COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-05-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: area of freedom, security and justice, child protection, crime, mutual recognition principle, victim

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 18.5.2011 
SEC(2011) 580 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European economic and social Committee and the Committtee of the Regions 

Proposal for a 
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of 
crime 

Proposal for a 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters  

{COM(2011) 274 final} 
{SEC(2011) 581 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

Introduction/ Annexes ................................................................................................................ 2 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

Procedural Issues and consultation of interested parties.............................................. 3 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 3 

Consultation of the impact assessment board (IAB).................................................... 4 

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 4 

Problem Definition....................................................................................................... 5 

Problem A – EU Legislation is inadequate to improve the situation of victims.......... 6 

Problem B – Victims' needs are not sufficiently addressed in the Member States ...... 8 

2.2.1. 

Issue 1 -Victims are not sufficiently recognised and treated with dignity and respect 8 

2.2.2. 

Issue 2 – Victims are not sufficiently protected........................................................... 9 

2.2.3. 

Issue 3 – Victims are not sufficiently supported........................................................ 10 

2.2.4. 

Issue 4 – Victims do not have effective access to justice .......................................... 12 

2.2.5. 

Issue 5 – Victims do not have effective access to compensation and restoration...... 13 

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5. 

2.6. 

Hidden costs linked to victimisation .......................................................................... 14 

The underlying drivers of the problems ..................................................................... 16 

Baseline Scenario ....................................................................................................... 16 

The need for action at EU level.................................................................................. 17 

2.6.1.  European dimension and added value........................................................................ 18 

2.6.2.  Legal basis.................................................................................................................. 19 

2.6.3.  Subsidiarity ................................................................................................................ 19 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

5. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 21 

General, specific and operational objectives.............................................................. 21 

Consistency of the objectives with other EU policies................................................ 21 

Consistency of the objectives with the Fundamental Rights ..................................... 22 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 23 

Discarded options....................................................................................................... 23 

Overview of policy options........................................................................................ 23 

Detailed description of policy options concerning selected measures....................... 26 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 30 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
5.1. 

Description and impact analysis of policy options .................................................... 30 

5.1.1.  Policy option 1: Retention of the status quo – No action at EU level........................ 31 

5.1.2.  Policy option 2: Low prescription.............................................................................. 32 

5.1.3.  Policy option 3a: Medium prescription...................................................................... 35 

5.1.4.  Policy option 3b: Medium/High prescription ............................................................ 39 

5.1.5.  Policy option 4: High prescription ............................................................................. 42 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

7. 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 44 

Comparative assessment of policy options ................................................................ 44 

The preferred option................................................................................................... 44 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 46 

ANNEXES 

This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not 
prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
INTRODUCTION 

This impact assessment is for an initiative that aims at developing a set of measures for the 
recognition, protection and support of victims of crime that will ensure that victims receive a 
minimum level of assistance (legal, psychological and other), access to justice and restoration 
in all Member States of the EU. The initiative will benefit citizens across all Member States 
and will make sure that protection of victims is not lost when they travel or move to another 
Member State.  

In the Stockholm Programme (2010-2014)1, the European Council called for further action to 
place the needs of victims of crime at the centre of our justice systems. This was reaffirmed in 
the  Commission's  action  plan  to  implement  the  Stockholm  Programme.  The  Commission 
Work  Programme  2011  (Annex  I)2  lists  the  rights  of  and  support  to  victims  of  crime  as  a 
strategic  initiative.  The  European  Parliament  has  also  called  upon  the  Council  to  adopt  a 
comprehensive legal framework offering victims of crime the widest protection.3 

The Commission's "Citizenship Report" of 27 October 20104 seeks to dismantle the obstacles 
to citizens' rights by adding substance to individual rights granted at EU level. Strengthening 
victims'  rights,  together  with  the  strengthening  of  procedural  rights  of  suspects  or  accused 
persons in criminal proceedings reflects this approach.  

This impact assessment evaluates the options for these measures. 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Organisation and timing 

Identification:  Lead  DG:  DG  JUSTICE;  Commission  Work  Programme  2011,  Annex  I 
(Agenda Planning 2009/006). 

Detailed work on the impact assessment started in 2009. Four expert meetings (17 November 
2008,  18  February  2010,  14  April  2010  and  25  May  2010),  as  well  as  a  range  of  bilateral 
contacts  with  Member  States  and  NGOs  have  been  held.  Moreover,  the  Commission 
contracted an external study (hereinafter "the external study")5. to support the preparation of 
the Impact Assessment, which presented its report in November 2010. The Commission also 
held a public consultation from 15 July to 30 September 2010 (see Section 1.3 below). 

1 

2 
3 

4 
5 

Multi-annual  programme  2010-2014  regarding  the  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  (Stockholm 
programme)  European  Parliament  resolution  of  25 November  2009  on  the  Communication  from  the 
Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  –  An  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice 
serving the citizen – Stockholm programme. 
COM(2010) 623 final. 
Resolution of 7 May 2009 of the European Parliament on the development of an European Union criminal 
justice area (INI/2009/2012). 
COM/2010/0603 final. 
Matrix Report: A Study for an Impact Assessment on Ways of Improving the Support, Protection and Rights of Victims across Europe, November 
2010 (the "Matrix Report"). 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  met  on  5  November  2010  and  19  January  2011  at  which 
representatives of Directorates-Generals Translation (DG DGT), Enlargement (DG ELARG), 
Home Affairs (DG HOME) and the Secretariat General (SG) participated. 

1.2. 

Consultation of the impact assessment board (IAB) 

The Commission’s IAB was consulted on 23 February 2011 and delivered its Opinion on 25 
February  2011.  The  IAB  delivered  a  positive  opinion  subject  to  improvements  on  certain 
issues.  In  particular,  the  IAB  recommended  that:  the  intervention  logic  is  strengthened;  the 
expected  benefits  and  the  distribution  of  corresponding  costs  are  better  assessed;  the 
methodology used to generate key estimates is better explained; the preferred option is clearly 
presented  and  its  proportionality  explained;  and  aspects  of  procedure  and  presentation  are 
reinforced. The recommendations for improvements have been accommodated in this revised 
version of the report.  

1.3. 

Consultation and expertise 

The  Commission's  minimum  standards  on  consultations  were  followed.  Experts  from 
different  backgrounds  including  governments,  law  enforcement  agencies,  non-governmental 
organisations  (NGOs),  international  organisations  and  universities  took  part  in  detailed 
discussions  on  the  legislative  plans  well  before  the  conclusion  of  this  impact  assessment. 
Further details can be found at Annex 1.  

The  Commission  contracted  the  external  study  to  support  the  preparation  of  the  impact 
assessment and a further study was contracted to examine options in relation to the specific 
objective of ensuring that the protection gained through a protection order is not lost when a 
protected person travels or moves to another Member States.6 Results from two surveys have 
also  been  used:  the  external  study  consulted  384  representatives  from  government  and  non-
government  sectors,  receiving  119  replies,  and  the  Victims  in  Europe  Project7  received  97 
replies to its legal implementation questionnaire and 218 to its organisational questionnaire. 

During  the  preparation  process  of  the  impact  assessment,  the  Commission  held  a  public 
consultation,  open  to  all  members  of  the  public  and  to  non-governmental  and  governmental 
organisations, asking their views on what action the EU should take to improve the situation 
of  victims  of  crime.  The  Commission  received  77  replies  by  the  deadline  for  responses.  In 
brief,  the  consultation  process  highlighted  the  importance  of  action  in  the  following  non-
exhaustive  list  of  areas:  identification  of  vulnerable  victims;  need  to  ensure  the  right  to 
remedy to victims; need to ensure access to restorative justice and minimum standards; need 
to  establish  and  promote  victim  support  organisations;  need  to  provide  translation  and 
interpretation  for  victims;  and  need  to  change  practitioners'  attitudes  and  culture  through 
training on rights of victims of crime. A summary of the responses can be found at Annex 2.  

The results of the various consultations have been used extensively for the problem definition 
and the identification and analysis of policy options. 

6 
7 

Hess, Burkhard, "Feasibility Study: The European Protection Order and the European Law of Civil Procedure". 
APAV/Victim Support Europe, the Project "Victims in Europe", 2009 (the "APAV Report"). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Crime can affect us all, and every year many millions of people in the EU do in fact fall victim 
to  crime.  According  to  Eurostat  data8,  around  30  million  serious  offences,  excluding  minor 
crimes, were recorded in 2007, and most crimes are never reported. Many of these offences 
involve  more  than  one  victim  and  those  close  to  the  victim  also  suffer  indirectly  from  the 
crimes.  This  leads  to  a  qualified  estimate  that  there  is  likely  to  be  about  75  million  direct 
victims every year, with more than 225 million close family members also affected.9 

These figures show that the problem of victimisation in Europe is considerable – roughly 15% 
of the EU's population suffer directly from serious crimes (excluding minor offences) every 
year.  This  is  a  serious  situation,  but  the  problems  identified  in  this  impact  assessment  go 
beyond the sheer numbers of victims of crime in Europe. We want to address the quality of 
treatment that victims receive in the aftermath of crime and during the criminal proceedings 
that follow. Victims should receive the same minimum standard of treatment, including non-
discriminatory access to justice, in all EU Member States, irrespective of their nationality or 
country of residence. 

This non-discriminatory right of equal treatment of individuals who fall victim of crime while 
travelling  to  another Member State was established by the European Court  of Justice in the 
case  Cowan  v  Trésor  public  as  early  as  1989.10  Since  this  judgment,  there  has  been  an 
increased focus in the Member States and at EU-level on the rights of victims of crime. With 
the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, new provisions on criminal justice provide a clear 
legal  base  for  the  EU  to  establish  minimum  rules  on  victims'  rights  to  facilitate  mutual 
recognition  of  judgments  and  decisions  and  police  and  judicial  co-operation  in  criminal 
matters having a cross-border dimension.  

For  mutual  recognition  and  judicial  co-operation  to  fully  work  there  must  be  mutual  trust 
between  EU  Member  States  and  between  criminal  justice  systems.  This  means  that  justice 
systems  should  have  faith  in  each  others'  standards  of  fairness  and  justice,  and  EU  citizens 
should  have  confidence  that  the  same  level  of  minimum  rules  will  be  applied  should  they 
travel or live abroad. This notion also applies to matters relating to the accused and the victim, 
the rights of whom are intertwined. Thus, action related to one inevitably affects the other and 
standards  cannot  be  raised  for  one  side  alone.  To  do  so  would  create  an  imbalance  in  the 
justice process and could limit advances in mutual trust.  

Today, most Member States have some level of protection and support of victims of crime but 
the  role  and  needs  of  victims  in  criminal  proceedings  are  still  generally  not  sufficiently 
addressed in national judicial systems. People who fall victim to crime across Europe are not 
guaranteed to be treated with respect or to receive appropriate support, protection or access to 
basic elements of justice. To address this problem, Member States need to raise the standards 

8 
9 

10 

Eurostat, Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, Statistics in focus, 36/2009 
Analysis carried out in "The Burden of Crime in the EU", p. 70, of results from the EU International 
Crime  Survey  (EUICS)  2005  (www.europeansafetyobservatory.eu).  The  study  indicates  that  around 
50%  of  five  types  of  crime  are  reported  to  the  police  but  does  not  take  into  account  sexual  assault 
reporting rates  which  are generally  very  low  – between 15  and 28%  in the  EUICS. A  slightly  higher 
figure  for  non-reporting  has  therefore  been  assumed  of  60%.  Close  family  members  is  not  a  specific 
term but for the purposes of an estimate we have assumed that victims have on average 3 close family 
members resulting in a figure of 225 million. 
Case 186/87 - Ian William Cowan v Trésor public, judgment of the Court of 2 February 1989.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
on  victims'  rights  in  accordance  with  standards  already  established  through  international 
instruments and caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).  

