Report from the Commission based on Article 11 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism {SEC(2007) 1463}
Date: 2007-11-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: approximation of laws, crime against individuals, report, terrorism

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 6.11.2007 
COM(2007) 681 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

based on Article 11 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating 
terrorism 

{SEC(2007) 1463} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

based on Article 11 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating 
terrorism 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................... 3 

The Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism .............. 3 

The first report.............................................................................................................. 3 

The present report ........................................................................................................ 4 

METHOD AND CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF THE FRAMEWORK-
DECISION ................................................................................................................... 4 

ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................ 4 

Member States evaluated for the first time .................................................................. 4 

Member States evaluated for the second time.............................................................. 7 

CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................ 10 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
1. 

BACKGROUND 

The Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism  

1.1. 
The  Council  Framework  Decision  of  13  June  2002  on  combating  terrorism1  (hereafter 
referred to as ‘the Framework Decision’) constitutes a key tool in the fight against terrorism. 

The Framework Decision harmonises the definition of terrorist offences in all Member States 
and ensures that they establish for natural and legal persons having committed or being liable 
for such offences penalties and sanctions which reflect the seriousness of such offences. It sets 
out jurisdictional rules to guarantee that terrorist offences may be effectively prosecuted and 
adopts  specific  measures  with  regard  to  victims  of  terrorist  offences  because  of  their 
vulnerability.  

1.2. 

The first report 

Under Article 11 of the Framework Decision, the Commission has to draw up a written report 
on the measures taken by the Member States to comply with this instrument. 
In accordance with that Article, a report from the Commission2 as well as a Commission staff 
working paper3 associated with this report were adopted on 8 June 2004.  

Since  at  that  time  the  Commission  had  received  no  information  from  Luxembourg  and  the 
Netherlands  and  no  specific  information  from  Greece,  the  Member  States  evaluated  were 
Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  France,  Finland,  Germany,  Ireland,  Italy,  Portugal,  Spain, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
The Council's response to the Commission's report4 was adopted on 25 and 26 October 2004 
and it decided to:  

–  invite those Member States which had not yet fully complied with the Framework 
Decision  to  do  so  as  soon  as  possible  and  to  provide  information  on  progress 
made; 

–  invite the Member States concerned to provide further information as asked for in 

the Commission's report; 

–  invite the new Member States to provide information on their implementation of 

the Framework Decision. 

This  information  should  have  been  submitted  to  the  Council  and  the  Commission  by  31 
December 2004.  

1 
2 

3 

4 

OJ L164, 22.6.2002,p. 3 
Report from the Commission based on Article 11 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 
on  combating  terrorism,  COM(2004)409  final  of  08.06.2004,  referred  to  as  "first  evaluation  report 
(summary)" hereunder.. 
Commission Staff Working Paper - Annex to the Report from the Commission based on Article 11 of 
the  Council  Framework  Decision  of  13  June  2002  on  combating  terrorism,  SEC(2004)  688  of 
08.06.2004. 
Council document 11687/2/04 REV 2 DROIPEN 40, of 12.10.2004. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.3. 

The present report 

All Member States informed the Commission by the cut-off date of 31 December 2006. This 
second report takes stock of the transposition situation deriving from the legislation that had 
been forwarded to the Commission by that reference date5. It has been drawn up taking into 
consideration  all  information  submitted  to  the  Commission  on  the  implementation  of  the 
Framework Decision after production of the first report, including the opinions expressed by 
some  Member  States  on  the  exact  extent  of  their  implementation  and  the  assessment  of  the 
first report. A Commission staff working paper associated with this report contains a detailed 
analysis  of  national  measures  taken  to  comply  with  the  Framework  Decision,  as  well  as  a 
table specifying, in accordance with the information received by the Commission, the national 
provisions transposing each of the Articles. 

2. 

