Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating to compensation to crime victims [SEC(2009) 495]
Date: 2009-04-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: crime, cross-border cooperation, indemnification, standard, victim

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 20.4.2009 
COM(2009) 170 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 

on the application of Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating to  
compensation to crime victims 

[SEC(2009) 495] 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 

on the application of Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating to  
compensation to crime victims 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Crime  victims  in  the  European  Union  are  entitled  to  fair  and  appropriate 
compensation for the injuries they have suffered, regardless of where in the European 
Community  the  crime  was  committed.  Council  Directive  2004/80/EC  relating  to 
compensation  to  crime  victims1  (hereafter  "the  Directive")  set  up  a  system  for 
cooperation to facilitate access to compensation to victims of crime in cross-border 
situations.  The  system  operates  on  the  basis  of  the  Member  State's  schemes  on 
compensation  to  victims  of  violent  intentional  crime,  committed  in  their  respective 
territories. 

Article  19  of  the  Directive  stipulates  that  the  Commission  is  to  present  to  the 
European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee 
a report on the application of the Directive by 1 January 2009. This report complies 
with that obligation. It covers the period of 1 January 20062 to 31 December 20083. 

In order to prepare the report, the Commission requested a study on the application 
of  the  Directive,  which  was  prepared  by  a  contractor4.  The  main  objective  of  the 
study  was  to  assess  the  current  stage  of  implementation  of  the  Directive  in  all 
Member States. For this purpose, the contractor undertook a survey of:  

•  The  application  of  the  Directive:  assessing  the  compensation  schemes  on  an 

operational level; 

•  The effectiveness of the Directive: identifying contextual factors, regulations, and 

procedures (if any) that have caused implementation difficulties; 

•  The  content  of  national  legislation:  comparing  Member  States’  compensation 
schemes; assessing whether Member States’ compensation schemes comply with 
the provisions of the Directive. 

Furthermore,  the  application  of  the  Directive  was  discussed  at  a  meeting  of  the 
Central  Contact  Points  appointed  by  the  Member  States  in  accordance  with  Article 
16 of the Directive, which was organised in the framework of the European Judicial 
Network in Civil and Commercial Matters and took place on 23 October 2008. 

1 

2 

3 
4 

OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p.15. It is to be noticed that the legal basis of the Directive is Article 308 of the EC 
Treaty. The Directive is thus applicable in all Member States, including Denmark, which is not covered 
by such Community measures in the area of civil justice cooperation that are adopted under Title IV of 
the EC Treaty. 
According to Article 18(1) of the Directive, the Member States were to implement the Directive by 1 
January 2006 at the latest. 
The Annexes of the report are presented in the Commission Staff Working Document n° 
Matrix  Insight:  The  application  of  Directive  2004/80/EC  relating  to  compensation  to  crime  victims 
EMPIRICAL REPORT, 12.12.2008, and Analysis of the application of Directive 2004/80/EC relating 
to compensation to crime victims SYNTHESIS REPORT, 12.12.2008 (hereafter "the study"). The study 
is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/civil/studies/doc_civil_studies_en.htm.  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Directive  and  all  information  provided  by  the  Member  States  under  the 
provisions  of  the  Directive  are  available  in  the  European  Judicial  Atlas  in  Civil 
Matters (hereafter "the Atlas").5 

2. 

THE MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE DIRECTIVE 

Article  1  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  that  the  victim  of  a 
"violent  intentional  crime"  committed  in  a  Member  State  other  than  the  Member 
State  where  the  applicant  for  compensation  is  habitually  resident  has  the  right  to 
submit an application for compensation in that state. The competent authority in the 
Member State in which the applicant is currently residing (the "Assisting Authority") 
assists the applicant; its obligations towards the victim are set out in Articles 5 – 11 
of  the  Directive.  The  Assisting  Authority  does  not  make  any  assessment  of  the 
application. This assessment is left to the authority of the Member State under whose 
compensation scheme the victim is applying (the "Deciding Authority"). 

Member States are thus required to establish Assisting and Deciding Authorities and 
to appoint Central Contact Points (Articles 3(1), (2) and 16).  