However, this problem is also a problem of the EU since victims in different Member States 
are not subject to a level playing field. The standards on victims' rights must thus be put at the 
same minimum level throughout the EU. Since this cannot be done at the national level alone, 
there  is  a  clear  added  value  of  EU  action  on  victims'  rights  to  increase  mutual  confidence 
between  Member  States'  judicial  systems  which  is  a  primary  condition  for  the  effective 
functioning  of  the  European  Area  of  Freedom,  Security  and  Justice.  Replies  during  the 
consultation made clear that the way victims are treated is a strong indicator of the quality of 
justice systems in general since the establishment of victims' rights and their proper treatment 
tends to be of a lower priority compared to the rights of the accused. Working on minimum 
standards of victims' rights is therefore a powerful means to generally increase faith in foreign 
judicial systems. 

The  EU  has  already  addressed  the  rights  of  victims  in  criminal  proceedings  in  existing 
legislation.  However,  although  the  objectives  and  the  scope  of  such  legislation  are  still 
relevant,  society's  views  on  victims  have  evolved  and  new  objectives  have  appeared  which 
need to be addressed. In addition, the implementation of the legislation has been ineffective. 
The results of both an extensive study on the legislative and practical implementation of the 
Framework  Decision11  combined  with  the  Commission's  own  implementation  reports  and  a 
range  of  consultations  with  stakeholders  have  revealed  a  wide  range  of  problems  with  the 
current Framework Decision and the achievement of its objectives. The issues identified are 
covered by the two problems detailed below: 

Problem A: Existing  EU  legislation  is  inadequate  to  improve  the  situation of  victims  –  it  is vague, does not 
contain concrete obligations and is not enforceable, and has therefore been poorly implemented by the Member 
States  and  does  not  contribute  to  providing  a  sufficient  level  of  mutual  trust  required  to  enable  the  effective 
application of mutual recognition. 

Problem B: The needs of victims of crime are not sufficiently addressed in the Member States – victims do not 
get (1) recognition and respect, (2) protection, (3) support, (4) effective access to justice, and (5) effective access 
to compensation and restoration.  

The consequences of crime and not meeting the needs of victims also have significant hidden costs, including 
important financial and health costs. 

2.1. 

Problem A – EU Legislation is inadequate to improve the situation of victims 

International and EU instruments largely established minimum standards for victims of crime 
from  the  1980s  onwards.  Such  instruments  has  been  established  by  the  UN  (e.g.  Basic 
Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters) and the Council 
of  Europe  (e.g.  Recommendation  (2006)  8  on  Assistance  to  Crime  Victims).  The  EU 
subsequently reflected these standards through the adoption of the 2001 Council Framework 
Decision  on  the  standing  of  victims  in  criminal  proceedings  (the  "Framework  Decision")12 
and the 2004 Directive on the Compensation of crime victims.13  

11 
12 

13 

APAV Report. 
Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal 
proceedings. 
Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The level of implementation by the Member States of these two pieces of legislation has been 
mixed. The Commission’s 2009 implementation report on the Compensation Directive found 
that at the time transposition had been carried out in all Member States except Greece. Greece 
has  subsequently  notified  the  Commission  of  its  transposing  legislation.  However,  further 
research is required to establish  to what  extent implementation by Member States' has been 
effective.14  

The  implementation  of  the  Framework  Decision,  on  the  other  hand,  is  not  satisfactory.15  In 
addition  whilst  its  scope  covers  most  of  the  rights  of  victims  of  all  types  of  crime  and  is 
overall  still  relevant,  the  scope  of  any  new  action  needs  to  be  wider  given  the  growing 
awareness  and  changing  judicial  culture  .  Therefore  the  scope  of  EU  legislation  on  victims 
needs to be updated in light of new research and findings on victims, in particular as regards 
their rights and needs, mutual recognition of protection measures, and access to justice (right 
to review). 

EU  legislation  has  not  been  effective  in  meeting,  or  moving  towards  the  desired 
outcomes  of  addressing  the  needs  of  victims  and  achieving  minimum  standards  for 
victims  across  the  EU.  No  Member  State  can  claim  to  have  fully  implemented  the 
Framework Decision. Some States consider that they have already complied with parts of this 
Framework Decision through existing national legislation or have only partly adapted existing 
legislation to respond to basic needs of victims. Although there has been an improvement in 
the  situation  of  victims  in  some  Member  States,  recent  studies  show  that  victims  are  not 
prioritised in most judicial systems in the EU, and that Member States generally do not ensure 
that  victims  are  treated  in  a  manner  equivalent  to  that  of  a  party  to  proceedings.16  The 
ineffectiveness of this legislation is due to: 

•  Ambiguous  drafting. The  Framework  Decision  suffers  from  ambiguous  drafting  which 
has either made it difficult for Member States to know how best to implement legislation 
or  has  left  them  such  wide  discretion  in  implementation  that  no  action  has  resulted.17 
Evidence of the problems Member States have experienced is demonstrated through ECJ 
caselaw.18  

•  Lack  of  concrete  obligations. A  number  of  articles  in  the  Framework  Decision  do  not 
impose concrete obligations. In effect, Member States could carry out no action and remain 
in compliance with the Decision.  

•  Lack  of  infringement  possibilities. It  is  not  possible  in  relation  to  the  Framework 
Decision  for  the  Commission  or  individuals  to  bring  infringement  proceedings  against 
Member States, so it is inevitable that compliance is lower in these circumstances. 

14 

15 

16 
17 

18 

See Report from the Commission on the basis of Article 19 of the Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to 
compensation to crime victims, COM(2009) 170 final. 
Reports  from  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  Article  18  of  the  Council  Framework  Decision  on  the  standing  of  victims  in  criminal 
proceedings, COM(2004)54 final and COM(2009)166 final. 
APAV Report, p. 127-135; Matrix Report, p. 104. 
For  example,  Article  2  of  the  Framework  decision  requires  that  vulnerable  victims  can  benefit  from 
specific treatment but provides no definition of such victims nor does it stipulate what types of services 
should be provided for them. The result is a wide variety of practices as seen in the problem definition. 
See, inter alia, C-404/07, Katz (Judgment of 9 October 2008) where the ECJ ruled that Articles 2 and 3 
of the Framework Decision leave to “the national authorities a large measure of discretion with regard 
to the specific means by which they implement those objectives…”. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  proposed  measures  will  thus  respond  to  this  basic  problem  by  strengthening  the  legal 
framework in the EU through a set of legal instruments that are directly binding on Member 
States  and  that  can  be  effectively  enforced  by  the  Commission.  This  legal  framework  will 
establish minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime and will 
also  introduce  a  new  mechanism  of  mutual  recognition  to  ensure  that  victims  or  potential 
victims benefitting from  a protection  measures  in  their  Member States of residence  will not 
lose this protection when crossing borders. 

2.2. 

Problem B – Victims' needs are not sufficiently addressed in the Member States 

The fact that the needs of victims, and the corresponding rights, are generally not sufficiently 
or adequately met in the Member States is the key problem that the proposed measures will 
address. Addressing victims' needs helps to ensure that some of their fundamental rights are 
respected.  The  needs  of  victims  can  be  brought  under  five  categories:  the  need  to  be 
recognised  and  treated  with  respect  and  dignity;  the  need  to  be  protected;  the  need  to  be 
supported; the need to access justice; and the need for restoration.  

These categories are broad summaries of the rights and standards that are already in the scope 
of  the  Framework  Decision  and  established  through  international  instruments  and  ECtHR 
caselaw.  The  focus  on  these  categories  of  need  has  also  been  confirmed  in  detailed 
consultations with stakeholders (see Annexes 1 and 2). 

2.2.1. 

Issue 1 – Victims are not sufficiently recognised and treated with dignity and respect 

Human dignity is a fundamental right and treating victims properly is a fundamental aspect of 
procedural and distributive justice. It is widely agreed that victims need to be recognised as 
victims  and  for  their  suffering  to  be  acknowledged.  Victims  also  need  to  be  treated  with 
dignity and respect in all communications with police, legal professionals, judicial staff and 
other involved in the judicial process. Treating a victim with respect is particularly important 
for  vulnerable  victims19  (e.g.  children,  victims  of  sexual  violence,  elderly  and  disabled 
persons). Moreover, indirect victims20 (e.g. family members) also need to be recognised as the 
consequences of the crime suffered by the direct victim very often affect them too. 

To  ensure  that  victims  will  be  recognised  and respected, all  professionals  in  regular  contact 
with victims should receive training on victims' rights and be given the appropriate tools to 
carry out needs assessments to determine the status of individual victims. 

The victim had a seven-hour wait between calling the police and officers attending, during 
which  time  she  could  not  go  to  the  toilet.  There  was  a  further  three-hour  wait  before 
attending  a  Sexual  Assault  Referral  Centre  with  police  officers  from  the  specialist 
Metropolitan  Police  Sapphire  team.  The  response  team,  when  it  did  arrive,  consisted  of 

19 

20 

"Vulnerable victims" are those who, due to personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability) and/or to the 
circumstance of the crime, can be considered particularly vulnerable to the crime they have suffered and 
its consequences (e.g. children, disabled, victims of violent and sexual crime). A person’s vulnerability 
may  also  be  determined  by  looking  at  the  probability  of  that  person  being  at  risk  of  becoming 
(re)victimised,  for  reasons  other  than  mentioned  above  (e.g.  considering  socioeconomic  factors  or 
whether or not the person has been victimised previously), see Matrix Report, p. 17. 
"Indirect victims"  have  been  defined by  the  UN  as  ‘the  immediate  family  or dependants of  the direct 
victim  and  persons  who  have  suffered  harm  in  intervening  to  assist  victims  in  distress  or  to  prevent 
victimization’,  see  the  1985  UN  Declaration  of  Basic  Principles  of  Justice  for  Victims  of  Crime  and 
Abuse of Power. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
two male officers. She felt there was a general air of disbelief. For example, the officers 
repeatedly  questioned  her  as  to  whether  she  was  certain  the  attacker  was  a  black  cab 
driver, despite the availability of CCTV footage. ‘I was the criminal, being interrogated,’ 
she said. Later, when she read in the media about the arrest of Worboys in 2008, she ‘was 
devastated’  that  no  one  had  informed  her  of  this  or  followed  it  up  with  her.  One  of  the 
Worboys rape victim, Stern Review21 

Evidence of a lack of recognition and treatment (see also Annex 3): 

From studies and surveys throughout Europe, it appears that victims are often ignored or are 
not sufficiently provided with information about the judicial process. For this basic need to be 
met,  the  prerequisite  is  that  a  victim's  needs  are  clearly  identified  and  catered  for.  A  recent 
study22  reveals  that  only  20%  of  questioned  national  experts  believe  that  victims  in  their 
country are adequately recognised. Even where needs are identified, 42% of victims of serious 
crime  did  not  receive  the  specific  assistance  they  requested,  compared  to  only  7%  who  did 
receive the specific assistance they requested.23 

Furthermore not all Member States recognise the full range of indirect victims and vulnerable 
victims.  For  example,  Denmark,  Malta,  Romania,  Slovenia  and  Slovakia  do  not  recognise 
parents, children, other family members, civil partners, or first responders as indirect victims. 
Only  13  States  recognise  civil  partners  as  indirect  victims.24  Vulnerable  victims  (such  as 
children, disable persons, victims of specific types of crime) are not necessarily identified as 
being vulnerable and where they are, appropriate protection and support mechanisms are not 
necessarily  available.  For  instance,  seven  Member  States  (Cyprus,  Hungary,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg,  Slovenia,  Spain  and  Sweden)  do  not  recognise  disabled  persons  as  being 
vulnerable. 25 

2.2.2. 