METHOD  AND  CRITERIA  FOR  EVALUATION  OF  THE  FRAMEWORK-
DECISION 

The  evaluation  criteria  applied  to  elaborate  the  present  report  do  not  differ  from  those 
followed in the establishment of the first report and described therein6.  

As regard the context of evaluation, it is essentially the same described in the first evaluation 
report7.  However,  an  additional  circumstance  must  be  taken  into  consideration:  the  present 
evaluation  is  influenced  by  the  existence  of  a  previous  evaluation  report.  It  distinguishes 
between  Member  States  which  were  already  assessed  in  the  said  report  and  Member  States 
evaluated  for  the  first  time.  The  former  are  examined  on  the  basis  of  the  findings  of  the 
previous report and the complementary information they have provided. Regarding the latter, 
a  full  and  original  evaluation  is  required.  But  even  in  this  case,  the  present  assessment 
respects  and  builds  on  the  interpretation  of  the  provisions  of  the  Framework  Decision 
provided for in the first report, referring to it on numerous occasions. 

Finally,  with  reference  to  Article  1(2)  of  the  Framework  Decision,  the  Commission  recalls 
that antiterrorist measures such as implementing legislation must be applied with full respect 
for fundamental rights and the principle of the rule of law. The Commission will continue to 
pay particular attention to this aspect. The firmer the guarantees that the EU and the Member 
States shall respect fundamental rights when implementing Union law, the better the Union's 
chances of making effective advances in the fight against terrorism. 

3. 

ASSESSMENT 

3.1.  Member States evaluated for the first time 

This  group  of  Member  States  includes  those which  were Members  of  the EU  preceding the 
enlargement  of  1  May  2004  but  which  were  not  evaluated  under  the  first  report  (Greece, 
Luxembourg and the Netherlands)8 and all those that joined the Union on 1 May 2004. Few of 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Except  for  the  entry  into  force  or  progress  of  relevant  legislatives  amendments  or  bills  of  which  the 
Commission had been previously informed. Thus, the report takes stock of the entry into force of the 
Estonian amendments to the Criminal Code on 15/03/07 as well as of the submission for approval to the 
House of Representatives of the Cypriot "2006 Terrorism and related matters Bill".  
Report from the Commission based on Article 11 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 
on combating terrorism, COM(2004)409 final of 08.06.2004, pp. 4-5. 
Report from the Commission based on Article 11 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 
on combating terrorism, COM(2004)409 final of 08.06.2004, pp. 4-5. 
See "Commission Staff Working Paper - Annex to the Report from the Commission based on Article 11 
of  the  Council  Framework  Decision  of  13  June  2002  on  combating  terrorism",  SEC(2004)  688  of 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
them transmitted of all relevant texts of their implementing provisions to the Commission by 
the  deadline.  The  factual  assessment  and  subsequent  conclusions  drawn  are  therefore 
sometimes  based  on  incomplete  information.  Having  evaluated  the  information  provided  by 
the  thirteen  Member  States,  the  situation  regarding  the  implementation  of  the  Framework 
Decision is as follows: 

Article 1: The Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands and 
Slovakia had correctly implemented Article 1 in the sense that they have criminalised terrorist 
offences  as  a  separate  category  of  crimes,  while  Cyprus  is  in  the  process  of  amending  its 
legislation  to  that  end.  In  the  other  Member  States  considered  here,  the  technique  used  to 
define  terrorist  offences  raises  some  concerns:  Luxembourg  does  not  foresee  a  catalogue  of 
terrorist  offences,  Slovenia  uses  only  a  general  definition  of  terrorist  offences,  Lithuania 
appears to lack a complete definition and Poland only defines terrorist intent. Furthermore, it 
appears  that  Lithuania,  Poland  and  Slovenia  lack  a  provision  either  linking  these  ordinary 
offences to the definitions of terrorism or qualifying them as terrorist offences in the case of 
terrorist intent.  

