Proposal for a Council Directive on compensation to crime victims
Date: 2002-10-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: crime, cross-border cooperation, help for victims, indemnification, standard, victim

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/69

Proposal for a Council Directive on compensation to crime victims

(2003/C 45 E/08)

COM(2002) 562 final — 2002/0247(CNS)

(Submitted by the Commission on 16 October 2002)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

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
this
convergence between the legal systems of
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 Member States is achieved. The need to meet

The establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice must evidently consider the need for
protection of crime victims in the European Union. It is a necessary parallel to the many measures
taken to promote judicial cooperation in civil matters and to combat crime and terrorism. EU citizens
have the right to expect easy access to adequate protection and compensation for the losses suffered when
crimes and terrorist acts do occur.

The Vienna Action Plan (1) 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 conclusions of the European Council in Tampere 1999 (2) 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.

The tragic events of 11 September 2001 reinforced the need to ensure a high level of preparedness in case
such events occurred again. This includes not only the need for a high level of preparedness in terms of
civil protection — where the EU has already taken a number of measures — but also the need for a
complete coverage for the compensation of victims of such acts.

This proposal, which was announced in the latest version of the Scoreboard (3),
response to the request by the European Council of Tampere.

is the Commission's

(1) OJ C 19, 23.1.1999, p. 1. Point 51(c).
(2) Presidency Conclusions, point 32.
(3) COM(2002) 261 final, 30.5.2002, p. 32.

C 45 E/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

1.2. Measures and initiatives taken so far

The Commission presented a Communication (1) on crime victims in 1999, covering not only compen-
sation aspects but also other issues that could be addressed to improve the position of crime victims in the
EU.

The Council adopted a framework decision (2) 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, as well as promote mediation in criminal cases. Beyond these
provisions, compensation to crime victims is not addressed.

As concerns judicial cooperation in civil matters, a number of initiatives have been taken to improve
access to justice for cross-border litigants in general, benefiting also crime victims seeking to obtain and
enforce a judgment on damages against the offender in a cross-border situation. These include in particular
the Brussels I Regulation (3) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments. The
Commission has proposed a Directive on legal aid and a Regulation establishing a European Enforcement
the mutual recognition programme (4),
Order. Further measures are foreseen within the context of
including procedures for small claims and for payment orders.

Mention should also be made of the European Convention of 1983 on compensation to victims of crime,
which sought to introduce a minimum standard for state compensation schemes. It did not include any
concrete measures to facilitate access to state compensation in cross-border situations. The Convention has
been ratified by 10 Member States (5) and a further two Member States (6) have signed it.

2. THE GREEN PAPER ON COMPENSATION TO CRIME VICTIMS

As a first step in taking the compensation aspect of victim support and protection from the Tampere
Conclusions forward, the Commission presented a Green Paper on compensation to crime victims on 28
September 2001 (7). The Green Paper focussed on compensation from the state and gave an overview of
what exists in terms of state compensation schemes in the Member States today. On this basis, the Green
Paper formulated as its fundamental question the possible objectives that a Community initiative in this
field could pursue, by proposing the following:

— Firstly, whether a possibility to get state compensation for victims in the EU should be ensured.

— Secondly, whether action should be taken to limit unfair effects that may result from the widely
differing levels of compensation available in the Member States today 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
the access to state compensation for victims should not be

facilitated,
significantly influenced by where in the EU the crime takes place.

to ensure that

that

is,

(1) 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.

(2) OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 1.
(3) 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).

(4) 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).

(5) Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
(6) Belgium and Greece.
(7) COM(2001) 536 final, 28.9.2001.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/71

On the basis of these three objectives the Green Paper explored in more detail the various issues that
would need to be considered in terms of practical solutions for reaching these objectives. More than thirty
written comments were sent in to the Commission following the publication of the Green Paper, from
Member States, victim support organisations, non-governmental organisations and others. The Commission
organised a public hearing on 21 March 2002 to further debate the issues raised.

The reactions confirmed by an overwhelming majority that the current situation concerning compensation
of crime victims in the EU is not satisfactory and that the three objectives proposed in the Green Paper
should be pursued in order to remedy this situation.

The European Parliament, in its resolution (1) on the Green Paper, warmly welcomed the Commission's
initiative. It recalled the political objective stipulated by the Tampere European Council and noted the
unjustifiable differences in the compensation to European citizens that are created by the current situation
in the Member States today. It underlined the importance of adopting binding Community provisions in
future in relation to citizens who are the victims of crime and welcomed the fact that the latest version of
the Scoreboard provides for the presentation by the Commission, before the end of 2002, of a proposal
for a directive on this matter.

The Economic and Social Committee, in its opinion (2) on the Green Paper, welcomed emphatically the
Commission's initiative to launch a consultation on this issue. It considered that the realisation of the
Commission's initiative 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 area of
justice. The
Committee supported the three objectives proposed in the Green Paper and considered that a Directive
would appear to be the most appropriate instrument for pursuing these objectives.

As a further follow-up to the Green paper, the Commission held a meeting with experts of the Member
States on 24 June 2002 to discuss a first preliminary draft of this proposal.

Further references to the reactions on the detailed questions in the Green Paper and the way in which
these have been taken into account in the preparation of this proposal will be made in section 6 of this
explanatory memorandum.

The preparatory work that preceded the publication of the Green Paper included a comprehensive study (3)
of the position of crime victims in the EU, completed in 2000, with support from the Grotius programme
of the EU. The study was followed up by a conference in Umeå, Sweden, in October 2000, also supported
through the Grotius programme. The conclusions (4) of the conference included a number of recommen-
dations 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. An in-depth study
focussing on the state compensation schemes in the Member States was published by the Swedish
Crime Victim and Support Authority in September 2001 (5).

3. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

3.1. Overall objective

The objective of this proposal is to ensure that all EU citizens and all legal residents in the EU can receive
adequate compensation for the losses they have suffered in case they fall victim to a crime within the EU.
The proposal will contribute to reaching the objective of the Union and of the Community to establish an
area of freedom, security and justice for all, as well as the objective of ensuring free movement of persons
within the EU. The proposal also forms part of the response of the EU to the events of 11 September
2001, by ensuring that victims of terrorism are ensured of adequate compensation regardless of where
within the EU such acts may take place.

(1) Not yet published.
(2) OJ C 125, 27.5.2002, p. 31.
(3) Wergens, Anna, Crime victims in the European Union, Brottsoffermyndigheten, Umeå, 2000.
(4) The Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority, Sweden,

‘Conclusions – The Umeå expert meeting on

compensation to crime victims in the European Union’, Umeå, 2000.

(5) 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.

