Commission working document on the feasibility of EU legislation in the area of protection of witnesses and collaborators with justice
Date: 2007-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: criminal procedure, drafting of EU law, evidence, fight against crime, fundamental rights, judicial cooperation, legislative programme (EU), public safety

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 13.11.2007 
COM(2007) 693 final 

COMMISSION WORKING DOCUMENT 

on the feasibility of EU legislation in the area of protection of witnesses and 
collaborators with justice  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMISSION WORKING DOCUMENT 

on the feasibility of EU legislation in the area of protection of witnesses and 
collaborators with justice  

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  document  is  the  result  of  the  preparatory  work  required  to  assess  the  impact  of  any 
European  legislative  proposal  in  the  area  of  protection  of  witnesses  and  collaborators  with 
justice.  This  working  paper  sets  out  the  state  of  play  on  legislation  and  general  practice  at 
national,  European  and  international  level.  This  is  followed  by  an  analysis  of  problems, 
objectives  and  possible  policy  options.  It  also  outlines  the  key  issues  which  need  to  be 
discussed  in  more  depth  before  possibly  leading  to  a  harmonised  European  system  for  the 
protection of witnesses. 
The  Commission's  Legislative  and  Work  Programme  for  20071  listed  the  protection  of 
witnesses  and  individuals  who  cooperate  with  the  judicial  process  as  a  priority  initiative. 
However, the Impact Assessment procedure has led to the conclusion that at present it is not 
advisable to proceed with legislation at EU level. 

2. 

BACKGROUND 

Providing witnesses with adequate protection can play a crucial part in bringing offenders to 
justice since the successful conclusion of each stage in criminal proceedings often depends on 
the cooperation of witnesses. Offenders often try to prevent witnesses from testifying, even by 
means of threat. All persons have a civic duty to give testimony as witnesses, and states have 
a duty to protect witnesses against any interference. 

Witness  protection  is  the  process  in  which  witnesses  who  testify  in  criminal  trials  are 
provided  with  specific  procedural  and  non-procedural  protection  measures  aimed  at 
effectively ensuring their - sometimes including their relatives'- safety before, during and after 
their  testimony.  Collaborators  with  justice  can  also  be  provided  with  protection  measures 
available for witnesses. In organised crime cases a collaborator is a person holding valuable 
information  being  him/herself  engaged  in  criminal  activity  and  therefore  subject  to 
prosecution and punishment themselves. 

The  need  to  consider  legislation  at  EU  level  in  witness  protection  has  been  under 
consideration for years. Already in 1997, Recommendation 16 of the Action programme on 
the  prevention  and  fight  against  organised  crime2  suggested  to  examine  the  needs  on 
protection  of  witnesses  and  persons  who  collaborate  in  the  action  of  justice.  The  Council 
Declaration of 25 March 2004 on combating terrorism and the Hague Action Plan3 also refers 
to a proposal on the protection of witnesses and collaborators. 

3. 

PREPARATORY WORK 

The  preparatory  work  to  develop  a  European  binding  legislation  on  the  protection  of 
witnesses  goes  back  to  2004.  The  aim  was  to  collect  information  on  Member  States' 

1 Communication COM(2006) 629 final (24.10.2006), p.22. 
2 OJ C 251, 15.08.1997., p.1. 
3 Communication COM(2005) 184 final (10.05.2005) p.23. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
legislation, administrative structures and practical experience in order to identify legal lacunas 
and  operational  weaknesses  having  an  impact  at  EU  level  and  to  suggest  solutions  with  a 
European added value. A comparative AGIS project on witness protection4 besides analysing 
legislation and practice, produced proposals for possible EU legislation. The Commission also 
participated in the joint Europol-ISISC-OPCO5 working group with the aim of exploring the 
possibilities for the harmonisation of the national legislation on witness protection6. 
The Commission held meetings in 2006 and 20077 to consult Member States representatives 
and  witness  protection  experts  that  provided  an  important  input  for  the  Commission  in 
considering the need for legislative work at EU level. 
A  Eurobarometer  survey  of  20068  on  EU  citizens’  views  demonstrated  support  for  dealing 
with  witness  protection  at  European  Union  level.  86%  of  the  citizens  supports  the 
establishment  of  an  EU  policy  dealing  with  cross-border  and  international  cooperation  on 
witness protection, 45% even strongly supports this idea9. 