Article 2: Estonia, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia have 
implemented this Article correctly by means of specific provisions that separately criminalise 
acts  committed  in  connection  with  terrorist  groups.  The  Cypriot  Bill  will  also  introduce 
concrete provisions to that end. Lithuania employs a mixed formula where general provisions 
on criminal alliances complement the limited scope of the provision specifically dealing with 
terrorist groups. This provision, however, appears to fail to cover the direction of a terrorist 
group. Similarly, Hungary does not incriminate the direction of a terrorist group. In the Czech 
Republic,  terrorist  groups  as  such,  and  directing  or  participating  in  their  activities,  are  not 
specifically criminalised - but the support for commission of terrorist offences is. In Latvia, 
the  leadership  of  a  terrorist  group  is  a  criminal  offence,  while  participation  seems  to  be 
punishable only when linked to the commission of specific terrorist offences. However, both 
countries rely on general provisions which criminalise participation in a criminal organisation 
or  in  organised  groups.  Similarly,  Slovenian  law  does  not  contain  any  specific  provision 
dealing with terrorist groups – under that law such notion should be subsumed in the wider 
concept of "criminal association".  

Article  3:  Only  Greece,  Malta  and  the  Netherlands  have  fully  implemented  this  Article  on 
terrorist related offences - Cyprus is still in the process of amending its legislation. The rest of 
the  Member  States  will  be  able  to  achieve,  in  some  cases,  similar  results  by  treating  these 
offences as acts of collaboration with a terrorist group or as participation in specific terrorist 
offences, thus partially complying with the obligations under this Article.  

Article  4:  The  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Greece,  Hungary,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Poland, 
Slovakia,  Latvia,  Lithuania  and  Slovenia  have  referred  to  general  rules  on  participation  and 
inchoate offences under their criminal systems that would implicitly enable their legislation to 
comply with this Article. The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania and Malta have, 
additionally, adopted specific provisions in relation to terrorism. In Cyprus modifications will 
link the general rules on complicity and inchoate offences to terrorist intent.  

Article 5: Although only the legislative modifications laid down by Cyprus refer explicitly to 
extradition for terrorist offences, it appears that all Member States are able to meet the terms 

08.06.2004  p.4  ,  referred  to  as  first  evaluation  report  (Commission  Staff  working  paper)  in  the 
following. No information was received from Luxembourg and the Netherlands whereas Greece limited 
itself  to  announce  that  the  FD  had  already  been  incorporated  into  the  national  legal  system  without 
providing further information or legal texts. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
of paragraph (1), obliging Member States to ensure that the offences referred to in Articles 1 
to  4  are  punishable  by  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive  criminal  penalties  that  may 
entail extradition. Greece, Estonia, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands and Poland 
have implemented paragraph (2) properly – the Cypriot draft bill would also do so, while the 
other evaluated Member States have not introduced specific aggravating provisions nor have 
they identified equivalent ordinary offences which would allow a comparison of sanctions and 
therefore  an  assessment  of  implementation.  As  regards  paragraph  (3),  when  it  comes  to 
participation  in  a  terrorist  group,  all  Member  States  but  Slovenia  have  adequately 
implemented or will implement the provision. Concerning the direction of a terrorist group, 
most  Member  States  have  correctly  implemented  this  provision.  However,  Hungary  and 
Slovenia  have  not  respected  the  required  minimum  penalties  and  Greece  and  Poland  have 
chosen a formula that does not exclude the imposition of a custodial sentence of up to fifteen 
years but does not guarantee it either.  

Article  6:  Only  Greece,  Hungary  and  Luxembourg  have  and  Cyprus  will  have,  after 
completing  its  legislative  procedure,  specific  mitigating  circumstances  for  the  penalty 
imposed for terrorist crimes, taking account of some of the particular circumstances set up in 
this Article. The Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia 
have referred to more general rules containing mitigating circumstances, whereas the rest of 
the Member States concerned have not submitted any legislation implementing this optional 
provision. 