Issue 2 – Victims are not sufficiently protected 

Victims  have  a  range  of  protection  needs.  They  need  to  be  protected  from  further  criminal 
acts by the offender, supporters of the offender or from new crimes. Such protection may be 
required  to  prevent  further  violence  occurring  or  it  may  be  linked  to  the  prevention  of 
intimidation. For victims of chronic violence, like violence in the family, security is both their 
primary  need  in  reporting  a  crime,  but  also  their  primary  concern.  Due  to  an  increased 
mobility of people within the EU, victims who move or travel abroad risk losing a protection 
measures issued in their home country since such measures are not automatically recognised 
in other Member States. 

The  victim  also  needs  to  be  protected  from secondary  victimisation  during  proceedings,  i.e. 
distress  a  second  time  due  to  poor  treatment  in  connection  with  and  during  the  criminal 
proceedings. To avoid harm caused by, for instance, repeated and insensitive interviewing or 
having  to  face  the  offender  in  the  same  waiting  area  before  trial  in  court,  it  is  important  to 
ensure  protection  of  victims  throughout  criminal  investigations  and  court  proceedings.  This 
protection is essential for particularly vulnerable victims such as children.  

21 
22 
23 

24 
25 

Home Office (2009) ‘The Stern Review, p. 47. 
APAV Report, p. 38. 
Van Dijk, Jan et al. (2007). The Burden of Crime in the EU. Research Report: A Comparative Analysis of the European Crime and Safety Survey (EU 
ICS) 2005. 
APAV Report, p. 36. 
APAV Report, p. 40. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
Lindsay, 17 was 'torn to shreds' by a defence lawyer and made to hold up the underwear she 
had  been  wearing  at  the  time  of  the  attack,  despite  having  worn  jeans  when  the  attack 
happened. The defendant was also allowed to cross examine her personally. Talking of her 
treatment in court, her parents explained that "Lindsay was mortified after giving evidence," 
"She was horrified and crying, "She was mentally scarred by what happened and never got 
over it". Three weeks after the conviction of the defendant, Lindsay committed suicide. Her 
mother commented: "They say that there is no proof that Lindsay's suicide is linked to the 
rape or the court because she didn't leave a note. But I know that is why she killed herself." 
Based on memorial to Lindsay A26 

Evidence of a lack of effective victim protection (see also Annex 4): 

Not all Member States have a minimum level of appropriate or sufficient measures in place to 
protect victims. In addition, there is currently no mechanism to maintain this protection if a 
person travels or moves to another Member State27.  

Victims'  need  for  protection  is  not  met  where  the  offender  carries  out  further  criminal 
offences  against  the  same  victim  or  where  the  offender  is  able  to  intimidate  the  victim 
whether  outside  proceedings  or  within  proceedings.  In  the  UK,  a  survey  shows  that  8%  of 
victims have been subjected to some form of harassment and 15% of victims were identified 
as at potential risk. Victims of certain types of crime are particularly exposed to intimidation; 
the survey showed that 36% of women and 31% of men who had fallen victim to domestic 
violence reported being intimidated.28 Importantly, intimidation was a factor in not reporting a 
crime in a 3rd of cases. 

It  is  of  course  recognised  that  due  to  the  complex  challenges  of  achieving  protection 
combined  with  the  need  to  balance  the  needs  and  rights  of  all  interested  parties,  absolute 
protection is not possible. Nevertheless, improvements are achievable and necessary given the 
considerable scale of repeat victimisation29 in particular for specific types of offences such as 
domestic violence.30. By individually assessing a victim's needs for protection when reporting 
the crime, further harm by the offender can be avoided if contact with the victim is prevented 
by restraining orders or other protection measures. 

Contact between the victim and the accused should also as far as possible be avoided in court 
premises, such as the waiting areas. However, in 24 Member States there is no obligation to 
provide separate waiting areas in the courts.31 

2.2.3. 

Issue 3 – Victims are not sufficiently supported 

In  the  immediate  aftermath  of  a  crime,  victims  need  support  mainly  through  emergency 
assistance32 together with psychological first aid.33 Subsequently, if the crime is reported, the 

26 
27 
28 
29 

30 
31 
32 

http://www.suicide.org/memorials/lindsay-armstrong.html 
See impact assessment of the Member State initiative on the European Protection Order. 
2001 British Crime Survey. 
Based on the 2000 International Crime Victims' Survey (ICVS) an estimated 40% of crimes are repeats 
against the same target within a year. 
Guidance on Investigating Domestic Abuse 2008, available at: http://www.mankind.org.uk/pdfs/ACPO%20final2.pdf. 
APAV Report, p. 98. 
See Maslow, A (1948) "Some theoretical consequences of basic need gratification". Journal of Personality. 16(4), 402-416. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
victim will need to negotiate their way through the complexities of the legal system. Support 
during  this  process,  whether  legal,  emotional  or  practical,  is  often  needed  by  and  crucial  to 
victims. Such support is even more important for vulnerable victims. Victim support, through 
psychological or medical assistance, may also be required for prolonged periods or for life as 
a consequence of the crime.  

"Francesca was living alone in her small 1 bedroom apartment the night a man broke in and 
raped her in her own bed. The ordeal had a devastating impact on her and she was lucky to 
receive some counselling. But the counselling helped little with her feelings of fear, disgust 
and  shame  every  night  she  went  back  to  the  bed  she  was  raped  in.  She  couldn't  afford  to 
move or to buy a new bed. In the end she slept on the floor." Based on testimony from Victim 
Support Organisation representative at expert meeting 

Evidence of a lack of effective victim support (see also Annex 5): 

The most widely recognised problem of victims support organisations is the lack of enough 
resources  for  staff,  professional  training  and  financial  assistance  to  run  the  services.34 
Moreover, the official recognition of the work of these organisations by national governments 
is perceived as crucial.35  

According to the 2000 International Crime Victims' Survey (ICVS), coverage rates for victim 
support  (for  certain  identified  types  of  crime)  is  most  developed  in  the  UK  (20%),  the 
Netherlands  (14%),  Austria  (13%),  Belgium  (12%),  Denmark  and  Sweden  (9%),  while  the 
least  support  seems  to  be  available  in  Hungary  (0.4%),  Bulgaria  (1%),  Finland  (2%), 
Germany (2%), Greece (2%), Italy (3%) and Spain (3%).36  

The analysis on the ICVS also indicates that the level of demand for victim support is highest 
in  Portugal,  Spain,  Greece  and  Poland,  but  in  all  those  countries  such  help  is  not  readily 
available. The need of victim support seems relatively limited among victims in Bulgaria and 
Austria. 

Percentages  of  victims  whose  expressed  needs  are  actually  met  by  the  agencies  vary  across 
countries.  The  highest  take  up  rates  in  the  EU  are  achieved  by  victim  support  in  the  UK 
(36%), in Austria (38%), the Netherlands (35%), Belgium (28%) and Denmark (27%). Take 

33 

34 

35 
36 

See e.g. Litz, B., Bryant, R. and Adler, A. (2002). "Early Intervention for trauma: current statues and future directions". Clinical Psychology: Science and 
Practice. 9(2), 112-134.  
Responses to the European Commission's public consultation #06, #08, #10, #15, #17, #18, #19, #22, #23, #25, #26, #28, #30, #34, #37, #43, #52, 
#53, #55, #66, #67, #68, #69, #72. 
Response #03, #06, #25, #70. 
The percentages refer to victims having received support after reporting a crime. See  Van  Dijk,  Jan;  Van 
Kesteren;  John; Smit,  Paul. "Criminal  Victimisation  in  International  Perspective:  Key  findings  from  the  2004-2005  ICVS  and  EU  ICS".  Den  Haag: 
WODC,  2007,  p.  119.  As  referred  in  ICVS  Report  (2004/2005  surveys),  victims  who  had  reported  to  the 
police any of four types of crime with the most serious consequences for victims – burglary with entry; 
robbery; sexual incidents; and threats & assaults – were asked whether they had received support from a 
specialised agency. The percentage of victims receiving such help is called the coverage rate of victim 
support. Those who had not received any help were asked whether they would have appreciated help in 
getting such information or practical or emotional support. Using this information estimates are made of 
the  proportion  of  victims  wanting  specialised  help  that  actually  receive  it  (called  ‘take  up  rate’  of 
specialised victim support agencies). The percentage in victim support from a specialised agency relates 
to these four crimes and was made considering a period of five years. See Van Dijk, Jan; Van Kesteren; John; 
Smit,  Paul. "Criminal  Victimisation  in  International  Perspective:  Key  findings  from  the  2004-2005  ICVS  and  EU  ICS".  Den  Haag:  WODC,  2007, p. 
119.. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
up  rates  in  the  range  of  10%  to  25%  are  achieved  in  Sweden,  Ireland,  France  and 
Luxembourg. In other  States  in  the survey, less  than 10% of the respondents who indicated 
that victim support would have been useful, actually receive it. The group of countries where 
victim  support  reaches  only  a  small  part  of  victims  in  need  of  help  includes  Greece,  Spain, 
Portugal, Finland, Italy and Germany.37 

2.2.4. 

Issue 4 – Victims do not have effective access to justice  

Victims'  need  for  access  to  justice  can  be  summarised  as  wanting  to  see  justice  is  done 
(outcome  focus/distributive  justice)  and  wanting  to  be  confident  about  how  it  is  achieved 
(procedural  justice).  It  can  cover  a  wide  variety  of  issues,  such  as  accessibility  of  court 
processes,  availability  of  adequate  legal  representation  in  criminal  trials,  access  to  more 
informal  legal  processes  (such  as  penal  mediation)38  and  the  right  to  review  a  decision  on 
whether or not to prosecute the offender. 

Victims need to get full access to and participation in the justice system, which encompasses 
the  right  to  be  heard  and  necessitates  at  a  minimum  that  they  are  made  aware  of  crucial 
decisions and key dates.39 Victims must also be able to understand the information received 
and the proceedings, so it is important to make available translators and interpreters, as well 
as information in a variety of languages. Victims should also be able to attend the trial. 

"I’m  pretty  disappointed  by  the  way  the  police  handled  it  really,  I  got  the  impression  it 
wasn’t serious enough for them and I had to do all the chasing. If it wasn’t for my efforts I 
would probably still be waiting for something to be done." Male, 25-64, Victim of crime – 
pre-case  –  Audit  Commission  -  Experiences  of  the  Criminal  Justice  System  -  Victims  and 
Witnesses of Crime 

Evidence of a lack of victims' effective access to justice (see also Annex 6): 

A  recent  study40  shows  that  only  in  a  few  Member  States  do  victims  have  easy  access  to  a 
range  of  information  regarding  available  support,  legal  advice  and  aid  and  essential  issues 
concerning the criminal proceedings (including the decision to prosecute, the court date and 
positive or negative court decisions).  

On the other hand, translators and interpreters are available in all Member States for victims, 
free of charge, and in some states information is already available in different languages. In a 
number  of  Member  States,  however,  eligibility  for  such  communication  safeguards  is 
restricted to victims as witnesses. Only in 15 Member States is it available to all victims. Even 
where  such  safeguards  are  available,  they  are  not  always  effective,  available  outside  of  the 
context  of  reporting  the  crime  or  of  good  quality.  Moreover,  victims  are  not  always  able  to 
attend the trial because the availability of reimbursement of victims' expenses to get there is in 
most Member States inadequate or victims are not informed about such a right. 