Efforts have been made to collect sound data and statistics (e.g. Europol information, national 
public documents, answers to the Council of Europe special working group's questionnaires, 
expert  meetings).  Due  to  the  confidential  treatment  of  individual  cases,  no  exact  statistical 
data is available about protection issues. In order to provide the highest safety of the persons, 
confidentiality of handling personal data and details of the protection programmes are of great 
importance. Nevertheless, most countries have experienced an increase in the need for witness 
protection  over  the  past  5-10  years,  both  in  the  number  of  applications  and  of  witnesses 
admitted to the protection programmes. 

4. 

LEGISLATIVE  AND  OPERATIONAL  ACTIONS  AT  EUROPEAN,  NATIONAL  AND 
INTERNATIONAL LEVEL 

The current European Union instruments, the Resolution on the protection of witnesses in 
the fight against international organised crime (1995)10 and the Resolution on individuals who 
cooperate with the judicial process in the fight against international organised crime (1996)11, 
have a limited scope by applying only to cases of fighting organised crime and take soft law 
form. In addition, the possibility to grant benefits in exchange for information is foreseen in 
binding legislation like the Framework Decision on terrorism12, and the Council Framework 
Decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings13. 

Most EU Member States have legislation on witness protection either in a separate act or as 
part  of  their  code  of  criminal  procedure.  They  usually  provide  for  definitions  (protected 

4  ed.  Gert  Vermeulen,  'EU  standards in  witness  protection  and  collaboration  with  justice',  Principal:  European 

Commission (JAI/2004/AGIS/077), IRCP-Ghent University 

5  International  Institute  of  Higher  Studies  in  Criminal  Sciences  (ISISC)  and  Monitoring  Centre  on  Organized 

Crimes (OPCO), both located in Italy/Siracusa 

6 Meetings held in Siracusa 8-10 March 2005 and 26-29 October 2005 resulting in the document 'Proposed draft 

harmonised legislation on witness protection' and its 'Explanatory report',  

7  Meetings  were  held  in  Brussels  on  21  February  2006  -  Workshop  on  the  Protection  of  Witnesses  and 
Collaborators of Justice and 5 March 2007 - Meeting of European Witness Protection Experts 
8 Special Eurobarometer survey, No 264 – The role of the European Union in fighting against organised crime, 

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_264_en.pdf 
9 Only 7% opposed to the launching of an EU policy and 7% replied "don’t know". 
10, OJ C 327, 07.12.1995, p.5. 
11, OJ C 010, 11.01.1997, p.1. 
12, OJ L 164, 22.06.2002, p.3., Article 6 
13, OJ L 82, 22.03.2001, p.1., Article 8 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
witness,  anonymous  witness,  collaborator  with  justice),  procedural  measures  (arrangements 
for  trial  procedure,  alternative  methods  of  giving  evidence),  non-procedural  measures 
(physical protection, relocation, change of identity), the necessary implementation structures 
with  the  role  of  the  different  law-enforcement  bodies  pre-,  during  and  after-trial,  rights  and 
obligations  of  parties  in  the  protection  system.  International  co-operation  in  the  area  of 
witness protection is usually also mentioned, without great detail. 

Some countries have specific legislation governing the operation of their witness protection 
programmes  while  others,  have  none;  some  view  witness  protection  as  largely  a  police 
function while others give a key role to the judiciary and government ministries; some have 
one  national  witness  protection  programme,  while  others  have  several  regional  or  local 
programmes. Also, there are significant variations between countries in the types of measures 
they  have  introduced  to  facilitate  witness  co-operation,  partly  reflecting  differences  in  the 
scale  and  nature  of  the  crime  and  partly  linked  to  differences  in  legal  traditions  and 
environments (see annex). 

Although the words ‘collaborator with justice’ will not often be found in the national penal 
codes, nearly all of the countries, provide the possibility for the court judge to give a lighter 
punishment  to  offenders  who  help  the  police/judicial  authorities  to  clarify  their  or  other 
crimes.  Nevertheless,  some  Member  States  have  chosen  not  to  enact  regulation  on 
collaborators (either because they are seldom confronted with the types of crimes for which 
the  figure  is  effective  or  because  they  have  moral  objections  to  the  waiving/mitigating  of 
punishment). Other Member States, on the contrary, make a very broad use of the figure. 