Article  7:  The  Czech  Republic,  Latvia  and  Slovakia  have  failed  to  foresee  the  liability  of 
legal  persons  for  terrorist  offences  as  requested  in  paragraph  1  and  Luxembourg  has  not 
transmitted  the  relevant  provisions.  The  other  Member  States  evaluated  have  correctly 
implemented paragraph 1. Their provisions often go beyond the minimum level required by 
the  Framework  Decision  through  either  setting  more  than  one  criterion  or  retaining  wider 
criteria.  Only  Greece,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Poland  and  Slovenia  have  provided  rules 
that explicitly implement paragraph 2, including lack of supervision or control as a source of 
liability for legal persons. However, in some of the other Member States, the paragraph may 
be  interpreted  as  being  covered  by  more  general  formulations.  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Latvia, 
Lithuania, the Netherlands and Slovenia have all implemented paragraph 3, ensuring that the 
liability of legal persons does not exclude criminal proceedings against natural persons who 
are perpetrators. 

Article  8:  Apart  from  the  Czech  Republic,  Luxembourg  and  Slovakia,  all  Member  States 
submitted legislation or draft legislation providing for penalties for legal persons and fulfilling 
the minimum obligation of Article 8 to provide for criminal or non-criminal fines. However, 
Latvian  implementation  of  Article  8  is  hindered  by  its  incorrect  transposition  of  Article  7. 
Most  Member  States  also  apply  all  or  some  of  the  optional  penalties  indicated  in  this 
provision and some lay down additional penalties, not mentioned in the Framework Decision. 

Article 9: The legislation of all Member States will presumably be able to comply with this 
Article as regards the application of the territoriality principle in Articles 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b) and 
9(4). As regards extra-territorial jurisdiction, a majority of Member States have or will have 
rules  which  cover-  at  least  partially  –  the  principles  of  active  and  passive  personality  laid 
down in Article 9(1)(c) and (e). Article 9(1)(d) has only been expressly transposed by Malta, 
while the Netherlands and Slovenia referred to rules that partly cover this paragraph. Article 
9(3)  has  been  expressly  implemented  by  Estonia,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands, 
Slovakia and Slovenia. The clauses of universal jurisdiction in the Greek, Lithuanian, Polish, 
Slovakian and Slovenian legislation as well as in the Cypriot Bill may enable these Member 
States  to  comply,  at  least  partially,  with  paragraphs  1  and  3  in  the  absence  of  explicit 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
implementation. Finally, while Lithuania has partly transposed Article 9(2), none of the other 
Member  States  appear  to  have  incorporated  into  their  national  legislation  the  criteria  for 
solving positive conflicts of jurisdiction referred to in this provision. 

Article  10:  Although  only  Estonia,  Poland  and  Slovakia  referred  to  specific  articles  setting 
out  the  principle  of  the  prosecution  "ex  officio"  it  seems  likely  that  terrorist  offences  are 
treated  as  public  offences  in  all  Member  States  for  the  purposes  of  investigation  and 
prosecution.  Only  Estonia  and  Slovenia  provided  concrete  provisions  concerning  the 
assistance for the families of the victims, to which paragraph 2 refers.  

3.2.  Member States evaluated for the second time 

Article  1:  The  first  evaluation  report  concluded  that  Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  France, 
Finland,  Portugal,  Spain  and  Sweden  had  correctly  implemented  Article  1  in  the  sense  that 
they  had  specifically  proscribed  terrorist  offences  as  a  separate  category  of  crimes  -  while 
Ireland was in the process of amending its legislation to this end. It stated that Italy and the 
United  Kingdom  provided  only  for  a  limited  number  of  specific  terrorist  offences  and 
qualified  common  offences  by  reference  to  a  terrorist  intent  either  as  an  aggravating 
circumstance  (in  Italy)  or  by  applying  a  general  definition  of  terrorism  (United  Kingdom). 
The report concluded that German legislation did not comply with Article 1 of the Framework 
Decision9. 