C 45 E/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

The objective of the proposal
supported by the reactions to it and with the conclusions of the Tampere European Council 1999.

is directly in line with what was outlined in the Green Paper and as

3.2. Specific objectives

The specific objectives of the proposal are the following:

— First, to ensure that a possibility to get adequate compensation from the state are put in place by all
Member States of the EU. By formulating this objective so as to include the notion of adequate
compensation,
to ensure the
existence of state compensation in the EU and to limit unfair effects that may arise due to the
currently large differences between the Member States. This objective is pursued through the
creation of a minimum standard for state compensation to crime victims, which includes the definition
of clear and transparent minimum criteria for:

the objective merges objectives one and two of

the Green Paper:

— Personal and territorial scope of the compensation schemes;

— Losses covered and principles for determining the amount of compensation;

— Relationship between state compensation and compensation sought or obtained from the offender

or other sources; and

— Possibilities to introduce certain restrictive criteria for the award of state compensation.

— Secondly, to ensure that the possibilities afforded in practice for the crime victim to get state compen-
sation are not negatively influenced by in which Member State the crime is committed. This aims to
facilitate access to compensation in situations where the crime took place in another Member State
than that of the victim's residence (cross-border situations). This objective is pursued through the
creation of a system of cooperation between authorities of the Member States, allowing in practice
the victim to always be able to submit an application to an authority in the Member State of residence.

It should be stressed that these two objectives are closely intertwined. Without a possibility for state
compensation in all Member States, access to state compensation in cross-border situations cannot be
facilitated. Without easy access to state compensation in cross-border situations, the very existence of a
possibility for state compensation will, in practice, not reach all victims in the EU.

3.3. Scope

The possibilities for the crime victim to get compensation from the offender are not covered in this
proposal. 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 litigation in civil matters in general, which will be of
benefit for crime victims as well.

4. NEED FOR ACTION AT COMMUNITY LEVEL

4.1. Problem of the situation in the EU today

There is widespread recognition of the fact that crime victims, in many cases, cannot obtain 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.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/73

The obstacles for victims to get compensation from the offender are hard to overcome through measures
in the area of civil law, civil proceedings or enforcement of judgements. As recognition of this fact, 13
Member States (1) have introduced state funded compensation schemes with a general scope of application
that allow for compensating victims of crime for the injuries suffered.

These schemes display however large differences between them in terms of the criteria applicable for
awarding state compensation. The eligibility of applicants is in seven Member States restricted to those
having sustained serious injuries as a result of the crime. The types of losses that can be compensated vary
greatly, for example, five Member States do not award any compensation for non-pecuniary losses. The
principles for determining the amount of the compensation display large differences between them also.
Six Member States retains the possibility to reduce or refuse compensation based on one or several of the
following discretionary criteria: the relationship between the victim and the offender, the victim's financial
situation, or public policy grounds in general. One Member State does not cover all permanent residents
that become victims of crime on their territory.

The current situation as concern possibilities for crime victims to get compensation from the state is
therefore not satisfactory. The very absence of a possibility to state compensation to victims in two
Member States, and the lack of convergence between the compensation schemes in the other Member
States, 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 circum-
stances but in different Member States, may receive widely differing amounts in compensation for similar
injuries, or no compensation at all.

There are also differences peculiar to cross-border situations. A citizen from a Member State that has 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 differences create large discrepancies in terms of what crime victims can actually get, the compen-
sation being completely dependant on in which Member State the crime took place. The latter is a
circumstance that the victim has no control over whatsoever and which can only appear arbitrary from
the perspective of the citizen. Such unfair and arbitrary effects are not compatible with establishing the EU
as an area of freedom, security and justice for all.

The 1983 European Convention has undoubtedly had an important impact in stimulating the introduction
of state compensation schemes. However, as demonstrated by the situation in the Member States today, it
has not reached all the way in ensuring a complete coverage of all citizens of the EU. Nineteen years after
its opening for signature, the minimum standard it sought to establish is not commensurate with the
degree of protection that EU citizens and legal residents should be able to expect. This is all the more the
case in a Community context, after the coming into force of the Amsterdam Treaty and the adoption of
the Tampere conclusions.

(1) Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden

and the United Kingdom.

C 45 E/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

5. LEGAL BASIS

5.1. State compensation to crime victims and the Treaties

The very basis for state compensation to victims is the existence of a civil claim. This claim may have
materialised but proved impossible to satisfy, in view of the inability of the offender to pay any damages
awarded to the victim. It may not have materialised in cases where the offender remains unknown.
Regardless of which, it is the underlying civil liability of the offender that provides the justification and
the need for compensating the victim. This proposal for a Directive is based on a close link with the
material laws on civil liability and torts in each Member State, in turn the same model that all existing
compensation schemes are based on today.

The civil nature of state compensation is clear from that it serves to confer a pecuniary benefit on
individuals, without seeking to achieve any objective related to sanctioning the behaviour of
the
offender or providing any direct benefit for the public good.

In a ruling (1) from the European Court of Human Rights regarding state compensation to a crime victim,
the Court considered that Article 6(1) of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was applicable to the case before it. Since it concerns a pecuniary
benefit, and provided that the conditions and procedures applicable for the award of state compensation
are defined in clear and regulatory terms, the Court held that the right invoked by an applicant for state
compensation can be categorised as civil within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Convention.

The measures foreseen in this proposal, and in particular those creating a system for direct cooperation
between national authorities for the purpose of the smooth handling of cross-border cases, display many
similarities with existing Community law in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters. This includes
in particular the Regulations on the Service of documents and on the taking of evidence (2).

it cannot be
However, although state compensation is closely linked to civil
regarded as a civil matter within the sense of Article 61(c) of the Treaty, since it does not concern
rights or obligations between individuals.

law in several respects,

The improvement of compensation to crime victims will contribute to the free movement of persons. The
link between the free movement of persons and state compensation to crime victims has been confirmed
by the European Court of Justice, which has held that the protection of victims of crime is a necessary
corollary of the free movement of persons as guaranteed by the Treaty (3).

Links to the other freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty can however not be made. Since a sufficiently direct
link between protecting victims of crime and establishing the internal market cannot be made, this
proposal must be regarded as falling outside the scope of Articles 94 and 95 of the Treaty.

In view of its essentially civil nature and the link to the free movement of persons, it is clear that the
proposal would not fall within the scope of the TEU. The provisions of that Treaty, as concerns protection
of crime victims, have already been explored through the framework decision on victims referred to above.

(1) Case of Rolf Gustafson v. Sweden, judgment of 27 May 1997.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and
extrajudicial documents in civil and 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 in the taking of evidence
in civil or commercial matters (OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 1).

(3) Case 186/87 Ian William Cowan v. Trésor public (1989) ECR 195.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/75

5.2. The objectives of this proposal and the area of freedom, security and justice

The need for measures to improve compensation to crime victims to establish an area of freedom, security
and justice was clearly stated by the Tampere conclusions, where the European Council was called upon to
address how to best implement this objective following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. In
its response, the Heads of State and Government did not fail to award a high importance to measures
aimed at the protection of victims of crime.