Assisting Authorities are responsible for: 

•  Informing potential claimants about the compensation scheme (Article 4); 

•  Assisting claimants in filling in the compensation application (Article 5); 

•  Transmitting the application to the Deciding Authorities (Article 6); 

•  Providing  guidance  to  the  applicant  in  case  additional  documents  are  required 

(Article 8); 

•  Organising a hearing if requested by the Deciding Authority (Article 9). 

Deciding Authorities are responsible for: 

•  Acknowledging  the  receipt  of  the  application,  providing  a  contact  person  in 
charge of the handling the matter and indicating an estimated time for the decision 
to be taken (Article 7); 

•  Informing  both  the  Assisting  Authority  and  the  claimant  about  the  decision 

(Article 10). 

Article  12(1)  of  the  Directive  provides  that  access  to  compensation  in  cross-border 
situations should operate on the basis of Member States’ own national compensation 
schemes.  In  specifying  the  constituent  elements  of  such  schemes,  Article  12(2) 
provides that all Member States "shall ensure that their national rules provide for the 
existence  of  a  scheme  on  compensation  to  victims  of  violent  intentional  crimes 
committed  in  their  respective  territories,  which  guarantees  fair  and  appropriate 
compensation to victims." 

The Member States must ensure that the potential applicants have access to essential 
information  on  the  possibilities  to  apply  for  compensation  (Article  4).  The 
compensation  has  to  be  paid  by  the  competent  authority  of  the  Member  State  on 
whose  territory  the  crime  was  committed  (Article  2).  Administrative  formalities 

5 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/judicialatlascivil/html/cv_information_en.htm. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
should  be  kept  to  a  minimum  (Article  3(3))  and  standard  forms  should  be  used  for 
the transmission of applications and decisions (Article 14). 

3. 

THE APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

The following section gives an overview of different aspects of the application of the 
Directive, in particular the notification of transposing measures, compliance with the 
Directive,  application  and  effectiveness  of  the  Directive  and  national  compensation 
schemes  under  Article  12.  In  addition,  the  implementing  measures  required  by 
Chapter III of the Directive are presented. 

3.1. 

Notification of the transposing measures 

In accordance with Article 18(1), Member States were to bring into force the laws, 
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 
1 January 200667 

15  Member  States  adopted  the  national  transposing  measures  before  the  said 
deadline:  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Germany,  Estonia,  Spain,  France, 
Ireland, 
Luxembourg,  Netherlands,  Austria,  Poland,  Slovenia,  Finland,  Sweden  and  United 
Kingdom.  The  notifications  from  7  further  Member  States  (Belgium,  the  Czech 
Republic, Cyprus, Lithuania, Hungary, Portugal and Slovakia) were received in early 
2006. 

The Commission launched the infringement procedure under Article 226 of the EC 
Treaty  against  Greece,  Italy,  Latvia,  Malta  and  Romania  for  non-notification  in 
2006-2007.  Since  then,  Italy,  Latvia,  Malta  and  Romania  have  notified  national 
transposing legislation in accordance with their obligation. 

To date, Greece has not notified national transposing measures for the Directive. It 
was  condemned  by  the  European  Court  of  Justice  in  July  2007.8  The  Commission 
launched the procedure under Article 228 of the EC Treaty against Greece in 2008; it 
is currently pending. 

The transposing measures notified by the Member States are listed in Annex 1. 

3.2. 

Compliance with the Directive 

The assessment of the conformity of the transposing measures with the requirements 
of the Directive is not fully completed because of the late notifications. On the basis 
of the current information, the situation is as follows: 

Articles  1-3:  All  Member  States  except  Greece  and  Italy  have  schemes  in  place 
which  allow  victims  to  submit  an  application  (Article  1)  and  have  implemented 
Articles 2 - 3 (the creation of responsible authorities and administrative procedures). 
The responsible authorities are published in the Atlas.9 

Article 4: There is information available on measures and methods for informing the 
potential  applicants  from  20  Member  States.  Mostly,  the  Member  States  have 
provided information on their compensation schemes through the internet, either on 

6 
7 
8 
9 

The deadline was 31 December 2006 for Bulgaria and Romania. 
See the Commission Staff Working Document n° 
Case C-2007/026, Commission v Greece, judgement of 18 July 2007. 
They are also listed in Chapter 9.2 of the Analysis of the application of Directive 2004/80/EC relating 
to compensation to crime victims – SYNTHESIS REPORT, 12 December 2008. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
national websites or in the Atlas. They have also prepared leaflets and brochures. The 
information measures are presented in Annex 210. 