Special attention was paid to the work of the Council of Europe. This international body has 
been  dealing  with  witness  protection  since  the  mid-90es  and  has  also  carried  out  legislative 
activities:  the  variety  of  different  situations  in  which  witnesses  may  need  protection  in 
Recommendation (1997)13 on the intimidation of witnesses and the rights of the defence as 
well  as  in  the  Recommendation  (2005)9  on  the  protection  of  witnesses  and  collaborators  of 
justice. In relation to procedural protection a significant contribution has been made through 
the rulings of the European Court for Human Rights, specifically on Article 6 of the European 
Convention on Human Rights on the guarantee of a fair trial. Mention should also be made of 
other Council of Europe legal instruments14 that have provisions on protection issues. 

There are also practical arrangements for co-operation in the area of witness protection across 
Europe.  A  European  Liaison  Network,  co-ordinated  by  Europol  -  who  does  not  have  an 
actual mandate on the subject - and comprising the heads of specialist witness protection units 
on a voluntary basis, was created in 2000. Over the years the network has grown into global 
professional  fora,  reaching  to  all  5  continents15.  The  meetings  of  the  network  serve  as  the 
platform  for  exchanging  information  and  developing  instruments,  guidelines  but  do  not 
provide for operational activities. On the basis of the debates within the Europol network, two 
documents have been drafted and shared for use as 'EU guidelines': the 'Basic principles in the 
European  Union  police  co-operation  in  the  field  of  Witness  Protection'  focusing  on  the 
international relocation of witnesses while the  'Common  Criteria for  taking a witness into a 

14 Rec (2001)11 guiding principles on the fight against organised crime; Rec (1997)1325 Trafficing in Women 
and Forced Prostitution in Council of Europe Member States; Rec (2000) 11 action against trafficking 
in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation; Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (No. 
173, 27.01.1999.)  

15  The  network  consists,  at  present,  of  the  Heads  of  Specialised  Units  on  witness  protection/national  contact 
points  from  all  27  EU  countries,  10  non-EU  countries  from  Europe,  7  overseas  observers  .  and  12 
international organisations active in this field. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Protection  Programme',  deals  with  the  criteria  for  taking  a  witness  into  a  protection 
programme. 

As for international co-operation on witness protection – including intra-EU co-operation 
and cooperation with the international judiciary or third states - countries generally enter into 
bilateral  agreements  on  an  ad  hoc  basis.  The  only  multilateral  agreement  at  European  level 
has  been  agreed  by  the  three  Baltic  states16  in  order  to  co-operate  in  criminal  matters  by 
ceasing  further  prosecution  or  reducing  the  punishment  of  persons  who  have  rendered 
assistance to the law enforcement authorities of another party to this agreement. 

Given  that  the  rules  of  international  jurisdiction  and  international  criminal  procedure 
have  only  begun  to  develop  over  recent  years  the  International  Criminal  Tribunal  of  the 
Former Yugoslavia (ICTY, 1993) has been a vital source and the primary point of reference in 
both  areas.  The  rules  applied  by  the  ICTY  are  equally  applicable  to  a  large  extent  to  the 
International Criminal Court (ICC, 1998). However, while in international criminal law there 
is no definition of what a ‘witness’ is and of the level of protective measures that a witness 
should expect in criminal proceedings, it can be inferred from the rules of procedures and case 
law  of  these  bodies  that  parties  giving  criminal  testimony  are  subject  to  some  rules  and 
guidelines.  The  difficulties  in  providing  assistance  to  Court  witnesses  mainly  relate  to  the 
absence of a specific territory and thus jurisdiction, limited budget for these matters and lack 
of cooperation with other countries. As these courts play a crucial role in maintaining peace 
and  justice,  future  EU  legislation  could  benefit  their  functioning  in  regard  to  witness 
protection17. 

While  there  is  no  specific  UN  instrument  in  binding  or  non-binding  form  that  deals 
exclusively  with  witness  protection,  there  has  been  a  trend  to  include  direct  reference  to 
witnesses  in  relevant  Conventions  adopted  in  recent  years,  such  as  UN  Convention  Against 
Transnational  Organised  Crime  (UNTOC,  2001)18  and  UN  Convention  Against  Corruption 
(UNCAC,  2003)19.  The  Conventions  call  on  State  Parties  to  take  appropriate  measures  in 
accordance  with  their  domestic  legal  system  and  within  their  means  to  provide  effective 
protection  for  witnesses  who  give  testimony  concerning  offences  established  in  accordance 
with the Convention. In order to assist UN Member States in their implementation, the United 
Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes (UNODC) started in 2005 the development of guidelines 
for witness protection.  