The need for and value added of such measures taken at Community level was confirmed by the positive
reactions to the Commission's Green Paper,
including the Resolution by the European Parliament and
opinion of the Economic and Social Committee.

Measures confined to judicial cooperation in civil matters, aiming at facilitating access to justice for civil
litigants, would not be capable of fulfilling the objective of Tampere conclusions in view of the inherent
problems for victims in getting compensation from the offender.

Seen from a criminal policy perspective, the EU cannot confine itself to measures aimed at preventing or
combating crime but must also ensure that the appropriate mechanisms are in place for the benefit of
victims when crime and terrorist acts do occur. In other words, measures of a repressive character must be
coupled with measures aimed at restorative justice.

The objective pursued by this proposal, taking into account its contribution to the establishment of an area
of freedom, security and justice and the free movement of persons, is therefore within the overall scope of
the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community taken as a whole (1).

Since the pursuit of the objective of this proposal is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty and
since no other provision of the Treaty gives the Community institutions the necessary power to adopt the
measures in question, it is therefore necessary to have recourse to Article 308 TEC as the legal basis for
this proposal.

5.3. Subsidiarity

In view of what has been outlined in section 4 and of the objectives set by the Treaty, it is clear that there
is a Community dimension of the problem caused by the unsatisfactory situation in the EU of today. The
necessary approximation of the laws of the Member States and the mechanisms needed for cross-border
situations can be better achieved by the Community than by the Member States acting alone and will
thereby provide an added value.

5.4. Proportionality

The proposal confines itself to what is necessary for reaching the objectives set. In particular, a minimum
standard is proposed, not harmonisation. The latter would not be appropriate in view of the current
differences between the Member States, due to the close connection to national laws on civil liability and
tort and also due to socio-economic discrepancies.

The minimum standard proposed will allow Member States that so wish to introduce more ambitious
provisions for the benefit of victims of crime. A minimum standard not confined to cross-border situations
will allow for avoiding the creation of reverse discrimination, which would be particularly grave in view of
the absence of state compensation for domestic cases in two Member States today.

The proposal provides for several different solutions for the implementation of the minimum standard —
through a tariff system or through a system based on case-by-case assessments. It also allows for a strong
connection with national civil
law in each Member State, through the link made between the deter-
mination of the actual compensation and the provisions of national laws on civil liability and torts.

(1) Cf. ECJ Opinion 2/94 of 28.3.1996.

C 45 E/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

In terms of administrative procedures the proposal addresses only the central aspects and those related to
cross-border situations while leaving Member States free to appoint the responsible authorities and to
design the procedures for receiving and deciding upon applications.

The proposal is therefore limited to the minimum required to achieve the objectives pursued and does not
exceed what is necessary to this end.

5.5. Consistency with other EU/EC initiatives

The Council Framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings covered, as its name
suggests, the ‘penal part’ of victim support and addressed the question of compensation from a limited and
strictly procedural point of view only. The current proposal will complement this decision by ensuring that
the compensation aspect is duly covered at European level also.

By facilitating access to justice for citizens,
measures taken to promote judicial cooperation in civil matters.

in particular in cross-border situations,

it will mirror the

The proposal will ensure that due attention is paid to the other side of the coin in relation to the measures
taken by the EU to combat crime and terrorism. A number of measures have been taken or are under
discussion for the purpose of agreeing common definitions and minimum sanctions for certain types of
serious crimes, including terrorism, racist crimes and sexual exploitation of children. The protection of the
victims of such serious crimes must be addressed at EU level also.

The Community has already adopted wide-ranging measures to ensure compensation to victims of road
accidents through the four motor insurance Directives, with a proposal for a fifth Directive currently under
discussion to further extend the coverage of such victims. The current proposal will ensure that victims of
crime do not find themselves in a less fortunate situation than victims of road accidents, by introducing
provisions based on — to a large extent — similar principles as these Directives.

Consequently the proposal
concerns substantive measures for the purpose of protecting and supporting victims of crime.

is consistent with other policies pursued and will fill the current gap as

6. COMMENTS ON THE SPECIFIC ARTICLES

The starting point for the definition of the minimum standard is the needs of crime victims from a
European perspective. The proposal aims at
finding a balance between satisfying this need, and
avoiding a restrictive approach entailing merely the establishment of a standard based on the lowest
common denominator, while at
the same time introducing realistic solutions building upon the
achievements already made in many Member States.

Establishing a minimum standard means in essence defining the restrictions to state compensation for
victims that Member States should be allowed to set in place. Conversely, nothing will prevent Member
States from maintaining or setting in place rules that are more generous towards the victim. The intro-
duction of the minimum standard should not be used to justify any deterioration in current practices in
the Member States.

A further guiding principle has been to establish clear and well-defined criteria that provide for predicta-
bility and equality before the law. It is difficult to see any reason why the criteria applied in state
compensation schemes should be less clear compared to those that apply under, for example, national
tort law or social benefit schemes. Only by limiting the room for discretion in the award of state
compensation can transparent and predictable rules be ensured.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/77

Article 1

The Article describes the main objective of the proposal, which has been elaborated upon in section 3 of
this explanatory memorandum.

Article 2

The Article defines the basic scope for the minimum standard. The definition excludes victims of
non-intentional crimes, since losses resulting from such crimes are often, but in different ways, covered
by insurance policies in the Member States. Since it is a question of establishing a minimum standard this
issue is better left to the Member States to decide. Crimes that have only caused damage to or loss of
property are excluded also. Such losses are often covered by insurance and are not necessary to cover for
the purposes of establishing a minimum standard. Beyond these restrictions a wide scope must be ensured,
in particular in order to cover crimes directed against a person but without the use of violence. This can
include crimes such as certain types of sexual offences or racist and xenophobic crimes.

Only victims of crime committed on the territory of one of the Member States are covered by the
minimum standard.

The scope of the minimum standard includes close relatives and dependants of victims that have died as a
result of the injuries sustained, provided that the direct victim falls within the scope of Article 2(1)(a), that
is, the crime causing the death must have been intentional. The inclusion of close relatives is necessary to
ensure compensation to, for example, the parents of under age children that have died as a result of a
violent crime. The definition of close relatives and dependants is left to the Member States to decide.

‘Victim’ is defined in accordance with Article 1(a) of the Council Framework Decision on the standing of
victims in criminal proceedings.

Overall the scope is in line with the majority of the reactions to the Green Paper and is within — or
similar to — the scope of the compensation schemes currently in place in several Member States.