Although a majority of Member States have an institutionalised right to review of the decision 
not to prosecute in place, in six Member States the victim has no right to such review. At the 
same  time,  in  three  Member  States  no  information  is  provided  to  victims  concerning  the 

37 
38 
39 
40 

ibid 
Parker, C., "Just Lawyers. Regulations and Access to Justice", Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 30. 
APAV Report, p. 41. 
References in this section were extracted from the APAV Report. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
decision to prosecute and in seven Member States only information on negative decisions is 
provided. 

2.2.5. 

Issue 5 – Victims do not have effective access to compensation and restoration 

Insufficient data was available to fully consider state compensation and offender restitution. 
Further  study  will  therefore  be  carried  out  in  this  respect.  As  such,  this  impact  assessment 
focuses only on issues related to restoration and restorative justice. Restorative justice aims to 
restore  the  victim  to  the  position  they  were  in  before  the  crime.  In  this  sense  it  has  similar 
objectives  to  financial  compensation,  and  an  outcome  of  restorative  justice  can  be  such 
compensation. However, it is of much greater benefit since it has wider objectives by giving 
victims an opportunity to confront their offenders face to face. Victims will thus get a chance 
to tell offenders the real impact of their crime, get answers to their questions and to receive an 
apology,  or  at  least  an  acknowledgement  of  responsibility  by  the  offender.41  Restorative 
justice  also  gives  the  offenders  the  chance  to  understand  the  real  impact  of  what  they  have 
done and to do something to repair the harm. Restorative justice holds offenders to account 
for what they have done, personally and directly, and helps victims to get on with their lives. 

"After  being  brutally  mugged  my  15-year-old  brother  was  happy  to  hear  his  attacker  was 
behind  bars.  […]  It  was  then  with  some  trepidation  that  Gary,  and  the  rest  of  the  family, 
decided  to  meet  the  offender  face  to  face  at  a  Restorative  Justice  Conference  (RJC).  […] 
Towards the end of the conference, my brother and I, who hadn't expected to sympathise with 
the  offender  and  his  family,  were.  We  were  not  the  only  ones  it  seemed;  it  felt  like  the 
offender too was putting himself in Gary's and  his own family's shoes. […] The great thing 
about  the  conference  is that  the  offender  glimpsed  what  is  was  like  for  Gary  and  was  more 
than  contrite.  We,  too,  glimpsed  into  his  life  and  had  a  better  understanding  of  him  and 
perhaps, the factors that drove him to it. What he did was wrong and no matter how much his 
friends  egged  him  on  he  had  a  choice  and  he  now  has  to  take  responsibility  for  the 
consequences. For us, the integral aspect of the conference was that it allowed the victim and 
the  offender  to  identify  with  each  other.  It  is  harder  to  hurt  someone  that  you  see  as  your 
own." 'Michelle's story', Why me? Victims for Restorative Justice 

41 

further  details,  see  Sherman,  L.W.  &.  Strang,  H.,  "Restorative  Justice:  The  Evidence".  London,  The  Smith 

For 
Institute,  2007 
(www.esmeefairbairn.org.uk/docs/RJ_full_report.pdf);  Vanfraechem,  I.,  Aertsen,  I.  &  Willemsens,  J.  (eds.),  "Restorative  Justice  Realities.  Empirical 
research in a European context", The Hague, Eleven International Publishers, 2010.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Evidence  of  a  lack  of  effective  victim  access  to  compensation  and  restoration  (see  also 
Annex 7): 

Divergent  national  policies  mean  that  restorative  justice  services  are  not  equally  accessible, 
and  are  not  available  at  all  to  victims  of  crime  in  six  Member  States.42  Although  basic 
standards  and  principles  have  been  established  by  the  UN  in  200243  and  by  the  Council  of 
Europe in 200644, there is widely expressed concern that such principles are not fully adhered 
to and that restorative justice processes are prone to losing an appropriate focus on the victim. 
Commentators are concerned that restorative justice services are becoming too identified with 
one particular party, whether victims, offenders or communities.45 46 47  

2.3. 

Hidden costs linked to victimisation  

Every crime inevitably affects those individuals directly or indirectly victimised by it, as well 
as  society  at  large.  Crime  has  significant  economic  and  health  related  impacts,  and  such 
"hidden" costs can be reduced by meeting the needs of victims.  

The  total  costs  of  crime  to  the  individual  and  to  society  are  considerable.  These  include 
tangible  costs,  mainly  in  the  economic  sector,  the  health  sector  and  the  criminal  justice 
system, and intangible costs, such as pain, suffering, and reduction of quality of life.  

A 2003 UK Home office survey has estimated that the total cost of crime amounts to £32.6 billion. 
Based on a combination of UK and Eurostat statistics this can be extrapolated to an EU cost of around 
€233 billion. The emotional and physical impact of crime costs victims in the UK around £18.1 billion 
per year.48  

A cost estimate on domestic violence against women alone shows that such violence 
costs  the  EU  Member  States  between  €10  and  20  billion  annually,  some  22%  of 
which is calculated as human and emotional costs.49 This research also suggests that 
every additional euro spent on prevention work, protection and assistance to victims 
would give society savings of €87 on the total cost of domestic violence.  

42 

43 
44 
45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

Willemsens,  J.,  "Restorative  Justice:  An  Agenda  For  Europe:  The  Role  of  the  European  Union  in  the  Further  Development  of  Restorative 
Justice", 2008. 
Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters. 
Recommendation (2006)8 on Assistance to Crime Victims. 
Statement on the position of the victim within the process of mediation, which was adopted by the European Forum for Victim Services (now: Victim 
Support Europe) in 2003 
Hudson, B., 'Balancing the ethical and the political: normative reflections on the institutionalization of restorative justice', in Aertsen, I., Daems, T. and 
Robert, L. (eds.), Institutionalizing Restorative Justice, Cullompton, Willian Publishing, 2006, p. 274. 
Aertsen, I., 'Restorative justice through networking: a report from Europe', in Van Der Spuy, E., Parmentier, S. and Dissel, A. 
(eds.), Restorative Justice: Politics, Policies and Prospects, Cape Town, Juta & Co Ltd., 2007, p. 95. 
Home  Office  Online  Report  30/05.  The  economic  and  social  costs  of  crime  against  individuals  and 
households  2003/04,  p.  15,  available  at:  http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr3005.pdf; 
Eurostat, Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, Statistics in focus, 36/2009. Full methodology for the 
development  of  costs  are  contained  in  the  report.  The  EU  cost  of  crime  is  derived  at  by  dividing  the 
total  cost  of  crime  in  the  UK  (£32.6  billion)  with  the  number  of  crimes  considered  in  the  UK  report 
(12 168 000), and then multiplying this figure with total estimated EU reported and unreported crimes 
referred to above (75 000 000). Arriving at a total estimated cost of £201 billion or 233 billion euros 
based on EU official rates as in February 2011. 
Daphne  project  "Estimation  du  coût  des  violences  conjugales  en  Europe",  Psytel,  2009,  available  at: 
http://www.psytel.eu/violences.php.  Fully  methodology  is  described  in  the  report.  In  brief,  however, 
medical, justice and police, social and economic costs are included. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The tangible economic costs of victimisation – that directly affect both the individual and the 
society  as  a  whole  –  revolve  around  loss  of  productivity  for  paid  workdays  and  incapacity 
benefits  for  the  long-term  affected,  including  out-of-pocket  expenses  to  cover  property 
damages/loss  and  the  cost  of  medical  care,  costly  lifestyle  changes  to  regain  a  sense  of 
security,  and  lost  wages  and  productivity.50.  Longer  periods  of  sickness  absences,  spells  of 
unemployment  and  even  permanent  disability  leave  or  premature  retirement  may  cause 
victims  a  severe  loss  of  earnings.  There  is  evidence  to  show  that  in  the  long-run  those 
victimised before the age of 18 have lower average hourly wages and annual personal income 
than  non-victims.51  These  costs  are  also  borne  by  companies  and  the  economy  as  a  whole. 
Apart from public costs for the health sector to deal with the consequences of crime, society 
also bears important costs for dealing with the crime itself, including work by the police and 
throughout the criminal justice process. 

Crime  incurs  significant  costs  in  terms  of  the  victim's  health.  A  victim's  health  can  be 
severely compromised and their life expectancy can ultimately be shortened – on average one 
year of life expectancy is lost to violence.52 In the short and long term, victims can suffer high 
levels of physical and psychological problems, including fear and anxiety ranging up to major 
depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)and suicide attempts. They can also turn to 
alcohol or drug abuse and their social and occupational functioning may be impaired. Health 
problems also have a direct link with economic costs in that crime can affect a person’s ability 
to work, and can result in lower incomes.  

In addition to economic costs linked to health care, there are important intangible costs for 
victims  stemming  from  pain,  suffering,  and  reduced  quality  of  life.  As  shown  by  the  cost 
estimates  quoted  above,  the  cost  of  the  human  and  emotional  suffering  represents  an 
important part of the total cost of crime. Again, not only does the victim bear such costs but 
the impact on our health services can be high in terms of cost and capacity. This burden can 
relate  to  short  term  and  long  term  physical  care  through  to  emotional  and  psychological 
counselling. For instance, it has been found that 25% of all crime victims experienced related 
PTSD, including nervous breakdowns, suicide ideation, and suicide attempts53 and that almost 
50% of all victims of sexual assault and approximately 5% of victims of assault and robbery 
incur costs for mental health services.54 

Meeting victims' needs before, during and after criminal proceedings may considerably 
mitigate  these  negative  consequences  and  can  also  prevent  them  worsening  due  to  bad 
treatment  during  the  process.  If  victims  receive  appropriate  support  and  protection,  they 
will recover more quickly both physically and emotionally from the crime, and will thus for 
example  limit  their  loss  of  earnings  and  uptake  of  benefits,  or  reduce  the  need  for  further 
health treatments. Ensuring that the victims' needs are met will thus considerably contribute to 
reducing the total costs of crime.  

50 
51 

52 
53 

54 

Matrix Report, p. 49. 
Macmillan, Ross (2000), 'Adolescent Victimization and Income Deficits in Adulthood: Rethinking the 
Costs of Criminal Violence From a Life-Course Perspective', Criminology. 38, 2, p. 555. 
Matrix Report, p. 51; Soares, Rodrigo R., 'The welfare cost of violence across countries', 2005. 
Kilpatrick,  D.  et  al  (1987).  Criminal  Victimization:  Lifetime  Prevalence,  reporting  to  police,  and 
psychological impact. Crime and Delinquency 33:479-489. 
Miller, Ted, Cohen Mark, and Brian Wiersema (1996). Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look. 
Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.4. 

The underlying drivers of the problems 

As described above, across the European Union, the needs of victims of crime are not being 
fully met since national legislation and practice within States and across the EU are patchy. 
The primary drivers for this are: insufficient or incoherent attention paid to victims and a lack 
of knowledge about their needs; a lack of self-enforcing mechanisms for victims' rights; and a 
lack of practitioner knowledge of victims' issues. 

•  Insufficient  attention  paid  to  victims  and  a  lack  of  knowledge  about  their  needs, 
rooted  in  historical  and  cultural  attitudes. Although  victims'  rights  have  increasingly 
become  recognised  by  Members  States  in  recent  years,  they  have  historically  not  been 
considered  as  an  important  element  of  judicial  proceedings  and  States'  focus  has  largely 
been to punish those who have committed crimes against society as a whole. As a result, 
the needs of victims and the need to take them into account are often not in the minds of 
practitioners and policy makers. 