Articles  5-10:  There  is  currently  information  on  the  functioning  of  the  procedures 
required  in  Articles  5-10  of  the  Directive  from  12  Member  States:  the  Czech 
Republic, Denmark, Ireland, Spain, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Portugal, 
Finland, Sweden and the UK. 

Article  11:  17  Member  States  accept  applications  in  languages  other  than  their 
official  language(s).  The  most  widely  accepted  foreign  language  is  English.  Spain, 
France,  Luxembourg,  Slovenia  and  Slovakia  accept  only  the  use  of  their  official 
language(s). The information on languages is presented by Member State in Annex 
311. 

3.3. 

Application and Effectiveness of the Directive in practice 

Only  limited  data  is  available  on  the  practical  application  of  the  Directive  in  the 
different  Member  States.12  The  number  of  cross-border  applications  made  with  the 
help  of  the  Assisting  Authority  and  the  number  of  actions  taken  by  the  Deciding 
Authority  are  presented  in  the  table  below.  The  main  conclusion  is  that  there  have 
been very few cases to date. 

Member State 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 

Number of cross-border applications 
(acting as Assisting/Deciding Authority)13 
1 case / 22 cases 
(no data yet) 
0 cases / 3 cases 
2 cases / 2 cases 
(no data) 
3 cases / 4 cases 
(not transposed) 
(no data for assisting authority) / 48 cases 
(no data for assisting authority) / 28 cases 
1 case / 31 cases 
(no authorities) 
(no data for assisting authority) / 2 cases 
2 cases / 1 case 
3 cases / 0 cases 
0 cases / 1 case 
0 cases / 0 cases 
0 cases / (no data for deciding authority) 
39 cases / 3 cases 
(no data for assisting authority) / 3 cases 
5 cases / 5 cases 

10 
11 
12 

13 

See the Commission Staff Working Document n° 
See the Commission Staff Working Document n° 
In the survey carried out by the contractor, the majority of respondents chose not to answer questions 
about applications, requests for information, decisions, hearings, etc. Therefore, EU-wide data is quite 
approximate on these matters. 
The  periods  covered  by  the  available  data  vary.  The  numbers  are  based  on  the  study  and  on  the 
information received in the meeting of the Central Contact Points of 23 October 2008. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United 
Kingdom 

(no data for assisting authority) / 3 cases 
1 case / 0 cases 
0 cases / 1 cases 
0 cases / 0 cases 
6 cases / 1 case 
7 cases / 14 cases 
Around 100 cases / (no data for deciding authority) 

According to the study, the reason for the unavailability of relevant data appears to 
be  that  some  Member  States  have  only  recently  implemented  the  Directive.  Others 
encountered barriers to implementation including language, a lack of knowledge of 
other  Member  States'  legal  system  and  procedures,  and  differing  attitudes  towards 
speed  and  efficiency.  These  respondents  also  noted  that  there  had  been  few 
successful cases which could be shared. 

In addition to the statistical outcome, the following main findings can be presented 
based on the study: 

3.3.1.  Effectiveness of the Directive 

Deciding  and  Assisting  Authorities  on  the  whole  had  a  positive  opinion  of  the 
operation of the current system as well as of the Central Contact Points, the use of 
standard forms, languages and the use of communications technology. However, the 
relatively  low  response  rate  raised  questions  regarding  the  extent  to  which  these 
respondents actually made use of the system. 

Deciding  and  Assisting  Authorities  mostly  rated  their  leading  interlocutors  as 
effective. There were few respondents who were critical of their official counterparts. 
Central Contact Points also received positive assessments.  