5. 

PROBLEMS DUE TO THE CURRENT STATE OF PLAY 

The  analysis  of  the  situation  of  witness  protection  legislation  and  practice  confirms  that 
despite  certain  achievements,  in  particular  in  the  last  few  years,  the  framework  is  not 
sufficiently stabilised, meaning on the one hand that there are great varieties of legislative and 
administrative structures in Member States, and on the other hand it is an area of continuous 
development. 

Various elements contribute to this situation, such as: 

16 Agreement between the government of the Republic of Lithuania, bothgovernments of the Republic of Estonia 

and of the Republic of Latvia on co-operation in protection of witnesses and victims (2000) 

17 Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the European Union on co-operation and assistance 

(April 2006) – 
18 Art. 24 Protection of witnesses  
19 Art. 32 Protection of witnesses, experts and victims  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  many  different  actions  from  international  bodies  touching  upon  issues  related  to  witness 

protection (EU, including Europol, Council of Europe, ICTY/ICC, G8-level); 

•  the various degrees of implementation of the mostly non-binding instruments; 

•  the need for improved co-ordination among the relevant authorities of the Member States 
and EU bodies when elaborating policies and programmes related to witnesses, including 
the absence of a commonly agreed good practice to ensure effective protection; 

•  difficulties  in  operational  cross-border  cooperation  and  the  need  for  enhanced  use  of 

existing networks; 

•  the absence of a comprehensive vision on what has been achieved so far by  lack of  data 

and analyses, mainly due to the confidential nature of information. 

The substantial differences that exist between the penal laws of the Member States make the 
cooperation between them, in the fight against often highly sophisticated criminal groups, less 
effective.  Cross-border  co-operation  in  witness  protection  is  particularly  hampered  with 
countries  that  do  not  have  legislation  and/or  administrative  structure  on  witnesses  and 
protection  programmes,  even  if  within  their  borders  they  carry  out  such  activities  for  their 
own  citizens.  Increasingly  countries  where  practical  difficulties  arise  from  their  own 
geographical  (small  territory)  or  demographic  characteristics  (densely  populated)  and 
countries that are highly affected by criminal organisations need to relocate protected persons 
to other countries.  

6. 

JUSTIFICATION FOR ACTION BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 

Although the primary responsibility for addressing many of the issues in witness protection is 
at national level, this analysis demonstrates the existence of a European dimension. Action at 
EU level would have added value in fighting organised crime by enhancing cross-border co-
operation through encouraging witnesses to testify in return for protection. While respecting 
the different legal systems and administrative organisation of each Member State, a common 
approach  in  relation  to  the  protection  of  witnesses,  collaborators,  and  people  close  to  them 
could  lead  to  more  conviction  in  cases  of  organised  crime.  Witness  protection  should 
eventually be made available in all the Member States, as it is a very powerful tool in the fight 
against organised crime and terrorism since the closed nature of such groups makes it difficult 
to use traditional investigative methods. 

In order to avoid duplication and unnecessary costs, the best use of the existing networks of 
national bodies, such as the Europol network, has to be considered.  

6.1 

POLICY OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION 

Several policy options have been considered and analysed for their strengths and weaknesses. 
In  the  light  of  the  Impact  Assessment  procedure,  three  policy  options  were  identified: 
maintaining  the  status  quo  and  two  options  setting  possible  basis  for  EU  legal  action  in 
witness  protection  (one  offers  a  general  framework  in  the  area  and  the  other  focuses  on 
relocation). 

In  any  case,  duplication  of  efforts  should  be  avoided:  there  are  indeed  already  many 
documents  available  in  the  form  of  non-binding  documents  originating  from  different 
international players. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
6.1.1. 

POLICY OPTION 1 - STATUS QUO BASED ON DEVELOPING CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS 

If status quo is maintained, the existing legal and operational instruments should form the core 
of a European policy framework and be complemented by a wider co-ordination. A common 
EU policy should aim at strengthening consistency, effectiveness in legislative and practical 
activities and improve co-ordination.  

6.1.2.  POLICY  OPTION  2  -  HARMONISED  WITNESS  PROTECTION  SYSTEM  IN  THE  EU 

THROUGH MINIMUM STANDARDS IN A BINDING LEGISLATION 

Using the work developed by Europol while also taking account of the Recommendations of 
the  Council  of  Europe,  EU  legislation  could  be  developed  which  would  require  all  EU 
Member States to put in place a legislative framework and an institutional structure in the area 
of witness protection. 

