years. The cooperation covers widely all
important
policy fields of mutual interest. A good relationship between
the EU and Russia is a core element for a prosperous future of
Europe.

2.

Important elements in the institutional framework

1.2.
The EU should promote transparent and open neigh-
bourly relations with Russia both at the bilateral and multilat-
eral
level. The forthcoming enlargement of the European
Union stresses even more the need for good relations and
public understanding of a solid partnership between the EU
and Russia. This concerns the EU, its Member States and Russia
but also the candidate countries, the EEA countries and other
European countries.

2.1.
The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA)
was signed in 1994 and entered into force in 1997. It covers
political, economic and social cooperation at a broad range,
i.a. trade, education and training, environment and energy, the
transition to market economy. The cooperation mechanism is
described in the PCA: the partners meet twice a year at
Summits; the Cooperation Council, which meets once a year,
is the main forum, the Cooperation Committee is responsible
at the operative level and many sub-committees (dialogues)