Article 3

The Article establishes the territoriality principle as the basis for the minimum standard. This solution was
supported by a clear majority of the comments received on the Green Paper. The second paragraph lays
down the principle of non-discrimination. First, and in accordance with the judgment in the Cowan-case,
discrimination based on nationality with regard to EU-citizens is prohibited. Secondly, third-country
nationals that are legal residents in any Member State must be able to receive compensation on the
same conditions as EU citizens. This is in line with the Tampere conclusions and the principles underlying
the Commission's proposal for a Council Directive on the status of third-country nationals who are
long-term residents (1). Since the purpose of the Directive is to establish a minimum standard the scope
has not been extended to cover all persons becoming victims of crime on the territory of a Member State.
It deserves nevertheless to be recalled that in the implementation of the Directive, Articles 20 and 21
(equality before the law and non-discrimination) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU must be
respected.

Article 4

This Article lays down the principles for deciding which items of losses that can be compensated and how
the compensation should be calculated. Together with Article 2 it establishes the basic scope of the
minimum standard. The aim is full compensation of
including
non-pecuniary losses, while leaving it
to the Member States how to reach this aim. A balance is
thereby achieved between two objectives that were stressed in a majority of the comments received on
the Green Paper: to ensure adequate compensation to all crime victims in the EU while avoiding solutions
entailing harmonisation.

the losses the victim has suffered,

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

C 45 E/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

Material losses are excluded from the minimum standard, due to the definition of the scope in Article 2
and since only those losses resulting directly from the personal injury sustained are covered.

The solution described in paragraph 2 of the Article is to connect the definition of the individual items of
losses, and the calculation of the amount, to the tort law in each Member State. Such a connection is
already found in all Member States that have compensation systems in place. This solution also allows for
respecting socio-economic differences between the Member States.

By allowing for some deviation the solution entails in essence that it is the principles of national tort law
that must provide the basis for the decision on state compensation. The authority that takes the decision is
nevertheless free to make its own assessment of each application and is not bound by any previous
judgment on damages from the offender. In practice, compensation may be higher or lower compared
to what has been or could have been awarded in damages based on civil law. A further reason for allowing
deviations is that the amount of damages awarded to the victim is not always known – the most obvious
case being when the offender has not been identified.

An alternative solution allows Member States to use a tariff-based system for the award of state compen-
sation (already in use in one Member State today). A tariff-based system will still have to be connected to
national tort law; this is provided for by the reference to the average amount of damages awarded for
similar losses.

The third paragraph allows Member States to establish a ceiling for the total amount of compensation that
can be awarded, to limit the budgetary impact of the compensation scheme. It allows also for limiting the
compensation for loss of earnings or loss of maintenance in case of applicants who have a very high
income or are particularly wealthy, or to reduce the compensation for such items on the same basis.

Article 5

The Article introduces a right for crime victims to receive an advance payment on the compensation
sought. This is already possible in all but two Member States today, among those that have compensation
systems in place. An advance can be made conditional on four cumulative criteria: the basic eligibility of
the applicant must be reasonably clear, the victim must suffer financial hardship as a result of the crime,
the final decision on the award of compensation from the state cannot be taken quickly, and it can be
assumed that the offender will not be able to satisfy a judgement on damages, due to a lack of means. The
latter criteria will apply also in cases where the offender has not been identified. The calculation of advance
payments is left to the Member States to decide, since this by necessity will depend on the assessment of
the hardship in each particular case.

Article 6

Member States can exclude, if they so wish, applicants who have only suffered minor injuries. In practice
this can be done by, for example, the introduction of a minimum amount of the compensation that can be
awarded.

Article 7

The Article gives the Member States the right to refuse or reduce compensation in cases of contributory
negligence, which is a basic principle of tort law and applied also in all compensation schemes in existence
in the Member States today.

Article 8

The Article gives Member States the right to make state compensation subsidiary to compensation from
the offender. Most of the Member States that have compensation schemes in place today consider that the
primary responsibility to compensate the victim lies with the offender, and that the state should not
assume an unlimited responsibility for compensating victims of crime.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/79

The definition of the principle of subsidiary application in this Article has been tempered somewhat, since
a strict application of this principle can cause undue delay for the victim in actually obtaining compen-
sation and entail a risk of secondary victimisation. Thus only reasonable efforts are required on the part of
victim. Exceptions shall be made where it is reasonably clear that the offender will lack the means to pay
any damages to the victim. In such cases it makes little sense to require the victim to go through lengthy
procedures for claiming damages from the offender and subsequently seeking to enforce the judgment in
question. An exception shall also be made in cases where, due to a lengthy police investigation or criminal
proceedings, the victim has not been able to have a civil claim tried by the competent court. The
occurrence of such delays is outside the victim's control and should not be to the detriment of the
victim's possibilities to be compensated within a reasonable time following the crime. Further exceptions
shall be made where the victim has faced obstacles in pursuing a civil claim against the offender.

The possibility to receive an advance payment shall not be negatively affected by the application of the
criteria in this Article. The possibility to receive an advance payment is exclusively governed by the criteria
defined in Article 5.

The principle of subsidiary application can only apply to the direct victim; a dependant or close relative
cannot be required to sue the offender before being able to seek compensation from the state.

Article 9

To avoid double compensation Member States may deduce compensation or other benefits received from
other sources including, for example, the offender, the state or insurance policies.

Article 10

The Article lays down the possibility of subrogation of the Member State in the rights of the victim, thus
allowing the Member State to seek to enforce a judgment on compensation from the offender after the
state compensation has been paid out.

Article 11

The Article gives Member States the right to request an applicant to report the crime to the competent
authorities — normally the police — before applying for compensation. The report can be made in the
Member State where the crime was committed or in the Member State of residence. A time limit may be
set for making the report. Exceptions shall be made, as laid down in paragraph 3 of the Article; for
example, it cannot always be expected that the victim is prepared to report the crime in cases involving
organised crime or violence against women or minors.

Article 12

While the principle of subsidiary application as laid down in Article 8 covers the relationship between an
application for compensation and a civil claim against the offender, Article 12 covers the relationship
between the application and the criminal proceedings instituted as a result of the crime. It could lead to
substantial delays for the victim if compensation cannot be awarded until after the criminal proceedings
have ended. Consequently the possibility for Member States to await the outcome of such proceedings are
limited to cases where it has a practical
influence on the decision to be taken on the application for
compensation, and provided that undue delay or financial hardship is not caused for the victim. These two
criteria are cumulative. A suspension of the decision on an application for compensation for these reasons
can however not influence the possibility for the applicant to receive an advance payment, the latter being
exclusively governed by the criteria defined in Article 5.