On  the  one  hand,  EU  legislation  on  a  harmonised  witness  protection  system  in  all  Member 
States  could  be  achieved  with  the  full  respect  of  the  different  national  legal  systems  and 
administrative  organisation.  This  approach  would  result  in  an  enhanced  compatibility  of 
national  criminal  justice  systems  (i.e.  have  basic  legislation  and  an  appointed  authority 
responsible for witness protection). 

Nevertheless, it should be recalled that the latest attempt was made at the Council of Europe 
recently  (2005)  on  this  particular  issue  and  its  special  expert  group  on  witness  protection 
concluded in favour of a new recommendation. Although a study was undertaken to identify 
shortcomings in the existing  system,  it never led to  the drafting of a convention. Taking  on 
board  the  existing  practices  and  documents,  it  is  possible  to  envisage  at  EU  level  a 
harmonised  witness  protection  system  by  introducing  minimum  standards  in  a  binding 
legislation.  But  taking  into  account  the  difficulties  set  out  in  the  analysis  above,  there  is  a 
need to explore the matter in more detail in this fast moving area.  

6.1.3 

POLICY OPTION 3 - INCREASED CO-OPERATION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES IN THE 
AREA OF RELOCATION THROUGH BINDING LEGISLATION 

There is no multilateral agreement on the applicable rules concerning witness relocation and 
international  cooperation  in  witness  protection  in  general.  States  enter  into  bilateral 
agreements on a case by case basis with each other or/and the international judicial bodies in 
order to facilitate co-operation. 

One of the main driving forces behind formalising the existing practice is that relocation of 
protected  persons  is  by  far  the  area  that  should  enjoy  the  highest  priority  for  action  due  to 
increased  need  (geographical  concerns,  widespread  criminality  etc.)  for  temporary  or 
permanently locating people abroad in order to ensure their safety. 

In  order  to  have  a  functional  system  for  relocation  within  the  EU,  certain  obligatory 
legislative  and  administrative  provisions  would  have  to  be  implemented  by  Member  States. 
European citizens would also directly benefit from a reassurance that they would be provided 
with  the  necessary  safety  measures,  if  needed  even  abroad,  and  for  this  reason  likely  to  be 
more willing to testify. 

Although the practical advantages of a harmonised approach to relocation cannot be disputed, 
the Commission's expert meetings led to the conclusion that Member States would not accept 
a  centralised  EU  system  for  facilitating  co-operation.  Also,  the  experts  agreed  that 
Europol/Eurojust  should  not  be  equipped  with  an  operational  mandate.  There  is  a  need  to 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
further  examine  what  the  role  of  these  European  bodies  can  be  in  an  EU-wide  co-operation 
regime in witness protection. 

The  proposal  of  the  Europol-ISISC-OPCO  working  group  on  minimum  requirements  for 
potential  legislation  at  European  Union  level  provides  a  model  bilateral  agreement  for 
relocation for witnesses. This approach is based on the present practice of state co-operation. 
Due  to  security  and  confidentiality considerations, these  agreements are  not  published in the 
national official journals. Although it is legally possible to insert the model agreement into an 
EU legal instrument and encourage Member States to use it20, in practice it would not bring 
the desired policy improvement at EU level. 

Further  studies  should  be  carried  out  in  order  to  identify  an  acceptable  way  forward  for  the 
creation  of  a  European-wide  co-operation  in  witness  protection  as  it  is  complex  area  which 
touches on many other sensitive and complicated topics (e.g. change of identity). Furthermore, 
new developments, such as the use of biometrics, that affect protection of witnesses need to be 
looked at with care. 

7. 

CONCLUSIONS 

In  the  light  of  the  Impact  Assessment  exercise,  time  does  not  seem  ripe  for  immediate 
legislative action at EU level in witness protection. Earlier efforts at international level show 
the difficulties in adopting a binding instrument. Although there is legislation, priority policy 
areas and judicial decisions at the level of the Council of Europe that underpin the need for 
binding  action  in  the  area  of  witness  protection,  efforts  have  failed  to  reach  binding 
legislation.  The  latest  work  made  by  the  Council  of  Europe  consisting  of  over  40  Member 
States including all EU Member States did not move towards binding legislation in the form 
of  a  convention  as  States  were  not  ready  to  commit  themselves,  and  agreement  could 
therefore only be reached on a soft law instrument. 