However, claimants were much less positive about the process than authorities. They 
found the process of applying complicated and time-consuming. Language barriers, 
lack of information and legal advice were rated as major problems. It seems therefore 
that despite the requirements of Article 11 of the Directive, language barriers – and 
communication  in  general  –  continues  to  be  a  major  problem  in  the  application 
process. 

3.3.2.  Workload and decisions 

The EU-wide estimate of the approximate number of applications under the Directive 
during  the  reporting  period  is  very  low,  as  presented  in  the  table  above.  There  are 
indications  however,  that  the  number  of  applications,  hearings  and  requests  for 
information rose substantially between 2006 and 2008. Despite the rise in numbers of 
applications, the success rate remained roughly the same (around 10%). According to 
the study, there has been a substantial rise in the absolute amounts both claimed and 
paid  out.  As  a  percentage  of  the  amount  claimed,  the  payouts  tend  to  vary  widely, 
depending on year and location. 

3.3.3.  Organisation and communication 

The study indicates that the ability to process and transmit applications and decisions 
appears  to  vary  widely  across  the  European  Union.  On  average,  it  takes 
approximately four weeks to transmit an application, and roughly two weeks for the 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
Deciding  Authority  to  receive  the  application.  Requests  for  follow-up  information 
can take up to four months. 

The use of communications technology seems to have helped increase the number of 
hearings, but not substantially. Around 10% received hearings in 2006, and 19% in 
2007. There  were  few examples of  tele- or videoconferencing causing difficulty.  A 
significant minority of Deciding Authorities (1/4) were also willing to use email and 
fax. 

Finally,  the  majority  of  respondents  expressed  themselves  satisfied  with  the  use  of 
language. However, a substantial minority (about 1/4) expressed concerns, and there 
were  several  suggestions  about  ways  to  improve  the  situation,  including  the  use  of 
native language interpreters. 

3.3.4.  Attrition rate 

On the basis of the evidence available in the context of the study, it is likely that only 
a  relatively  small  number  of  victims  have sought  to  pursue  claims  for  cross-border 
compensation. 

Possible  explanations  range  from  unawareness  of  the  schemes’  existence  and 
unwillingness  to  engage  with  the  claims  agency  (the  Assisting  Authority).  In 
addition,  contextual  factors  –  perceived  language  barriers,  absences  of  a  central 
source of information and the involvement of two agencies – may also have lead to a 
high attrition rate during the claim process.14 

3.4. 

Compensation Schemes of Member States (Article 12) 

3.4.1.  Existence of national compensation schemes 

Article 12 requires first the existence of national scheme on compensation to victims 
of violent intentional crimes committed in their respective territories. 

All Member States except Greece seem to fulfil this obligation. 

3.4.2.  Victimising  events  covered  by  schemes  and  "fair  appropriate  compensation" 

required by Article 12 

The  study  and  the  website  of  the  European  Judicial  Network  in  Civil  and 
Commercial  Matters15  contain  a  substantial  amount  of  information  on  national 
compensation  schemes.  The  following  section  provides  an  overview  of  the  current 
practices  of  national  compensation  schemes  with  regard  to  two  essential  respects, 
namely  the  question  of  "victimising  events"  and  the  issue  of  "fair  and  appropriate 
compensation". 

All  Member  States  except  Greece  provide  compensation  for  victims  of  intentional 
crimes  against  a  person.  With  respect  to  relatives  of  victims  of  intentional  crimes 
against a person that result in the victim’s death, the number of schemes that cover 
fatal  injury  is  2:1  compared  with  those  that  do  not.  A  majority  of  Member  States 
exclude unintentional injuries, whether to victims or their relatives. 

14 

15 

Other reasons of a more general nature for the high attrition rate (i.e. high drop out rate) can be found in 
the study. 
http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/comp_crime_victim/comp_crime_victim_gen_en.htm. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The vast majority of Member States provide compensation for both personal injury 
and  death.  There  is  also  a  large  majority  that  include  disease  and  mental  injury  in 
their schemes. 

In most cases, both victims and their close relatives (where the offence is homicide) 
may be eligible for compensation. 

All but two Member States impose a time limit for the completion and submission of 
a claim for compensation, and most (3:1) provide that in certain circumstances that 
limit  may  be  extended.  These  circumstances  largely  relate  to  the  medical 
consequences of the crime on the victim. 