C 45 E/80

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

Article 13

Member States may stipulate that an application must be made within, as a minimum, two years of the
crime or of the end of the police investigations or criminal proceedings. Exceptions must however be
provided for. These exceptions include cases where the victim was prevented from submitting the
application in time, such as where the victim was a minor when the crime occurred. Exceptions shall
also be made for cross-border situations.

Article 14

The Article concerns the administrative procedures for the receipt and treatment of applications. This area
is left entirely to the discretion of the Member States, with three exceptions: Procedures must be as simple
and swift as possible, for the purpose of preventing secondary victimisation. Secondly, an application must
be accepted in any of the official languages of the European Communities, to avoid discrimination between
EU citizens and residents and to further facilitate victims' access to compensation in cross-border
situations. Thirdly, an applicant must have the possibility to appeal against a decision rejecting the
application for compensation.

Article 15

The Article lays down an obligation for Member States to ensure access to information on state compen-
sation for all victims, information that should normally be provided by the police. The information should
cover, as a minimum, the criteria covered by this Directive as implemented by each Member State and the
administrative procedures required for the submission of applications in the Member State in question. The
need for indicating the territorial or special jurisdiction of the authorities will only be necessary in Member
States that have appointed several authorities as responsible for deciding upon applications for compen-
sation. The importance of
information to victims on the availability of compensation was strongly
emphasised in many of the comments on the Green Paper. The information that the competent authorities
have to provide corresponds to that foreseen for the manual to be established in accordance with Article
24. Consequently the necessary translations of the information will be arranged by the Commission.

Article 16

The Article lays down the basic principle for facilitating access to state compensation in cross-border
situations, which forms the second specific objective of the proposal. The principle reflects what was
outlined in the Green Paper as the ‘mutual assistance model’ and which received support from a clear
majority of the comments made. It obliges Member States to appoint one or several authorities for the
purpose of implementing this principle; it is left to the Member States' discretion if they wish to appoint
the same authority as that responsible for treating and deciding upon applications.

Article 17

The Article covers the assistance that the applicant is entitled to when turning to an authority in the
Member State of residence for the purpose of applying for compensation from another Member State. The
assisting authority shall provide the applicant with the necessary forms and information on the compen-
sation scheme in the Member State from which compensation will be sought. The assisting authority is not
required to provide any in-depth advice on the functioning of the compensation scheme in the other
Member State or to answer questions of a detailed nature on the interpretation of various criteria. It must
however be able to give basic advice on how to complete the application form and to explain to the
applicant the types of supporting documents that are required — medical reports, police reports, etc. Since
it is the Member State where the crime was committed which is responsible for deciding upon the
application the role of the assisting authority does not involve any assessment of it, except in cases
where it is obvious that the application is not submitted in good faith.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/81

Article 18

Once the application has been completed the assisting authority shall send it to the deciding authority. The
assisting authority shall draw the attention of the deciding authority to the issues listed in points (a) to (d)
of the Article, for the purpose of speeding up the treatment of the application and facilitating the
cooperation between the authorities involved.

Article 19

The deciding authority shall acknowledge receipt of the application and inform the assisting authority of
the issues listed in points (a) to (d). This includes information on its own contact person, in order to
establish a direct link at working level between the authorities involved.

Article 20

The Article reflects Article 17 by obliging the assisting authority to transmit any supplementary
information that the deciding authority may have requested following receipt of the application.

Article 21

The Article provides for cooperation between the two authorities involved for the purpose of, to the
greatest extent possible, allowing the applicant to be heard in the Member State of residence. The need for
such a hearing, and the decision itself, rests with the deciding authority, to be taken in accordance with its
national law. The possibilities whereby this can be done is either by the assisting authority hearing the
applicant and sending a transcript of the hearing to the deciding authority, or by the deciding authority
hearing the applicant directly via tele- or video-conferencing. This reflects the possibilities afforded by the
Council Regulation on the taking of evidence, and the same principles as laid down in that Regulation as
concerns the law applicable for the hearings are established in this proposal also.

Article 22

The Article obliges the deciding authority to send the decision, and a summary of this decision, to the
assisting authority and the applicant. This shall apply to any separate decision on an advance payment as
well.

Article 23

The Article lays down the rules for the use of languages in the cooperation between authorities. The
language used for application forms is the choice of the applicant. The language used for the drafting of
the decisions is, obviously, a matter for each Member State to decide,
in accordance with its official
languages. However, the summary of the decision as required by Article 22(1) must be enclosed in a
language that the assisting authority has indicated it can understand. The language used for drawing up a
transcript following a hearing of the applicant is left to the assisting authority to decide. This may depend
on, for example, the use of interpretation during the hearing. The information the authorities have to
provide each other with, as specified by Articles 18-22 shall be in a language the receiving authority — in
each particular case — has indicated it can understand. Taken together the provisions on languages include
what is necessary for a smooth cooperation between the authorities, while the main responsibility for any
translations necessary rest with the deciding authority.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 exclude arrangements for fees or authentication of documents, in order to avoid
cumbersome or bureaucratic procedures that may prevent efficient cooperation between the authorities
involved.

C 45 E/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

Article 24

The Article contains the necessary provisions for establishing the manual to be used by the assisting
authorities. The manual will provide the assisting authority with all the information necessary to enable it
to fulfil its obligations arising from section 2 of the Directive, including:

— Which is the deciding authority in the Member State from which compensation is sought;

— What is the language that authority can accept;

— What are the criteria and conditions laid down by the compensation scheme in that Member State, and

which are the application forms required.

The European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters (1) will provide the necessary framework
for the development of the manual, thereby avoiding the creation of any new structure such as a
committee. The Commission will be responsible for ensuring the necessary translations and for
updating the manual, in cooperation with the Member States through the Network whenever necessary.
Through the translation of the manual, the language versions needed by the Member States to fulfil their
obligations arising from Article 15(2) will be made available to them.

Article 25

The Article creates a system of central contact points in each Member State to further facilitate cross-
border cooperation between the Member States on compensation to crime victims, in particular by seeking
solutions to any difficulties that may occur in the implementation of section 2 of this proposal. The
contact points will also be responsible for cooperating with the Commission on the drawing up of the
manual referred to under Article 24. As for the development of the manual, the Network on civil matters
will provide the necessary framework for the cooperation between the contact points, as foreseen by
Article 2(1)(b) of the Decision setting up the network.

Article 26

The Article contains the standard clause allowing Member States to implement more favourable provisions
than those of the minimum standard laid down by this proposal. It mentions specifically the possibility for
each Member State to compensate its nationals or residents victimised outside its territory; such a possi-
bility is not necessarily more favourable for the victim in each individual case. Paragraph 2 prevents
Member States from justifying any deterioration of current practices by referring to this Directive.

Articles 27-29

The Articles contain the standard provisions found in Community Directives and specify the time limit for
implementation. To this has been added that Member States need not provide for any retroactivity in the
sense of compensating victims of crime committed before the last date for implementation of the Directive
but where the application has been made after this date.