On the basis of the expert meetings held by the Commission and the written comments coming 
from the experts, the assessment is that at present Member States would be reluctant to accept 
binding legislation to regulate their ongoing informal cooperation. 

Nevertheless,  there  are  visible  trends  indicating  the  need  for  more  co-operation  among 
countries that could eventually lead to the acceptance of formalised rules and structures in the 
area  of  witness  protection  on  due  course.  The  oldest  practice  and  legislation  within  Europe 
goes back only 16 years (Italy, 1991, on pentiti/collaborators with justice). Meanwhile, most 
EU  Member  States  have  issued  either  specific  law  or  at  least  included  reference  to  the 
protection to threatened witnesses in their criminal law. However, they have not done this in a 
uniform  way.  In  recent  years,  on  the  other  hand,  countries  exchange  in  an  informal  way 
'lessons learned' when setting-up a witness protection system  and also  take into account the 
principles developed by Europol and the Council of Europe. For this reason, there are certain 
similarities in the witness protection regimes established during the last 2-3 years, in line with 
different legal systems and the fundamental principles of administrative organisation of each 
Member State. 

Factual trends in criminality, i.e. the increase of activity in number and scale of cross-border 
organised criminal and terrorist groups, has led states to strengthen their cooperation. As not 
just criminals but ordinary citizens also enjoy the benefits of free movement within the EU, it 
is  likely  that  the  number  of  European  citizens  being  asked  to  testify  as  witnesses  in  highly 
significant criminal cases will rise. 

20 Similarly to the practice of joint investigation teams 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
When  elaborating  an  EU  policy  on  the  protection  of  witnesses  the  use  of  the  latest 
technological  and  information-society  developments  (such  as  video-links)  also  need  to  be 
looked  at  in  order  to  facilitate  transborder  co-operation.  They  should  be  used  more 
widespread by law-enforcement agencies, including the protection of witnesses. 

The  recognition  of  the  increased  need  for  co-operation  in  fighting  cross-border  organised 
criminals  via  witnesses  that  need  protection  and  the  implementation  efforts  for  developing 
witness protection systems required by the UN Conventions might lead to changes in attitude 
at political and at operational level. 

On  the  basis  of  the  above,  the  European  Commission  suggests  putting  on  hold  legislative 
activity in the area of witness protection for the time being while looking at the feasibility of 
EU level action, in the mid-term (4-5 years) period, with the elaboration of a paper. To that 
end,  the  specific  financial  programme  on  'Prevention  of  and  Fight  against  Crime'  for  2007-
201321 could be used for further studies, collecting information; the 'protection and support to 
witnesses'  is  listed  as  a  theme  and  as  a  specific  objective,  reflecting  the  importance  of  the 
issue at EU level. 

21 Council Decision 2007/125/JHA (12.02.2007), OJ L 58, 24.02.2007., p.7. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Laws on witness protection in Member States and Norway 

Annex 

Witness 
protection 

legislation 

Witness 
protection unit 

Identity change 
possible 

Identity change 
possible by law 

Law on collaborators 
with justice 

AUSTRIA 

BELGIUM 

BULGARIA 

CZECH REPUBLIC  

CYPRUS 

DENMARK 

ESTONIA 

FINLAND 

FRANCE 

GERMANY 

GREECE 

HUNGARY 

IRELAND 

ITALY 

LATVIA 

LITHUANIA 

LUXEMBOURG 

MALTA 

NETHERLANDS 

 NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

YES 

NO 

NO 

YES 

NO 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

NO 

YES 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

NO 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES 

 NO 

NO 

YES 

YES 

NO 

YES 

NO 

NO 

YES 

NO 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES/ NO 22 

YES 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

YES 

NO 

NO SPECIAL LAW, SME 
ARTICLES IN THE 
SURVEILLANCE ACT 

NO 

YES 

YES23 

NO 

22 Law allows the creation of new identity but the old one cannot be deleted 
23 Project on law is tabled in front of the Parliament and likely to enter into force in 2008 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
NORWAY 

POLAND 

PORTUGAL 

ROMANIA 

SLOVAKIA 

SLOVENIA 

SPAIN 

SWEDEN 

UNITED 
KINGDOM24 

NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

NO 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES 

NO 

YES 

24 Including the separate jurisdictions of England/Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland 

EN 

11 

   EN