By  contrast,  a  majority  of  Member  States  (2:1)  does  not  impose  any  financial 
minimum  as  a  threshold  to  compensation,  and  in  the  case  of  those  that  do,  the 
minimum ranges widely. 

Given  that  none  of  the  schemes  sets  the  completion  of  criminal  proceedings  or  the 
identification of the offender as a condition of eligibility, it is required in almost all 
schemes that the victim report the offence to the police. There is, however, an almost 
equal  split  between  schemes  as  to  the  imposition  of  a  time  limit  for  such  reports. 
Where they do impose a limit, schemes are also almost equally split on the questions 
whether the limit could be extended. 

Virtually all schemes contain a provision that victims who in some way contribute to 
the circumstances in which they were injured may have their compensation reduced 
or their claim rejected altogether. By contrast, there is a substantial majority (4:1) of 
schemes  in  which  victims  who  have  a  criminal  record  are  not  for  that  reason 
precluded (in whole or in part) from compensation. 

The  survey  asked  whether  respondents  felt  that  their  schemes  provided,  as  the 
Directive  requires,  for  "fair  and  appropriate  compensation".  The  question  was 
answered by less than half of the Deciding Authorities. Those that did claimed that 
their schemes did meet this standard. 

Respondents were asked a number of questions concerning the assessment and scope 
of the compensation that their schemes provide. For a majority of respondents (2:1) 
the  assessment  of  compensation  is  based  on  their  national  law  of  damages  for 
personal injury or death. Some schemes operate a tariff that fixes a financial value to 
specified injuries. 

In  addition  to  non-pecuniary  loss,  the  vast  majority  of  schemes  provides 
compensation  for  pecuniary  loss  arising  from  the  injury  (loss  of  earnings,  for 
example), and most provide compensation for longer term disabilities. Similarly, the 
majority of schemes provide for compensation to dependants both for non-pecuniary 
(bereavement) and pecuniary loss (loss of dependency).  

There  is  a  majority  of  schemes  (4:1)  which  impose  an  upper  limit  on  the  total  of 
compensation in any case. But there is an equal split on the question whether there 
should be an upper limit on any award for loss of earnings. 

A  claimant  might  benefit  from  two  other  sources  of  compensation:  The  first  is 
recovery  from  the  offender.  National  law  may  provide  that  the  claims  agency  is 
subrogated to the victim’s civil law claim against the offender. The  survey showed 
that a slight majority of national schemes did not require victims to take reasonable 
steps to recover from the offender. The second source is collateral benefits that may 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
accrue  from  the  state,  the  claimant’s  employer  or  own  insurance  policies.  In  this 
regard, respondents agreed that schemes may seek to prevent double recovery. 

Although  the  compensation  schemes  are  complex  and  characteristics  differ  among 
Member  States,  it  seems  that  all  Member  States  surveyed  have  established  a 
functioning scheme on compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes. 

As regards the requirement of fair and appropriate compensation, respondents to the 
survey  agreed  that  there  was  a  substantial  degree  of  compliance  across  Member 
States with respect to the provision of "fair and appropriate compensation for victims 
of violent intentional crimes": 

•  All respondents stated that compensation for victims of intentional crimes against 

the person is provided. 

•  A  majority  of  Member  States  exclude  unintentional  injuries  from  their 

compensation scheme. 

•  The  vast  majority  of  Member  States  provide  compensation  for  both  personal 

injury and death. 

•  There is also a consensus that disease and mental injury should be included within 

schemes. 

•  There is very high compliance with the minimum standard that proposes that both 
victims  and  their  close  relatives  (where  the  offence  is  homicide)  should  be 
eligible. 

•  All  but  two  Deciding  Authorities  reported  that  they  impose  a  time  limit  for  the 

completion and submission of a claim for compensation. 

•  Virtually  all  schemes  contain  a  provision  that  victims  who  contribute  to  the 
circumstances  in  which  they  were  injured  may  have  their  compensation  reduced 
or their claim rejected altogether. 