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

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social
Committee,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community, and in particular Article 308 thereof,

Whereas:

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,

(1) The European Union has set itself the objective of main-
taining and developing an area of freedom, security and
justice in which the free movement of persons is ensured.
Measures for the protection of the victims of crime must
form part of the realisation of this objective.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/83

(2) The Vienna Action Plan of

and the
Commission of 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 Council

(3) The Commission presented a Communication on ‘Crime
victims in the European Union — reflexions on standards
and action’ in 1999.

(4) Having regard to the Commission's Communication, the
Tampere European Council on 15 and 16 October 1999
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 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.

(5) On 15 March 2001 the Council adopted Framework
Decision 2001/220/JHA on the standing of victims in
criminal proceedings (1). This decision, based on Title VI
of the Treaty establishing the European Union, allows
crime victims to claim compensation from the offender
in the course of criminal proceedings. Beyond this
provision,
compensation to crime victims was not
addressed.

terrorism, and to ensure compensation for victims of
road accidents.

(10) Since the measures contained in this Directive are
necessary in order
the
Community and the Treaty has not provided the
specific powers to establish such a legal
instrument,
Article 308 of the Treaty should be applied.

to attain the objectives of

(11) It is well known that crime victims will often not be able
to obtain compensation from the offender, since the
offender may lack the necessary means to satisfy a
judgment on damages or because the offender cannot
be identified or successfully prosecuted.

(12) To remedy this situation, thirteen Member States have
introduced State-funded compensation schemes to allow
for compensation to crime victims. These schemes display
wide divergences, in terms of which crime victims can be
compensated and how the compensation is determined.
Two Member States have no general compensation
scheme in place.

(13) Crime victims in the European Union should be entitled
to adequate compensation for the injuries they have
suffered, regardless of the Member State in which they
are resident and regardless of
the Member State in
which the crime was committed.

(6) The Commission adopted a Green Paper on compensation
to crime victims on 28 September 2001. The Green Paper
launched a consultation on the possible objectives that a
Community initiative,
for the purpose of realising the
Tampere Conclusions as regards compensation to crime
victims, could pursue.

(14) In view of the wide divergences between the Member
States that have a compensation scheme in place, and
taking into account
socio-economic discrepancies, an
approach aiming at a minimum standard rather than
harmonisation is to be preferred.

(7) The reactions to the Green Paper, including the resolution
the
the European Parliament and the opinion of
of
Economic and Social Committee, called for the creation
of a minimum standard for compensation to crime
victims in the EU and for better access to such compen-
sation in cross-border situations.

(8) The objectives of

this Directive are to establish a
minimum standard for compensation to crime victims
in the European Union and to facilitate access to such
compensation in cross-border situations. The pursuit of
these objectives respond to the request of the Tampere
European Council and is in line with what was covered in
the Green Paper and the reactions on it.

(9) The objectives of this Directive will contribute to the
establishment of
the European Union as an area of
freedom, security and justice and to the free movement
of persons. The measures contained in it will complement
those taken by the European Union to promote judicial
to combat crime and
cooperation in civil matters,

(1) OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 1.

the person,

including violent crime,

(15) A minimum standard should cover victims of offences
terrorist
against
offences, sexual offences, crimes against women and
minors and racist and xenophobic crimes.
It should
cover the losses sustained by a crime victim resulting
injury, excluding damage to and loss of
from personal
It must also cover the dependants and close
property.
relatives of crime victims who have died as a result of
injuries sustained.

(16) Compensation should be available to all citizens of the
European Union and to all legal residents of any Member
State without discrimination.

(17) The minimum standard should be connected to the
national
to ensure
adequate levels of compensation and predictable and
transparent rules while avoiding harmonisation.

laws of each Member State,

tort

(18) The compensation must cover non-pecuniary losses,

in
particular to ensure adequate compensation to victims
of serious crimes and to dependants and close relatives
of victims who have died as a result of a crime.

C 45 E/84

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

(19) Member States should have the possibility to maintain or
introduce the principle that the primary responsibility for
compensating the crime victim lies with the offender.
Certain limitations on the application of this principle
should, however, be introduced in order to avoid undue
delay in compensating the victim and to limit risks of
secondary victimisation.

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Objective

(20) The minimum standard should cover the restrictions that
can be placed on the award of compensation, in particular
when those restrictions relate to obligations on the part of
including the need for the victim to
the crime victim,
report the crime to the police and to make the application
for compensation within a certain time, in order to ensure
equal
treatment of all crime victims in the European
Union. Exceptions to these restrictions must be provided
for, to avoid requiring unrealistic efforts from the crime
victim and to take into account any obstacles the victim
may face in a cross-border situation.

(21) A system of cooperation between the authorities of the
Member States should be introduced to facilitate access to
compensation in cases where the crime was committed in
a Member State other than that of the victim's residence.

(22) This system should ensure that crime victims can always
turn to an authority in their Member State of residence, to
ease any practical and linguistic difficulties that occurs in
a cross-border situation, without prejudice to the right of
Member States to apply the territoriality principle as the
basis for the obligation to pay compensation.

The objective of
this Directive is to establish a minimum
standard for compensation of victims of crime and to facilitate
access to such compensation in cross-border situations.

S e c t i o n 1

Minimum standards for compensation to crime victims

Article 2

Personal and territorial scope

Subject to the provisions of this Directive, Member States

1.
shall compensate

(a) victims who have sustained personal injury directly caused
by an intentional crime against the victim's life, health or
personal integrity committed on the territory of one of the
Member States;

(b) close relatives and dependants of victims as defined in
point (a) who have died as a result of the injuries sustained.

For the application of paragraph 1 the following shall

2.
apply:

(23) The system should include the provisions necessary for
allowing the crime victim to find the information needed
to make the application and to allow for efficient coop-
eration between the authorities involved.

(a)

‘victim’ shall mean a natural person who has suffered harm,
including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering or
economic loss, directly caused by acts or omissions that are
in violation of the criminal law of a Member State;

(24) This Directive

respects

and
the
observes the principles recognised in particular by the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
as general principles of Community law.

fundamental

rights

(25) In accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and
proportionality as set out in Article 5 of the EC Treaty,
the objectives of
this Directive, namely to establish a
minimum standard for compensation of crime victims
and to facilitate access to such compensation in cross-
border situations, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the
Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale
and the impact of the Directive, be better achieved by the
Community. This Directive does not go beyond what is
necessary in order to achieve those objectives,

(b) ‘intentional crime’, ‘close relatives’ and ‘dependants’ shall be
defined in accordance with the law of the Member State
where the crime was committed;

(c)

‘personal
physical injury.

injury’ shall

include psychological as well as

Article 3

Responsibility for paying compensation; non-discrimi-
nation

Compensation shall be paid by the Member State on

1.
whose territory the crime was committed.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/85

Compensation shall be paid to citizens of the European
2.
Union and to legal residents of any Member State without
discrimination.