•  A  lack  of  enforcement  mechanisms  for  victims'  rights. One  of  the  difficulties  that 
victims  face  in  their  national  systems  is  that  their  rights  are  generally  not  enforceable  or 
that the repercussions for a failure to implement a right are weak; thus legal practitioners 
have  less  incentive  to  apply  victims  measures.  Applications  to  national  courts  take  a 
considerable amount of time, effort and money which is likely to reduce the benefit of any 
judgment. Weaknesses in enforcement also apply equally at the international level, where 
the  current  EU  legal  framework  does  not  foresee  any  procedure  for  individuals'  redress 
concerning victims' rights. Moreover, although a number of articles of the ECHR apply to 
victims, including the right to a fair trial, there are very few cases brought to the court by 
victims themselves (and these relate primarily to inadequate investigation of the crime).55 
In part this may be as a result of a lack of awareness that the ECHR applies to victims, but 
it  may  also  result  from  the  fact  that  a  primary  objective  of  victims  is  to  recover  and  get 
over the crime.  

•  Lack of knowledge and training on victims' needs. The lack of focus on victims’ rights 
and needs is equally reflected in the lack of knowledge that legal practitioners have about 
the  needs  of  victims.  A  primary  driver  for  this  is  insufficient  training  and  insufficient 
specialist training. This was a key issue raised during consultations and was considered to 
be highly relevant by stakeholders in the external study. 

2.5. 

Baseline Scenario56 

Data  suggests  that  the  number  of  people  falling  victim  to  crime  annually  is  unlikely  to 
decrease by any significant amount in the coming years. At the same time whilst a range of 
international  standards  on  victims’  rights  have  been  established  in  the  past  years  (see 
Annex  8),  these  were  primarily  taken  in  the  1980s.  At  the  EU  level,  only  one  general 
instrument on victims has been agreed since 2001. These instruments have, however, neither 
resulted  in  any  major  change  in  the  legislation  and  practice  of  Member  States,  nor  in  a 
significant or visible improvement in the situation of victims.57 

55 
56 
57 

Matrix Report, p. 46; Comments based on analysis of ECHR Annual Report 2009. 
Where not otherwise indicated, the data source of this section is the Matrix Report. 
COM(2004)54 final and COM(2009)166 final. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Analysis  suggests  that  without  further  action,  there  is  unlikely  to  be  a  sufficient 
development  in  national  legislation  and  action  that  ensure  that  victims  receive  non-
discriminatory treatment, no matter where in the EU they find themselves, in particular 
when  receiving  services  and  accessing  justice.  This  may  in  turn  affect  mutual  trust  in 
judicial systems in the European Union and  undermine the  effective application of the 
Treaty-endorsed principle of mutual recognition. 

As  has  already  been  mentioned,  the  Framework  Decision  resulted  in  minimal  national 
changes.  Given  the  weaknesses  in  its  drafting  combined  with  a  lack  of  enforcement 
possibilities, it is unlikely that the Framework Decision itself will result in new changes.  

All Member States have national legal provisions related to victims of crime, but they have 
met the needs of victims and safeguards their interests to a varying extent. Nevertheless, the 
victims’ agenda has been gaining in profile over the years. Some Member States continue to 
develop  their  own  national  agenda  on  victims  based  on  internal  priorities.  Thus  new 
legislation has been adopted by some States or is planned. The Commission is aware of nine 
Member  States  having  legislation  foreseen  (LU,  IE,  NL,  MT,  RO,  FI,  SE,  DK,  CZ,  see 
Annex 9). Some States, for instance, DE and NL, have already implemented new legislation 
in recent years.  

It can therefore be assumed that to some extent the situation of victims will improve in some 
Member  States  where  they  have  either  a  generally  high  level  of  protection  of  victims  or 
ongoing  reform.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  developments  in  the  countries  listed 
above for the most part appear fairly restricted in their scope or are in very early stages, and 
improvements  in  a  number  of  other  Member  States  are  not  currently  envisaged.  Thus,  the 
effect will be to further increase standards in some States with others remaining at the same 
level, further widening gaps in standards between States. 

It must also be considered that even where developments do occur at a national level, these 
will occur largely on an ad hoc basis. The only area where this is less likely to be the case is 
in relation to supporting victims of human trafficking and child sexual exploitation, and this 
as a result of EU action since two Directives are currently under negotiation.58 There  is no 
indication  that  without  further  EU  intervention,  action  will  be  developed  on  a  co-
ordinated basis or following existing EU and international guidelines. It can therefore be 
assumed  that  victims  will  not  be  able  to  rely  on  receiving  the  same  minimum  level  of 
rights, support, protection, access to justice and restoration across the EU.  

Notably, the external study revealed that 75% or more of respondents felt that maintaining the 
status quo would result in the situation for victims either staying the same with the remaining 
respondents  considering  there  would  be  a  very  negative  impact.  No  respondents  felt  there 
would be a positive impact 

2.6. 

The need for action at EU level 

There  are  many  reasons  why  EU  action  in  this  area  is  necessary.  Firstly,  the  cross-border 
implications of the problems and problem drivers make EU intervention necessary. Secondly, 

58 

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing and combating 
trafficking  in  human  beings,  and  protecting  victims,  repealing  Framework  Decision  2002/629/JHA; 
Proposal  for  a  directive  on  combating  the  sexual  abuse,  sexual  exploitation  of  children  and  child 
pornography, repealing FD 2004/68/JHA. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
considering  the  substantial  tangible  and  intangible  costs  of  victimisation  borne  by  the 
individuals as well as society as a whole and that ultimately public confidence in the criminal 
justice system suffers if crime victims are not respected, there is a need for EU-level policy 
interventions  that  lead  to  improvements  in  victims’  well-being  across  Europe.  Finally,  the 
Lisbon Treaty provides a clear legal basis for EU for establishing minimum rules on the rights 
of victims of crime. In addition, EU action in this field will raise standards in relation to the 
fundamental rights of victims of crime, which is a strong priority for the EU.  

Solving  the  identified  problems  requires  action  beyond  that  at  the  EU-level  and  would  also 
require  action  initiated  by  Member  States  themselves.  In  our  options  and  solutions,  we  are 
concentrating only on actions that bring EU added value and that are necessary to the well-
functioning  of  mutual  recognition  and  for  increasing  trust  in  the  judicial  systems  of  the 
Member States. 

2.6.1.  European dimension and added value 

The Lisbon Treaty provides a clear legal basis to facilitate judicial co-operation and mutual 
recognition  having  a  cross-border  dimension  through  minimum  standards  on  the  rights  of 
victims of crime.  

The  cross-border  dimension  of  judicial  co-operation  is  wide  and  can  result  from  a  range  of 
situations, most obviously where a person is victimised in a foreign EU state. In this respect, 
around  11.3  million  EU  citizens  live  in  a  foreign  EU  State59  and  a  large  majority  of  EU 
citizens that travel abroad on holidays chose another European country – of an estimated 1.4 
billion  journeys  made  by  Europeans  in  2008,  about  90  %  were  within  the  EU.60  Crime 
statistics by nationality are not available generally but assuming they suffer crime at the same 
rate as nationals, this means that around 1.7 million citizens living abroad (15% of the total) 
fall  victim  to  crime  every  year.  For  tourists,  the  figure  will  be  highly  variable  and  often 
dependent on the length of stay but even a 1% crime rate will result in many millions of EU 
tourists falling victim to crime every year.  

Moreover, there is also a cross-border dimension for crimes against people in their country of 
residence  where  cases  are  ultimately  transferred,  the  victim  moves  during  the  course  of 
proceedings,  or  witnesses  or  assets  are  abroad.  It  is  evident  therefore  that  the  cross-border 
dimension of victimisation is significant. 

Given the right to free movement in the EU, there is a clear added value of EU action over 
and above that of national action. Such EU added value can be seen from several perspectives.  

Firstly, victims may not be subject to the same rights in their country of residence compared 
to  their  home  country,  or  in  a  country  where  they  temporarily  travel  or  visit.  This  risks 
impeding  the  free  movement  of  people  and  services,  which  is  one  of  the  fundamental 
requirements for the good functioning of the internal market. Moreover, judicial co-operation 
can also be hampered where there are concerns over the treatment of victims or where certain 
procedures are required to be followed in a Member State, for example video recording of a 
child's evidence. 

59 
60 

Eurostat, Statistics in Focus 94/2009. 
COM(2010)352, based on Eurostat, Tourism Statistics 2008. However, this figure does not show how 
many individuals have made these journeys (many go on several journeys per year). 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Secondly, a lack of EU-level minimum standards on victims' rights puts the quality of justice 
in the EU at a lower level than standards identified in international instruments and through 
ECtHR case law. In a common area of freedom, security and justice, this is difficult to accept. 
Weaknesses  in  existing  EU  legislation  and  a  lack  of  enforceability  of  international 
instruments  make  a  coherent,  EU  wide  application  of  such  standards  unlikely.  EU  action  is 
therefore the most likely means to achieve a level playing field across the Member States. 

Finally,  a  lack  of  common  standards  reduces  confidence  in  the  judicial  systems  of  the 
Member  States,  which  in  turn  impedes  the  effective  operation  and  application  of  EU 
instruments based on the Treaty-endorsed principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions 
and consequently the strengthening of the European area of freedom, security and justice.  

Additionally, whilst the establishment of these minimum standards relates to victims of crime, 
such standards facilitate police and judicial co-operation in general and not just in relation to 
victims. This reflects the fact that the treatment of the victim and accused are linked in many 
ways  and  many  general  cross-border  judicial  co-operation  or  mutual  recognition  initiatives 
can impact on victims. As such, improvements in the treatment and protection of victims can 
improve such co-operation. 

EU  action  will  thus  make  sure  that  all  EU  Member  States  respect  common  minimum 
standards for all persons falling victim to crime on their territory, whether national citizens or 
not.  

2.6.2.  Legal basis 

The  power  to  act  and,  where  necessary,  propose  EU  legislation  in  the  area  of  civil  and 
criminal law is conferred, inter alia, by two  articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union (TFEU). Article 82 TFEU provides a more specific legal base for criminal 
matters and establishes that to the extent necessary to facilitate mutual recognition and police 
and judicial co-operation in criminal matters having a cross border dimension, minimum rules 
may  be  established  concerning  the  rights  of  victims  of  crime.  As  regards  civil  aspects, 
Article 81  TFEU  provides  the  legal  base  to  take  measures  aimed  at  ensuring  the  mutual 
recognition  and  enforcement  between  Member  States  of  judgments  and  of  decisions  in 
extrajudicial cases and effective access to justice. Moreover, Article 81 foresees the adoption 
of measures for the approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. 

2.6.3. 

Subsidiarity 

It is considered that there is a need for EU action based on the following factors: 

•  Transnational  aspects  of  the  issue  being  addressed  which  cannot  be  dealt  with 

satisfactorily by action by Member States 

(1) 

(2) 

People can become a victim of a crime outside their own Member State, and the needs 
of  those  victims  need  to  be  respected,  too.  Free  movement  can  be  impeded  where 
discriminatory treatment of victims occurs. 

New  EU  action  will  enable  a  co-ordinated  approach  to  be  taken  ensuring  minimum 
standards across the EU and avoiding problems raised with ad hoc national action, for 
instance where improvements in a State are focussed on one area or one type of victim 
creating large differences in treatment between States. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
(3)  Member  States  acting  individually  cannot  ensure  a  continuous  maintenance  of 

protection in the whole EU that is already afforded to victims nationally. 