The further information provided by Member States allows the Commission to take note of a 
higher level of compliance with Article 1. However, none of the submitted comments entirely 
dispels the doubts expressed by the Commission in the said report. Only the Irish provisions - 
which have in the meantime entered into force - confirm that Ireland's legal system complies 
with Article 1.  

Article 2: The first evaluation report concluded that most Member States had or would have 
legislation  that  separately  criminalised  terrorist  acts  committed  in  connection  with  terrorist 
groups.  Only  in  Denmark  and  Sweden  were  directing  or  participating  in  the  activities  of 
terrorist groups not specifically criminalised, although in some cases those who carry out such 
forms  of  conduct  might  still  be  punished  as  principal  or  secondary  parties  to  the  relevant 
terrorist offence10. 

The Commission must clarify that although it remains true that directing a terrorist group and 
participating in its activities are not specifically criminalised in Sweden, its widely formulated 
provisions  on  attempt,  preparation,  conspiracy  and  complicity  may  allow  the  prosecution  of 
both  leaders  and  participants  in  a  terrorist  group.  Concerning  Denmark,  the  Commission 
considers that its specific legislation on assistance to terrorist groups, rather than its general 
provisions on complicity, could also cover all types of behaviours criminalised under Article 
2(2).  The  lack  of  separate  criminalisation  of  collaboration  with  a  terrorist  group  in  Sweden 
and  of  leadership  of  a  terrorist  group  in  both  Sweden  and  Denmark,  does  not  automatically 
exclude  attainment  of  the  results  sought  by  the  Framework  Decision,  but  it  may  disrupt  the 
systematic  and  political  aim  of  this  instrument  and  the  clarity  of  implementation,  and  can 
hinder full implementation of related provisions. Therefore, it must be sustained that Sweden 
and Denmark have not fully implemented Article 2. 

Article  3:  This  provision  requires  Member  States  to  include  certain  acts  as  terrorist  related 
offences.  The  first  evaluation  concluded  that  only  Finland,  France,  Portugal  and  Spain 
appeared  to  have  legislation  that  fully  complied  with  the  obligations  under  this  Article  and 

9 
10 

See first evaluation report (summary), p. 7.  
See first evaluation report (summary), p. 6.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
that Ireland's legal system should be able to comply after its new legislation had entered into 
force. The rest of the Member States' legislation only partially complied with this Article11.  

Austria,  Italy  and  Sweden  as  well  as  Belgium  and  Denmark  have  submitted  further 
explanations  on  implementation  of  this  provision;  however,  only  Denmark  has  been  able  to 
demonstrate full compliance of its legislation with Article 3 of the Framework Decision. 
Article  4:  As  the  first  evaluation  concluded12,  although  only  some  Member  States  have 
specific  provisions  implementing  Article  4,  it  appears  that  by  applying  general  rules  on 
complicity and inchoate offences most Member States have implicitly implemented Article 4, 
provided  the  preceding  articles  have  been  fully  implemented.  However,  there  remain  some 
concerns with respect to the implementation of the element "attempt" in France, Belgium and 
Portugal.  

Article 5: Concerning Article 5(1) of the Framework Decision, the first evaluation assumed 
that all Member States would be  able to meet  the  terms  of  paragraph  (1),  obliging  Member 
States  to  ensure  that  the  offences  referred  to  in  Articles  1  to  4  are  punishable  by  effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties that may entail extradition13.  

Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Italy,  Portugal  and  Sweden  have  correctly 
implemented Article 5(2)14. Unfortunately, despite the additional information sent by Member 
States,  the  same  cannot  yet  be  concluded  for  Germany,  Spain,  Ireland  and  the  United 
Kingdom.  