(a) the basic eligibility of the application has been established;

Article 4

Principles for determining the amount of compensation

Compensation shall cover pecuniary and non-pecuniary
the
injury the victim has sustained, or, as concerns

1.
losses that have resulted as a direct consequence of
personal
close relatives or dependants, of the death of the victim.

2.

The amount of compensation shall be determined:

(b) there is reason to believe that the final decision cannot be
taken within a short delay following the submission of the
application for compensation;

(c)

is justified in view of

it
applicant; and

the financial situation of

the

(d) it can be assumed with reasonable certainty that

the
offender will not be able to satisfy, in full or in part, any
judgement or decision awarding damages to the victim.

(a) on a case-by-case basis where the compensation, taken as a
whole, does not deviate significantly from what has been or
could be expected to be awarded in damages to the
law in the Member
applicant
State responsible for paying the compensation; or

in accordance with civil

2. Member States may demand full or partial repayment of
an advance paid out if the final decision on the application for
compensation results in a rejection of the application or in the
award of an amount of compensation below the level of the
advance payment.

(b) in accordance with pre-defined tariffs,

for

compensation or for some or all of the individual
of losses that is covered by the compensation.

the entire
items

The tariffs referred to in point (b) shall reflect the average of
what would be awarded in damages for similar losses as those
suffered by the applicant, in accordance with civil law in the
Member State responsible for paying the compensation.

3.
By way of derogation from paragraph 2 Member States
may define a maximum amount of no less than EUR 60 000
for the total compensation that can be paid out to an indi-
vidual applicant.

Member States may also provide that compensation for a
victim's loss of earnings or for a dependant's loss of main-
tenance can be reduced on the basis of
the applicant's
financial situation or be restricted to a maximum amount to
be defined by the Member States.

4.
The compensation may be paid out as a lump sum or
through instalments, for the entire compensation or for some
or all of the individual items of losses that are covered by the
compensation.

Article 5

Advance payment

1. Member States shall provide for an advance payment on
the compensation applied for wherever:

Article 6

De minimis rule

Member States may exclude the award of compensation to
victims who have sustained only minor injuries.

Article 7

Behaviour of the applicant in relation to the crime

Member States may provide that compensation shall be
reduced or
the
that caused the
applicant
injury or death.

refused on grounds of

relation to the event

the behaviour of

in direct

Article 8

Subsidiary application

1. Member States may,
in the cases referred to in Article
2(1)(a) and without prejudice to the application of Article 5,
make the award of compensation conditional upon the
applicant having made reasonable efforts
to obtain and
enforce a judgment or decision on compensation against the
offender.

In applying a condition as referred to in paragraph 1

2.
Member States shall make exceptions for cases where:

(a)

it is probable that the offender will not be able to satisfy, in
full or
in part, any judgement or decision awarding
damages to the victim;

C 45 E/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

(b) the applicant has not been able to obtain a judgment or
decision on compensation against the offender within two
years from when the crime was committed, on the grounds
the police investigations or criminal proceedings
that
crime have not been
the
instituted as a result of
concluded within that time; or

(c) the applicant has faced obstacles in obtaining a judgment
or decision as referred to in paragraph 1 as a consequence
of not having been able to pursue a civil claim for damages
against the offender in the applicant's Member State of
residence.

Article 9

Deduction of compensation received from other sources

1. With a view to avoiding double compensation, Member
States may deduct from the compensation awarded, or may
reclaim from the person compensated, any damages, compen-
sation or benefits actually received from other sources for the
same losses.

(b) significant obstacles faced by the victim as a consequence
of being a resident in another Member State than that
where the crime was committed.

Article 12

Situation pending criminal investigations

Compensation shall not be made conditional upon that

1.
the offender has been identified or successfully prosecuted.

2. Member States may, without prejudice to payment of an
advance pursuant to Article 5, provide that the decision on an
the
application for compensation shall be suspended until
police investigations or criminal proceedings instituted as a
result of
to the following
conditions:

the crime have ended, subject

(a) such a suspension must be necessary for the purpose of
establishing that the injuries suffered were caused by an
intentional crime; and

The provisions of paragraph 1 shall apply also with

2.
regard to any advance payment awarded or paid out.

(b) suspension must not give rise to undue delay or financial

hardship for the applicant.

Article 10

Subrogation

Article 13

Time limit for submitting an application

The Member State or
the competent authority may be
subrogated to the rights of the person compensated for the
amount of the compensation paid.

Article 11

Reporting the crime

1. Member States may make the award of compensation
the application within a
conditional upon submission of
specified time, which in any event shall not be less than two
years from the end of the police investigations or the end of
the criminal proceedings instituted as a result of the crime,
whichever
investigations or
criminal proceedings have been instituted the period shall
run from the date of commission of the crime.

If no police

comes

latest.

1. Member States may,
in the cases referred to in Article
2(1)(a), make the award of compensation conditional upon the
applicant having reported the crime to the competent auth-
orities in the Member State where the crime was committed.

the crime in the Member State of

This requirement shall be considered fulfilled if the applicant
residence in
reports
accordance with Article 11(2) of
the Council Framework
Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing
of victims in criminal proceedings.

2.
In applying a condition as referred to in paragraph 1
Member States shall make exceptions for cases where the
applicant could not have been reasonably expected to submit
the application within the prescribed period. This shall include
cases where the victim has faced significant obstacles as a
consequence of being a resident
in a Member State other
than that in which the crime was committed.

Article 14

2. Member States who apply a condition as referred to in
paragraph 1 may provide that the report shall be made within
a specified time. However, that period shall not be less than
seven days from the date of commission of the crime.

Responsible authorities and administrative procedures

1. Member States shall establish or designate one or several
authorities to be responsible for deciding upon applications for
compensation.

3.
In applying a condition as referred to in paragraphs 1 or
2 Member States shall make exceptions for cases where the
victim had valid reasons for not reporting the crime or for
not doing so within any prescribed period. Such reasons
shall include:

2. Member States shall endeavour to keep to a minimum the
administrative formalities required of an applicant for compen-
sation, without prejudicing the ability to make a proper
the
assessment of
amount of compensation to be paid out.

the application and of

the eligibility of

(a) circumstances

surrounding the
relationship with the offender; or

crime or

the victim's

3.
Applicants shall have the right to submit an application
in any of the official languages of the European Communities.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/87

4. Member States shall make provision for appeals against
decisions rejecting applications for compensation.

Article 18

Transmission of applications

Article 15

Information to potential applicants

The assisting authority shall transmit the application and any
supporting documentation directly to the competent authority
in the Member State responsible for deciding upon the
application, hereinafter referred to as ‘deciding authority’.