•  Action at EU level would produce clear benefits (compared to Member States' action) 

in terms of scale of the action 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Given  the  ambiguity  of  existing  legislation  coupled  with  Member  State  action  being 
based  primarily  on  internal  priorities,  which  vary  widely,  it  is  unlikely  that  Member 
States acting individually would be able to establish sufficiently consistent standards 
of rights and services for victims (see Section 2.5 above).  

EU  action  will  ensure  that  all  needs  of  victims  are  addressed.  This  cannot  be 
guaranteed  by  Member  State  action,  as  can  be  seen  by  some  of  the  proposed 
developments in national legislation. 

In  particular,  EU  action  to  assist  Member  States  through  practical  measures  will 
enable economies of scale to be achieved, for instance in relation to the development 
of  training  programmes,  development  and  dissemination  of  information  programmes 
(see for instance the Commission’s e-justice portal which provides victims factsheets 
for all Member States). 

•  Action at EU level would produce clear benefits (compared to Member States' action) 

in terms of effectiveness of the action  

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

Though some improvements on victims' rights have occurred over the 10 years since 
the  2001  Framework  Decision  was  adopted,  these  appear  to  be  based  on  national 
priorities  and  not  greatly  influenced  by  current  EU  legislation.  For  instance,  the 
Commission’s implementation reports on the Framework Decision noted that in many 
cases, Member States had informed the Commission that their existing measures were 
sufficient to implement the Decision, and had not actually introduced new measures, 
but  studies  show  that  such  national  measures  are  not  enough  to  properly  address 
victims' needs. 

New  EU  legislation  will  be  combined  with  effective  practical  measures  to  assist 
Member States and practitioners to effectively meet the needs of victims. 

New  EU  action,  under  the  Lisbon  Treaty,  will  enable  the  deficits  of  previous 
legislation to be rectified, thus assisting Member States in their implementation. 

(10)  New EU action will have greater enforcement mechanisms to ensure that legislation is 

in fact implemented.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

General, specific and operational objectives 

The General Objectives are to facilitate the establishment of a European area of freedom, security and justice 
and  the  development  of  mutual  trust  between  criminal  justice  authorities,  by  ensuring  that  the  rights  of 
victims  are  fully  respected  throughout  the  EU,  whilst  also  respecting  the  rights  of  the  defence,  and  that 
citizens can circulate freely without being treated differently should they fall victim to crime. 

Specific Objective 

Operational Objective 

A. 
To ensure that victims 
are  recognised  and  treated 
with respect and dignity 

A.1 

Ensure the needs of indirect (immediate family) victims are met. 

Ensure all police, prosecutors, judges and court staff who come into 

A.2 
contact with victims receive appropriate victims training. 

Establish  needs  assessment  mechanisms  for  all  victims  to  identify 

A.3 
the needs of victims and vulnerable victims and their needs. 

To ensure that victims 

B. 
are protected 

Ensure victims do not lose the protection they have been given when 

B.1 
they travel or move abroad. 

Ensure  contact  between  the  offender  and  victim  is  avoided  during 

B.2 
proceedings. 

To ensure that victims 

C 
are supported. 

Ensure  effective  victims  support  services  are  available  based  on 

C.1 
international standards. 

To ensure that victims 
to 
effective  access 

D. 
have 
justice 

. 

To 

E. 
have access to restoration 

ensure 

victims 

D.1 

Ensure all victims are able to attend trial 

Ensure  all  victims  are  assisted  in  understanding  their  rights, 
D.2 
obligations  and  the  proceedings  from  both  a  linguistic  and  wider 
perspective. 

Ensure  all  victims  have  a  right  to  have  prosecution  decisions 

D.3 
reviewed. 

E.1 

Ensure victims have access to effective Restorative Justice Services. 

3.2. 

Consistency of the objectives with other EU policies  

The  specific  objectives  of  this  proposal  to  ensure  that  the  needs  of  victims  of  crime  are 
respected  and  met  are  wide  ranging  and  cut  across  a  number  of  other  EU  policies.  In 
particular, the protection of victims' rights is an essential part of a range of EU policies and/or 
instruments relating to human trafficking, sexual abuse and exploitation of children, violence 
against women, terrorism and enforcement of road  traffic  offences  (see  Annex  8  for  further 
details). 

The specific objectives of  this proposal are consistent with the approach taken in the above 
policy areas. While the specific instruments on, for example, trafficking and sexual abuse and 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
sexual exploitation of children and child pornography address the particular needs of certain 
groups  of  victims  of  identified  types  of  crimes,  this  proposal  will  address  the  needs  of  all 
victims of crime, irrespective of the type of crime or the circumstances or place in which it 
was committed.  

The  proposal  will  build  on  and  complement  existing  instruments,  and  establish  minimum 
standards  on  victims'  rights  which  will  improve  the  general  environment  for  protecting 
victims  in  EU  law  and  policy.  Thus  whilst  the  needs  of  victims  of  terrorism  are  not 
specifically  addressed  in  any  action,  they  will  nevertheless  benefit  from  improved 
mechanisms to identify their needs, keep them informed of proceedings and received adequate 
protection  during  proceedings.  Likewise,  for  road  traffic  victims,  though  action  does  not 
specifically  envisage  the  detailed  needs  of  such  victims,  the improvement  of  awareness  and 
cultural  attitudes  of  legal  practitioners  combined  with  appropriate  assessments  will  help 
ensure  their  needs  are  met,  in  particular  their  treatment  before  a  specific  crime  has  been 
identified.  

Moreover, in line with the approach taken for victims of human trafficking and sexual abuse 
and  exploitation  of  children  and  child  pornography,  the  proposal  will  be  consistent  in 
addressing the particular needs of vulnerable victims. 

3.3. 

Consistency of the objectives with the Fundamental Rights 

Any action of the EU to ensure that the needs of victims of crime are respected and met must 
respect  the  fundamental  rights  recognised  by  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  in  the 
European  Union  ("EU  Charter").  Any  options  envisaged  in  this  impact  assessment  must  be 
fully consistent with a range of fundamental rights. The key rights relevant to this assessment 
are:  human  dignity,  the  right  to life,  right  to  the  integrity  of  the  person,  right  to  liberty  and 
security,  respect  for  private  and  family  life,  protection  of  personal  data,  right  to  property, 
freedom of movement and residence, equality before the law, the rights of the child, the rights 
of the elderly, integration of persons with disabilities, and right to an effective remedy and to 
a fair trial, and finally presumption of innocence and right of defence. 

The  protection  of  the  fundamental  rights  of  the  individual  has  become  an  even  stronger 
priority for the EU with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty: the EU Charter has become 
legally binding on the Union and the EU is about to accede to the European  Convention of 
Human  Rights  (ECHR).  In  accordance  with  Communication  from  the  Commission  on  the 
Strategy  for  the  effective  implementation  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  by  the 
European Union61, this impact assessment examines the impact on the Fundamental Rights of 
the options proposed, in particular in the light of the 'fundamental rights check list' presented 
in the Communication. 

Fundamental  rights  of  all  individuals  must  be  respected  in  all  EU  actions  and  by  Member 
States when they implement EU law. EU action in this field should thus at the same time raise 
standards  in  relation  to  the  fundamental  rights  of  victims  of  crime  whilst  ensuring  that  any 
limitation of the rights of the defence or to other fundamental rights is formulated in a clear 
and predictable manner and is necessary and proportionate to protect the rights and freedoms 
of the victim.  

61 

COM(2010) 573. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  has  stressed  that  a  court  cannot  ignore  the  plight  of 
victims and downgrade their rights, as there is a “need to safeguard victims’ rights and their 
proper  place  in  criminal  proceedings”.62  The  Court  has  also  recognised  that  in  criminal 
proceedings certain measures may be taken for the purpose of protecting the victim, provided 
that such measures can be reconciled with an adequate and effective exercise of the rights of 
the defence.63 However, it is considered that decisions in this respect must be taken at a local 
level and on an individual basis. The Court also ruled that Article 4 of the ECHR in certain 
circumstances,  require  a  State "to  take operational measures to protect victims, or potential 
victims, of trafficking" where circumstances give rise to a credible suspicion of trafficking.64 

Most  measures  envisaged  in  the  options  assessed  do  not  affect  the  rights  of  the  accused  in 
criminal proceedings. In particular, the proposed measures neither affect the presumption of 
innocence of the accused, nor the right not to be judged twice for the same offence (ne bis in 
idem), as discretion is left to the judge who will ultimately ensure that the fundamental rights 
of accused are observed and respected.  

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

The options for addressing the problem as defined in Section 2 of this Impact Assessment, in 
line with the objectives established in Section 3, are set out below. 

Options  examined  in  this  assessment  all  take  a  combined  approach  with  varying  levels  of 
detail  or  obligation  being  imposed.  This  is  based  on  an  overwhelming  response  from 
respondents  during  the  external  study  that  the  optimum  approach  was  a  combined  one 
involving both new EU legislation and practical action to ensure proper implementation. Thus 
for  all  measures,  practical  measures  will  be  established  to  assist  in  implementation  and 
identification  of  best  practice.  These  will  range  from  funding  of  EU  projects  and  studies, 
development  and  exchange  of  best  practices,  co-ordination  with  European  networks  and 
specific projects tendered by the Commission. 

4.1. 

Discarded options 

Analysis of legal measures related to legal aid and compensation of victims demonstrates that 
further  research  is  still  needed  to  precisely  identify  problems  and  possible  solutions.  Such 
research  is  even  more  important  since  action  in  these  areas  could  have  very  high  cost 
implications for the Member States. As such, legal aid and compensation are not included in 
the  options  below  but  will  be  the  subject  of  further  studies  to  determine  appropriate  EU 
action. 

4.2. 

Overview of policy options  

We have considered five options: retention of the status quo (option 1) and four other policy 
options  (options  2,  3a,  3b  and  4).  The  retention  of  the  status  quo  would  involve  taking  no 
action  at  EU  level,  while  the  four  alternative  policy  options  will  improve  victims'  situation 
across Europe. These options range from Low - Medium - High level of obligation imposed 
on Member States and the detail of such obligations.  

62 
63 
64 

Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, 12 February 2004. 
See for instance Cases ECtHR in SN v Sweden, Doorson v Netherlands (1996), Luca v Italy (2003). 
See Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, no 25965/04, 7 January 2010. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Retention of the status quo. No action at EU level.  

Least prescriptive option. Imposes minimum obligations on Member States to 
establish  systems  or  services  with  minimum  detail  on  what  standards  should 
be achieved. When necessary to take legal measures, this option requires the 
least changes in national procedural laws.  

Medium prescriptive option. Imposes medium level of obligation on Member 
States,  with  the  exception  of  measure  11  -  Establishment  of  Restorative 
Justice  Services  (RJS),  to  establish  services  and  rights  and  imposes 
provisions  on  what  such  services  should  be  while  defining  minimum  details 
on  what  standards  to  be  applied.  The  level  of  obligations  on  Member  States 
for  measure  11  is  low  and does not  require  Member  States  to  establish  RJS 
but only to ensure that safeguards and minimum quality standards are applied 
where RJS are used. 

Medium prescriptive option. Imposes medium level of obligation on Member 
States  for  all  measures  to  establish  services  and  rights  and  imposes 
provisions  on  what  such  services  should  be  while  defining  minimum  details 
on what standards to be applied. 

The  most  prescriptive  option.  Imposes  a  range  of  obligations  on  Member 
States to establish services and rights. It also imposes more detailed provisions 
on  what  such  services  should  be  and  the  exact  standards  that  should  be 
applied. 