As regards paragraph (3), when it comes to directing a terrorist group, according to the first 
evaluation  report  the  legislation  of  Austria,  Belgium,  Germany,  Ireland,  Italy,  Portugal  and 
the  United  Kingdom  complied  or  would  comply  with  the  Framework  Decision.  The  legal 
systems  of  Denmark,  France  and  Sweden  would  only  comply  partially  with  this  provision. 
Spanish  legislation  only  complied  with  this  provision  as  regards  directing  a  terrorist  group 
that only threatens to commit terrorist acts15. It can now be concluded that French legislation 
also complies completely with this Article. 

Concerning participation in the activities of a terrorist group, the first evaluation report stated 
that  Austria,  Belgium,  Finland,  France,  Ireland,  Portugal,  Spain  and  the  United  Kingdom 
correctly  implemented  this  provision,  which  could  be  considered  as  partially  transposed  in 
Germany,  Denmark,  Italy  and  Sweden16.  Unfortunately,  none  of  these  countries  provided 
information convincing the Commission of full compliance on this point. 

Article 6: No additional comments have been submitted concerning Article 6. Therefore, it is 
presumed  that  still  only  Austria,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Portugal  and  Spain  specifically 
cover  the  particular  circumstances  mentioned  in  this  Article,  whereas  the  rest  have  not 
referred to specific measures to implement this optional provision17. 

Article  7:  The  first  evaluation  report  concluded  that  Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  France, 
Germany,  Ireland,  Italy  and  Portugal  had  implemented  or  would  implement  legislation 

11 
12 

13 
14 
15 
16 
17 

See first evaluation report (summary), p. 6. 
See "Report from the Commission based on Article 11 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 
2002  on  combating  terrorism"  (COM  2004  409  final),  p.  6  –  in  the  following  referred  to  as  first 
evaluation report (summary).  
See first evaluation report (summary), p. 6. 
See first evaluation report (summary), p. 6. 
See first evaluation report (Commission Staff working paper), p. 22, 23. 
See first evaluation report (Commission Staff working paper), p. 22, 23. 
See first evaluation report (summary), p. 6. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ensuring that legal persons could be held liable for the offences mentioned in the Framework 
Decision.  Of  these  Member  States,  however,  only  Finland,  Ireland,  Italy  and  Portugal  had 
provided enough information for it to be considered that paragraph 2 was also covered18.  

Taking  into  consideration  the  submitted  new  comments  and  information  on  new  provisions 
submitted, it can now be concluded that also the Austrian and Swedish legal systems comply 
with Article 7(1), so that only Spain and the United Kingdom have still not implemented this 
provision.  Concerning  Article  7(2)  of  the  Framework  Decision,  Austria,  Belgium  and 
Denmark have provided further information confirming compliance..  

Article  8:  The  first  evaluation  report  concluded  that  Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany,  France, 
Italy,  Portugal  and  Finland  fulfilled  the  minimum  obligation  provided  for  in  Article  8  to 
impose  criminal  or  non-criminal  fines  for  legal  persons19.  Now  Austria  and  Sweden  can  be 
added to the list of Member States whose legislation complies with Article 8. 

Article  9:  The  first  evaluation  report  presumed  that  the  legislation  of  all  Member  States 
complied  with  Article  9(1)(a),  (b)  and  (4),  as  territoriality  is  the  primary  basis  for  criminal 
jurisdiction20. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, 
Spain,  Sweden  and  the  United  Kingdom  have  rules  which  to  different  extents  cover  the 
principle  of  active  personality  in  9(1)(c),  although  some  did  not  generally  cover  residents 
(Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom) or referred to additional requisites such as 
double  criminality  not  included  in  this  subparagraph  (Denmark).  The  same  was  said  in 
relation to the principle of passive personality in 9(1)(e), although in some cases the scope of 
the provision is reduced by referring only to protected persons or premises or by requiring the 
offender to be in the territory of the Member State. Also, only five Member States explicitly 
cover  offences  against  European  Union  institutions  or  bodies.  Article  9(1)(d)  has  been 
expressly transposed only by Austria and Ireland although it seemed at the time that Finland, 
Italy and Portugal would also be in line with this provision21. As regards Article 9(3) it was 
concluded  that  Austria,  Germany,  Ireland,  Italy  and  Portugal  explicitly  provide  for  the 
possibility of prosecuting an offender who has committed a terrorist crime abroad and cannot 
be extradited.  