•  A  substantial  majority  takes  the  view  (not  proposed  in  the  minimum  standards) 
that  victims  who  have  a  criminal  record  should  not  for  that  reason  be  precluded 
from compensation. 

•  The vast majority of schemes provide compensation for financial loss arising from 

the injury and most provide compensation for longer term disabilities. 

•  Some schemes operate a tariff that fixes a financial value to specified injuries.  

•  A majority of schemes imposes an upper limit on the total of compensation in any 

case. 

4. 

THE IMPLEMENTING MEASURES UNDER CHAPTER III OF THE DIRECTIVE 

Article 13(1) requires the Member States to send the Commission the details of the 
lists of Assisting and Deciding Authorities, of the languages referred to in Article 11, 
of  the  information  measures  under  Article  4  and  of  the  application  forms  for 
compensation. 

13  Member  States  have  sent  all  required  information:  Belgium,  Czech  Republic, 
Denmark,  Ireland,  France,  Latvia,  Hungary,  the  Netherlands,  Austria,  Portugal, 
Slovakia,  Sweden  and  United  Kingdom.  For  the  others,  there  are  still  points  of 
information to be complemented. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
On  this  basis,  the  Commission  established  a  manual  containing  this  information  in 
accordance  with  Article  13(2).  The  manual  is  translated  to  all  languages  and 
published in the internet, in the Atlas. It is being updated regularly, on the basis of 
the subsequent additions and changes notified by the Member States. 

The  standard  forms  for  the  transmission  of  applications  and  decisions  foreseen  in 
Article  14  were  established  on  19  April  2006  by  Commission  Decision 
2006/337/EC.16 

The  Central  Contact  Points  mentioned  in  Article  16  have  met  once,  on  23  October 
2008. 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Based  on  the  above  findings,  the  Commission  draws  the  following  conclusions 
concerning the application of the Directive: 

•  Concerning  the  national  compensation  schemes  required  by  the  Directive,  it 
appears that Member States provide fair and appropriate compensation for victims 
of violent intentional crimes. In this regard, there seems to be a substantial degree 
of compliance across Member States. 

•  As  far  as  the  procedural  aspects  of  the  Directive  for  cross-border  cases  are 
concerned,  Deciding  and  Assisting  Authorities  are  broadly  positive  about  the 
operation  of  the  current  system  including  Central  Contact  Points,  the  use  of 
standard forms, languages and the use of communications technology. Claimants 
are, however, much less positive about the process than authorities. Many find the 
process of applying complicated and time-consuming and consider that language 
barriers  –  and  communication  in  general  –  constitute  a  major  obstacle  in 
facilitating the victim application process.  

The  Commission  is  therefore  of  the  opinion  that  the  functioning  of  the  Directive 
should be improved with regard to the following aspects of its application: 

•  Member States should seek to collect data on the application of the Directive in 

order to able to better assess the effectiveness of the process. 

•  Member States should – as far as possible – ensure that more information on the 
Directive and on national compensation schemes is provided to citizens since too 
few potential claimants seem to be aware of their rights. 

•  Furthermore, Member States should ensure that the language requirements of the 
Directive  are  respected  in  order  to  ensure  the  most  efficient  processes  for 
claimants. 

•  Finally,  clarity  and 

transparency  concerning  key  elements  of  national 
compensation  schemes  is  important.  This  concerns  in  particular  the  questions  of 
which  offences  are  included  in  the  schemes  and  which  injuries  are  covered  by 
them.  The  Atlas  and  the  website  of  the  European  Judicial  Network  in  Civil  and 
Commercial  Matters  contain  already  a  substantial  amount  of  information  on 
national compensation schemes. It should, however, be considered whether efforts 

16 

OJ L 125, 12 May 2006, p. 25. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
are  required  to  further  improve  information  available  on  the  Directive  and  on 
national compensation schemes in these websites. 

Because  of  the  short  period  and  consequent  limited  practical  experience  on  the 
application  of  the  Directive,  the  Commission  will  not  propose  amendments  to  the 
Directive but considers that the implementation can be improved on the basis of the 
current provisions. Furthermore the Commission will use its powers under the Treaty 
to urge the Member States to complete the possible deficient measures. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
EN 

12 

EN