Option 
1 – 

Status 
Quo 

Option 
2 – 

Low 
level of 
obligati
on 

Option 
3a 
–
Medium 
level 
obligatio
n 

Option 
3b 
–
Medium
/High 
level 
obligatio
n 

Option 
4 – 

Highest 
level of 
obligati
on 

Each policy option has been assessed against eleven selected measures (described in Section 
4.3).  The  selection  of  the  eleven  measures  was  made  from  a  list  of  nearly  sixty  possible 
measures  that  were  identified  as  potentially  meeting  the  needs  of  victims,  based  on  the 
evidence  collected  by  the  external  contractor.65  From  this  list,  only  those  measures  were 

65 

The Matrix Report approach was based on the traditional options of no action, better implementation, 
legislative  action  and  a  combined  approach.  However,  two  issues  arose  when  following  this 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
selected  that  would  have  the  most  effect  in  reaching  the  objectives  set  out  in  Section  3  and 
respond best to the problems that could be tackled at EU level. They are also likely to have 
the most significant cost implications and impact.  

Each  of  the  eleven  measures  corresponds  to  an  operational  objective  listed  in  Section  3.1 
above.  All  standards  required  under  these  measures  (depending  on  the  degree  of  obligation 
under  each  policy  option)  derive  from  international  standards  and  from  the  EU  Charter  and 
ECtHR caselaw. 

methodology. Firstly, taking this approach failed to meet all the needs of victims. Secondly, their was 
an overwhelming response from respondents that the optimum approach was a combined one involving 
both  new  EU  legislation  and  practical  action  to  ensure  proper  implementation.  Whilst  for  better 
implementation  or  legislation  only  positive  impact  was  generally  assessed  as  low  and  occasionally 
medium, this compares with a combined approach which received medium and high ratings for positive 
impact.  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
4.3. 

Detailed description of policy options concerning selected measures 

Policy option 1, the status quo, has been presented in the baseline scenario (see Section 2.5). The other policy options described below meet to varying 
degrees the objectives outlined in Section 3 above. Most of the eleven measures are already in some ways covered under the Framework Decision, but 
these  policy  options  go  beyond  the  status  quo  (policy  option  1).  For  example,  while  Article  13  in  the  Framework  Decision  simply  provides  that 
Member States should "encourage actions" by victims support organisations, the four policy options for measure 7 would require at a minimum (option 
1) that there is easy and effective access to such services. 

•  Measure  

•  Policy option 2 

•  Policy Option 3a 

•  Policy option 3b 

•  Policy option 4 

operational 

(+ 
objective) 

•  1.  Coverage  of 
victims 

indirect 
(A1) 

•  2.  Provision  of 

Training  
(A2) 

•  Low prescription 

•  Medium prescription 

•  Medium/High prescription 

•  High prescription 

•  Not covered.  

•  MS 

required 

establish 
guidelines for practitioners on the 
appropriate treatment of victims. 

to 

•  Co-victims  of  murder  covered  as 
if 
they  were  direct  victims. 
Support  services  and  protection 
available  to  immediate  family  or 
dependents of direct victims. 

•  Co-victims  of  murder  covered  as 
if 
they  were  direct  victims. 
Support  services  and  protection 
available  to  immediate  family  or 
dependents of direct victims. 

•  All  indirect  victims  covered  as  if 
they  were  direct  victims 
i.e. 
immediate family, dependants, 

•  MS required to ensure that police, 
prosecutors  and  court  staff  are 
provided with appropriate training 
on victims from the earliest point, 
attention  on 
with  particular 
vulnerable 
Judicial 
studies  for  judges  shall  be  made 
available. 

victims. 

•  MS required to ensure that police, 
prosecutors  and  court  staff  are 
provided with appropriate training 
on victims from the earliest point, 
attention  on 
with  particular 
vulnerable 
Judicial 
studies  for  judges  shall  be  made 
available. 

victims. 

•  MS  required  to  make  training  on 
victims  mandatory 
for  police, 
prosecutors, judges and court staff 
into  contact  with 
who  come 
victims  during  the  course  of  the 
work. 

of 

•  Training  should  cover  at  least 
rights  and  needs  of  victims, 
on 
impact 
victims,  support  possibilities  that 
officials  can  provide,  risk  and 
avoidance 
secondary 
of 
victimisation. 

victimisation 

of 

•  Training  should  cover  at  least 
rights  and  needs  of  victims, 
on 
impact 
victims,  support  possibilities  that 
officials  can  provide,  risk  and 
avoidance 
secondary 
of 
victimisation 

victimisation 

•  3.  Assessment  of  •  MS  required 

to  enhance  and  •  MS 

required 

to 

establish  •  MS 

required 

to 

establish  •  MS  required  to  assess  all  victims 

EN 

26 

EN 

 
  
victims' 
(A3) 

needs 

exchange 

encourage 
of 
information  and  best  practices  on 
the best ways to identify and meet 
the needs of victims. 

individual  needs  assessments  to 
identify  vulnerable  victims  and 
needs  of  other  victims  not  falling 
under  that  category.  Indicators  of 
vulnerability helping to determine 
the  needs  shall  include  at  least: 
personal  characteristics,  type  or 
nature of the crime; risks of repeat 
victimisation. 
and 
secondary 
Assessments  not 
for 
required 
minor crimes.  

individual  needs  assessments  to 
identify  vulnerable  victims  and 
needs  of  other  victims  not  falling 
under  that  category.  Indicators  of 
vulnerability helping to determine 
the  needs  shall  include  at  least: 
personal  characteristics,  type  or 
nature of the crime; risks of repeat 
victimisation. 
and 
secondary 
Assessments  not 
for 
required 
minor crimes.  

for their needs from the moment a 
crime  is  reported  and  at  regular 
intervals  throughout  proceedings 
through  an  EU  needs  assessment 
form. 

Identification 
vulnerable 
and 
of 
services 

•  4. 
of 
victims 
provision 
specific 
(A3) 

•  Definition  and  minimum  services 
of  vulnerable  victims  provided 
only  in  relation  to  child  sexual 
exploitation 
human 
trafficking. 

and 

at 

•  Presumption  of  vulnerability  of 
identified  categories  of  victims 
children, 
including 
persons  with  with  disabilities, 
victims of sexual violence, human 
trafficking 
interpersonal 
violence. 

least 

or 

at 

•  Presumption  of  vulnerability  of 
identified  categories  of  victims 
children, 
including 
persons  with  with  disabilities, 
victims of sexual violence, human 
trafficking 
interpersonal 
violence. 

least 

or 

•  MS 

required 

establish 
appropriate  services  to  meet  the 
needs of such victims. 

to 

•  MS 

required 

establish 
appropriate  services  to  meet  the 
needs of such victims. 

to 

•  5.  Cross  border 
of 

provision 
protection 
measures  
(B1) 

•  Amend 

civil 

existing 

law 
instruments  (Brussels  I  and  IIbis) 
which  cover  protection  measures 
in  order  to  ensure  they  work 
the  mutual 
effectively 
recognition 
protection 
measures. 

for 

of 

•  Legislation  establishing  a  mutual 
for 

recognition  mechanism 
protection measures.  

•  Legislation  establishing  a  mutual 
for 

recognition  mechanism 
protection measures.  

physical 

•  As  a  minimum  children,  those 
with 
and  mental 
disabilities,  victims  of  sexual 
violence,  human 
trafficking  or 
interpersonal  violence,  deemed  to 
be vulnerable.  

•  MS  required  to  make  available  a 
range  of  specific  services  for 
vulnerable  victims,  as  identified 
in the Directive. 

•  Legislation 

requiring  Member 
States to put in place a facilitation 
mechanism  to  assist  victims  who 
already  benefit  from  a  protection 
measure  to  apply  for  protection 
measures when in a Member State 
other than their own.  

EN 

27 

EN 

 
  
•  6.  Provision  of 
separate  waiting 
areas 
to  avoid 
contact  between 
victim 
and 
offender 
(B2) 

•  7.  Establishment 
of  a  minimum 
level  of  Victim 
Support  Services, 
including  support 
during 
proceedings 
(C1) 

•  8.  Attendance  of 

trial  
(D1) 

•  9.  Provision  of 
interpretation 
and 
(D2)  

translation 

•  MS 

to 

required 

establish 
guidelines and protocols for court 
officials to assist them in ensuring 
that 
risk  of  contact  between 
victim  and  offender  is  minimised 
the 
unless 
administration of justice. 

required 

for 

•  MS required to ensure that contact 
between  victims  and  offenders 
within  court  premises  may  be 
avoided 
criminal 
unless 
proceedings  require  such  contact. 
MS  shall  progressively  adapt 
court  premises  to  have  separate 
waiting  areas  for  victims,  and 
ensure  that  new  court  buildings 
are  constructed  with  separate 
waiting areas for victims and that 
contact  with 
is 
reduced 
the  court 
premises. 

the  offender 

throughout 

•  MS required to ensure that contact 
between  victims  and  offenders 
within  court  premises  may  be 
avoided 
criminal 
unless 
proceedings  require  such  contact. 
MS  shall  progressively  adapt 
court  premises  to  have  separate 
waiting  areas  for  victims,  and 
ensure  that  new  court  buildings 
are  constructed  with  separate 
waiting areas for victims and that 
contact  with 
is 
reduced 
the  court 
premises. 

the  offender 

throughout 

•  MS  required  to  ensure  there  is 
easy  and  effective  access 
to 
victims  support  services  without 
providing  further  detail  on  how 
this should be achieved. 

•  MS 

required 

to  ensure 

that 
victims  have  easy  access 
to 
effective  victim  support  services. 
Key  services  to  be  provided  are 
identifies  and  services  shall  be 
provided by persons competent to 
deal  with  the  problems  faced  by 
victims. 

•  MS 

required 

to  ensure 

that 
victims  have  easy  access 
to 
effective  victim  support  services. 
Key  services  to  be  provided  are 
identifies  and  services  shall  be 
provided by persons competent to 
deal  with  the  problems  faced  by 
victims. 

•  Same  as  option  3  but  all  courts, 
existing  and  new,  must  have 
separate waiting areas for victims. 

independent  of 

•  Same  as  option  3,  but  services 
the 
shall  be 
government 
autonomous. 
and 
Victim  support  services  required 
also  to  provide  legal  advice  or 
assistance. 

•  MS 

to 

required 

establish 
guidelines to better inform victims 
of  factors  which  will  assist  their 
attendance  of  trial  including  trial 
dates, 
of 
reimbursement, 
information  on 
the court and proceedings etc 

possibility 

•  MS 

to 

required 

establish 
mechanisms 
minimise 
communication  difficulties  for  all 
victims and not just those who are 
to 
witnesses 

parties 

or 

to 

•  MS required to ensure that victim 
are kept fully informed of the trial 
date  and  be  reimbursed  for  the 
expense  of  attending  the  trial. 
Exclusion  of  a  victim  from  trial 
must be assessed on an individual 
basis  and  can  only  happen  in 
exceptional circumstances. 

•  MS required to ensure that victim 
are kept fully informed of the trial 
date  and  be  reimbursed  for  the 
expense  of  attending  the  trial. 
Exclusion  of  a  victim  from  trial 
must be assessed on an individual 
basis  and  can  only  happen  in 
exceptional circumstances. 

in 

except 

•  Victim will have a right to attend 
trial, 
exceptional 
circumstances.  Victim  must  be 
kept  fully  informed  of  the  trial 
date,  which  will  be  determined 
taken  into  account  the  victim's 
availability.  Victim  will 
be 
reimbursed for any attendance. 