From the information provided it appears that Belgian legislation also covers Articles 9(1)(d) 
and 9(3) and that German legislation additionally complies with Articles 9(1)(d) and (e) of the 
Framework  Decision.  Denmark  has  referred  to  its  obligation  to  prosecute  in  all  cases 
established  in  Framework  Decisions.  Sweden  may  be  considered  as  having  universal 
jurisdiction for terrorist offences. The French amendment in order to implement Article 9(3) 
failed to change the Commission's prior conclusion on this paragraph.  

The situation concerning Article 9(2) has not improved since the first evaluation report was 
drawn up and Ireland continues to be the only Member State that has transposed this provision 
(albeit partially) in its Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, which has entered into 
force in the meantime.  

Article 10: At the time of the first evaluation, only Austria had provided enough information 
to  demonstrate  compliance  of  its  legal  system  with  Article  10(1)  although  it  seemed  likely 
that terrorist offences were treated in all Member States as public offences for the purposes of 
investigation and prosecution.22 The Belgian, Danish, French and Swedish comments on the 

18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

See first evaluation report (Commission Staff working paper), p. 30. 
See first evaluation report (Commission Staff working paper), p. 30.  
See first evaluation report (Commission Staff working paper), p. 31.  
See first evaluation report (Commission Staff working paper), p. 34.  
See first evaluation report (summary), p. 7.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
implementation of Article 10(1) reinforce the Commission's assumption that terrorist offences 
are subject to public prosecution in all Member States .  

Concerning  Article  10(2),  the  first  evaluation  report  focussed  on  measures  to  assist  terrorist 
victims' families, as the implementation of the Council Framework Decision on the standing 
of victims in criminal proceedings23 is the subject of an independent report. Austria, Belgium, 
France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Italy,  Spain  and  the  United  Kingdom  had  provided  specific 
information on this matter24. Only Portugal submitted further details on assistance to terrorist 
victims' families.  

4. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The Commission notes that most Member States evaluated for the first time have satisfactory 
achieved  implementation  of  the  main  provisions  contained  in  the  Framework  Decision. 
Nevertheless, some major issues stand out. Concerning the Member States evaluated for the 
second  time,  the  additional  information  they  have  sent  has  allowed  the  Commission  to 
generally  conclude  that  there  is  a  higher  level  of  compliance.  However,  most  of  the  main 
deficiencies identified in the first evaluation report remain unchanged. 

The main concerns of the Commission are: 

•  the  deficient  implementation  of  Article  1  in  Germany,  Italy,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg,  Poland,  Slovenia  and  the  United  Kingdom.  This  provision  is  of 
crucial importance not only for the Framework Decision but for counter-terrorism 
policy in general. A common definition of terrorism constitutes the basis on which 
all other provisions in the Framework Decision are built and allows for the use of 
law enforcement co-operation instruments;  

•  the  deficient  implementation  of  Article  5(3)  on  harmonisation  of  penalties  for 
offences related to a terrorist group affecting Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Italy, 
Slovenia and Sweden, since this is also a key aspect of the Framework Decision; 

•  the deficient implementation of Article 7 in the Czech Republic, Latvia, Slovakia, 
Spain and the United Kingdom. Harmonised criminal liability of legal persons for 
terrorist offences is also of utmost importance in the fight against terrorism. 

In view of the foregoing, the Commission invites the Member States which have not yet done 
so to ensure a rapid and complete transposition of the Framework Decision into their national 
law and to inform it immediately of the measures taken, supported by the text of the statutory 
or administration provisions in force. 

23 
24 

OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p.1.  
See first evaluation report (Commission Staff working paper), p. 35. 

EN 

10 

   EN