1. Member States shall ensure that potential applicants for
compensation have access to information on the possibilities to
apply for compensation as from their first contact with the
competent authorities to which the crime should be reported,
by any means Member States deem appropriate.

2.
The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall cover
the criteria, as applicable, set out in Articles 2 to 13 and the
administrative procedures applicable to the submission of
applications, including where appropriate the special and terri-
torial jurisdiction of the authorities referred to in Article 14(1).
The information shall be available in all of
the official
languages of the European Communities.

The assisting authority shall at the same time provide the
deciding authority with the following information:

(a) the contact person handling the matter;

(b) a list of supporting documentation enclosed;

(c) whether the application includes a request for an advance

payment; and

S e c t i o n 2

(d) where appropriate, the language in which the application

form has been completed.

Access to compensation in cross-border situations

Article 16

Right to submit an application in the Member State of
residence

1.
If the crime was committed in a Member State other than
that of the applicant's residence the applicant shall have the
right to submit the application to an authority in the latter
falls within the
Member State, provided that
scope of Article 2(1).

the applicant

Article 19

Receipt of applications

Upon receipt of an application transmitted in accordance with
the deciding authority shall send the following
Article 18,
information as
soon as possible directly to the assisting
authority:

(a) the contact person handling the matter;

2. Member States shall establish or designate one or several
authorities, hereinafter referred to as ‘assisting authorities’, to
be responsible for applying paragraph 1.

(b) an acknowledgement of receipt of the application;

Article 17

Assistance to the applicant

(c)

if possible, an indication of the approximate time by which
a decision on the application will be made, including where
appropriate the same indication for any decision on a
request for an advance; and

1.
The assisting authority shall provide the applicant with
the information referred to in Article 15(1) and the required
application forms, on the basis of the manual drawn up in
accordance with Article 24(2).

(d) where

appropriate,

any

request

for

supplementary

information.

The assisting authority shall assist

2.
completing the
ensure, as far as possible,
supporting documentation that may be required.

application for
that

in
compensation and shall
is accompanied by any

the applicant

it

The assisting authority shall not make any assessment of
is

3.
the application.
the application only if
obvious that the application is not made in good faith.

It may reject

it

Article 20

Requests for supplementary information

The assisting authority shall assist the applicant in meeting any
supplementary information from the deciding
request
for
authority and shall
soon as
possible directly to the deciding authority, enclosing where
appropriate a list of any supporting documentation trans-
mitted.

subsequently transmit

it as

C 45 E/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2003

Article 21

Hearing of the applicant

Application forms and any other documentation trans-
3.
mitted in accordance with Articles 18 to 22 shall be
exempted from authentication or any equivalent formality.

1.
If the deciding authority wishes to hear the applicant in
accordance with the law of its Member State it shall inform the
assisting authority accordingly.

2.
Following such a request, the assisting and the deciding
authorities shall cooperate for the purpose of arranging the
hearing, in particular by arranging, as far as possible, for:

(a) the applicant to be heard by the assisting authority,

in
accordance with the law of its Member State, which will
subsequently transmit a transcript of the hearing to the
deciding authority; or

(b) the applicant to be heard directly by the deciding authority,
in accordance with the law of its Member State, through
the use of telephone- or video-conferencing.

S e c t i o n 3

Implementing provisions

Article 24

Information to be sent to the Commission; manual

1. Member States shall, no later than 31 December 2004,
send to the Commission:

(a) the

list of

authorities

established or designated in
accordance with Article 14(1) and 16(2),
indicating the
language(s) the authorities can accept for the purpose of
applying Articles 18 to 22 and including where appropriate
information on the special and territorial
jurisdiction of
these authorities;

Article 22

(b) the information established in accordance with Article

Communication of the final decision

15(1); and

The deciding authority shall send the decision on the
1.
application for
the
decision, to the applicant and to the assisting authority, as
soon as possible after the decision has been taken.

compensation,

summary of

and a

2.
The provisions of paragraph 1 shall apply also with
regard to any separate decision on a request for an advance
payment.

Article 23

Other provisions

Information transmitted between authorities

in the
1.
application of Articles 18 to 22 shall be expressed in a
language that the authority to which the information is sent
has indicated that it can accept, with the exception of:

(c)

the application forms for compensation.

Member States shall inform the Commission of any subsequent
changes to this information.

and commercial matters

2.
The Commission shall, in cooperation with the Member
States and in the framework of the European Judicial Network
set up by Decision
in civil
2001/470/EC, establish and publish on the internet a manual
containing the information provided by the Member States
pursuant to paragraph 1. The Commission shall be responsible
for arranging the necessary translations of the manual.

Article 25

Central contact points

(a) the application forms and the supporting documentation,
where the use of languages shall be governed by Article
14(3);

Member States shall appoint a central contact point for the
purposes of

(b) the full text of decisions taken by the deciding authority,
where the use of languages shall be governed by the law of
its Member State;

(c) transcripts drawn up following a hearing in accordance
with Article 21(2)(a), where the use of languages shall be
determined by the assisting authority.

2.
Services rendered by the assisting authority in accordance
with Articles 16 to 22 shall not give rise to a claim for any
reimbursement of charges or costs from the applicant or from
the deciding authority.

(a) assisting with the implementation of Article 24(2);

(b) furthering close cooperation and exchange of information
in the

between the assisting and deciding authorities
Member States; and

(c) giving assistance and seeking solutions to any difficulties
that may occur in the implementation of Articles 16 to 22.

The contact points shall meet regularly in the framework of the
European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters.

25.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45 E/89

Article 26

More favourable provisions

2. Member States may provide that those provisions shall
apply only to applicants whose injuries result from crimes
committed after the closing date mentioned in paragraph 1.

1.
This Directive shall not prevent Member States, in so far
as such provisions are compatible with this Directive, from:

(a)

introducing or maintaining more favourable provisions for
the benefit of victims of crime or any other persons
affected by crime;

(b) introducing or retaining provisions for the purpose of
compensating victims of crime committed outside their
territory, or any other person affected by such a crime,
subject to any conditions that Member States may define
for that purpose.

2.
The implementation of this Directive may not constitute
grounds for making less favourable any provisions already
applied by Member States on compensation of victims of
crime or of any other persons affected by crime.

Article 27

Implementation

3. When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall
contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by
such a reference on the occasion of their official publication.
Member States shall determine how such reference is to be
made.

4. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the
text of the main provisions of domestic law which they adopt
in the field governed by this Directive.

Article 28

Entry into force

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day
following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Communities.

1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this
Directive by 30 June 2005 at the latest. They shall forthwith
inform the Commission thereof.

Article 29

Addresses

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.