•  MS 

required 

to  ensure 

that 
interpretation  and  translation  is 
provided  to  facilitate  the  victim's 
understanding of and involvement 
criminal  proceedings, 
in 

the 

•  MS 

required 

to  ensure 

that 
interpretation  and  translation  is 
provided  to  facilitate  the  victim's 
understanding of and involvement 
criminal  proceedings, 
in 

the 

•  MS  required  to  provide  free  of 
charge 
and 
translation  for  victims  with  an 
identified language problem. 

interpretation 

EN 

28 

EN 

 
  
proceedings. 

where  proportionate  in  view  of 
the circumstances of the case. 

where  proportionate  in  view  of 
the circumstances of the case. 

•  10.  Review 
decisions  
(D3) 

of 

•  MS  required  to  ensure  that  the 
victim  can  provide  their  views 
before  a  decision  is  made  not  to 
prosecute.  

•  MS  required  to  provide  victims 
with a right to have a decision not 
to prosecute reviewed.  

•  MS  required  to  provide  victims 
with a right to have a decision not 
to prosecute reviewed.  

•  MS  required  to  provide  victims 
with a right to a judicial review of 
a decision not to prosecute. 

•  MS  left  to  determine  the  exact 

•  MS  left  to  determine  the  exact 

review mechanism they use. 

review mechanism they use. 

•  11. Establishment 
of 
Restorative 
Justice  Services 
(RJS)  
(E1) 

•  No  requirement  to  establish  RJS 
but  MS  must 
that 
safeguards  and  minimum  quality 
standards  are  applied  where  RJS 
are used. 

ensure 

•  No  requirement  to  establish 
RJS  but  MS  must  ensure  that 
safeguards 
and  minimum 
quality  standards  are  applied 
where RJS are used. 

•  MS  required  to-  establish  or 
enhance  RJS.  Such  RJS  must 
represent  equally  victims’  and 
and 
defendants' 
and 
minimum 
safeguards  shall  be  applied 
(including 
and 
confidentiality). 

interests 
standards 

consent 

•  MS  must  make  available  RJS 
(including  at  least  mediation  and 
family  group  conferencing)  to  all 
victims,  applying  safeguards  in 
accordance  with  UN  Basic 
Principles 
of 
Restorative  Justice  Programmes 
in Criminal Matters . 

the  Use 

on 

EN 

29 

EN 

 
  
 
5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

5.1. 

Description and impact analysis of policy options 

A broad impact analysis of each option has been carried out. The most relevant likely impacts 
of the policy options are the economic and social impacts. The greatest cost implications are 
expected to fall on public authorities. No environmental impacts are anticipated.  

For the purposes of comparison, for all four options (except status quo), estimated costs are 
provided  for  the  five  measures  which  are  likely  to  be  the  most  costly  and/or  most  sensitive 
(training,  victim  support,  interpretation  and  translation,  restorative  justice  and  attendance  of 
trial).  In  addition,  some  basic  estimates  of  costs  are  provided  concerning  the  provision  of 
separate  waiting  areas  to  avoid  contact  between  victim  and  offender,  as  well  as  a  basic 
analysis  of  the  impact  of  a  review  mechanism  on  the  decision  not  to  prosecute.66 
Nevertheless,  numerous  factors  which  cannot  be  accurately  calculated  will  affect  the  real 
costs. In many instances, such factors are likely to present a downward pressure on costs e.g. 
where Member States already have measures in place. See Annex 10 for further details on the 
cost estimates provided for the policy options below . 

Specific  costs  are  not  available  on  the  right  to  review.  This  possibility  already  exists  in  all 
Member  States except  for  six  (BE,  CY, IE, LU, MT, SI). For option 3a  and  3b,  it  is  left to 
Member  States  to  determine  the  exact  mechanism.  They  could  therefore  implement  this 
measure  by  allowing  another  officer  to  carry  out  the  review,  they  could  establish  a  specific 
authority  or  ombudman,  or  establish  a  right  of  judicial  review.  Thus,  they  can  choose  an 
option  which  can  have  low  cost  implications.  However,  for  option  4  there  are  greater  cost 
implications since Member States are required to establish a judicial review. 

All options, except status quo, are expected to have a positive impact on fundamental rights of 
victims  with  the  options  having  biggest  impact  also  improving  fundamental  rights  the 
greatest.  Measures  such  as  the  cross  border  provision  of  protection  measures  could  have  an 
impact on the fundamental rights of the offender. The key fundamental rights concerned are: 
human  dignity,  the  right  to  life,  right  to  the  integrity  of  the  person,  right  to  liberty  and 
security,  respect  for  private  and  family  life,  protection  of  personal  data,  right  to  property, 
freedom of movement and residence, equality before the law, the rights of the child, the rights 
of the elderly, integration of persons with disabilities, and right to an effective remedy and to 
a fair trial, and finally presumption of innocence and right of defence. 

With regard to the impact of the different options on the Member States, there is no detailed 
cost breakdown available showing which Member States would bear the majority of costs for 
reaching the desired EU minimum standards specified in each option. However, considering 
that the existing national laws and practices differ to a varying degree from these minimum 
standards, the impact of the proposed measures would presumably be greatest in the Member 
States  where  a  right  is  not,  or  not  sufficiently,  addressed  in  the  way  foreseen  by  these 
standards,  while  the  impact  would  be  lesser  in  the  States  that  already  have  a  high  level  of 
protection and support of victims.  

66 

Except  where  otherwise  specified,  the  cost  estimates  provided  are  based  on  the  Matrix  Report  and 
further explained in Annex 10. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
For  example,  there  is  no  national  victim  support  organisation  in  nine  Member  States  (CY, 
DK,  EL,  IT,  LV,  LT,  PL,  SI  and  ES),  while  in  ten  Member  States  such  national  services 
already exist (AT, BE, EE, FI, DE, NL, PT, SK, SE and UK).67 Whilst the cost implications 
for establishing such services in the first group of Member States will be considerably higher 
than for the latter group, the measure will bring greater and direct benefit for victims in those 
countries  where  such  services  do  not  currently  exist,  thus  increasing  their  well-being  and 
chance of recovery. Further information on individual Member States' current standards with 
respect of meeting victims' needs is provided in Annexes 3-7.  

5.1.1.  Policy option 1: Retention of the status quo – No action at EU level 

Expected Impact 

Effectiveness 
in meeting 
objectives 

Zero:  As  set  out  in  the  baseline  scenario,  transposition  of  relevant  EU  legislation  has  more  or  less 
stagnated. The situation is expected to evolve as set out in Section 2.5 above. Whilst there is a trend 
amongst Member States to develop their own national agenda on victims' rights, there is no indication 
that  all  Member  States  will  follow  this  trend.  Without  further  EU  action,  there  is  unlikely  to  be  a 
sufficient  development  of  national  legislation  and  action  on  victims  of  crime  such  that  they  can  be 
assured to receive an equal and appropriate level of treatment no matter where in the EU they find 
themselves. 

In  addition,  it  is  noted  that  with  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty,  the  European  Court  of 
Justice will gain jurisdiction over existing "third pillar" acquis by 2014. In theory this should improve 
the situation slightly since enforcement powers will exist. However, as detailed in previous sections, 
the  current  drafting  and obligations  are  vague  making  judicial  review  difficult.  In  addition,  75%  or 
more of respondents in the study by the external contractor felt that without any further (EU) action, 
the situation for victims across Europe is expected to stay the same, with 25% considering it would 
deteriorate over the next five years, particularly for victims of violent crime. This means that on the 
whole the range of problems identified above would remain or become worse.  

Political 
Feasibility 

High:  Member  States  will  have  no  new  obligations.  This  option  should  therefore  not  experience 
significant objections. 

Financial and 
economic 
impact 

There are no immediate new financial burdens associated with this option. However, the total costs of 
crime to the individual and to society are considerable. Such costs have been detailed in Section 2.3 
and based on a UK Home Office Survey an extrapolated EU cost of €233 billion has been estimated. 
Since adequately meeting the needs of victims can reduce those costs, no EU action can be assumed 
to have high cost implications on society. 

Social impact  There  are  no  expected  positive  social  impacts.  Rather  it  is  expected  that  in  many  Member  States 
victims will continue to be treated poorly and not receive support, protection or access to justice. The 
negative impact is likely to be greatest on vulnerable groups such as the disabled or those subjected to 
sexual violence.  

Impact on 
fundamental 
rights 

Under this option, fundamental rights of victims will be mostly protected on the Member States level 
in accordance with their international obligations. The protection of the fundamental rights of victims 
on the Union level will continue to be limited to the application of the Directive on the compensation 
of  victims  and  the  Framework  Decision.  The  fundamental  rights  will  continue  to  be  protected  in  a 
different  manner  according  to  each  national  system.  The  EU  Charter  –  and  the  rights  applying  to 
victims enshrined therein – will be applied only when EU law is involved. 

Impact on 
MS judicial 
systems 

No impact is expected on Member States' judicial systems except where they make changes on their 
own initiative. 

67 

APAV Report, p. 120. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.1.2.  Policy option 2: Low prescription  

Expected Impact 

Effectiveness 
in meeting 
objectives 

Low:  This  option  is  the  least  prescriptive  leaving  a  wide  discretion  to  Member  States  in 
implementation.  Only  a  few  measures  introduce  obligations  to  change  behaviours  or  activities.  As 
with  the  Framework  Decision,  this  is  likely  to  result  in  few  changes  or  improvements.  Even  where 
action is taken it is unlikely to establish minimum standards. Furthermore, open provisions are very 
difficult to be monitored.  

Synergies are unlikely to be achieved or to make any significant cost savings or added benefits due to 
the likely lack of uniformity of implementation. Some extended benefits may be achieved through the 
establishment  of  detailed  guidelines  which  could  form  the  foundations  of  a  training  programme  or 
even a governmental change programme.  

Political 
Feasibility  

High:  Given  the  lack  of  obligations  imposed  on  Member  States,  negotiation  and  implementation 
should  be  very  feasible.  Member  States  will  be  able  to  choose  how  far  they  wish  to  go  with  any 
implementation and what changes they wish to make. However, some States, in particular those who 
already have good victims' provisions, and the European Parliament may wish to go further. 

Financial and 
economic 
impact 

Total costs are expected to be the lowest in this option (excluding status quo). Almost all costs will 
fall to public administrations on both a national and local level. Some costs could fall to the voluntary 
sector.  Some  costs  may  be  limited  to  the  short  run  such  as  the  development  of  guidelines,  whilst 
others may incur ongoing running costs such as victim support services.  

Minimum 
Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) 

Maximum 
Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) 

Training 
(one off development cost) 
Victim Support Services 
(annual running costs) 
Interpretation/ translation 
(annual costs) 
Restorative Justice 
(annual  costs  -  however,  due  to  reduction 
in  reoffending,  significant  savings  for  the 
criminal justice system can be expected) 
Attendance of trial 
(one off development cost) 
Separate waiting areas 
(one off development cost) 
TOTAL  

0 

< 23 

< 0.03 

0 

0.146  

0.146  

1.58 

< 23 

6.88 

878 

1.58 

1.58 

< 23.33 million 

< 905.74 million 

Training – development of guidelines:  
Total cost: Near to zero – €1.58 million  for 27 Member States 

Costs are likely to be relatively low. Depending on how this option is implemented the burden could 
be primarily on national governments or the EU.  

Cost for developing guidelines will vary. At the lowest end, the European Network of Councils for 
the Judiciary recently produced basic guidelines for judges at virtually no cost. Such an approach for 
all  practitioners  could  significantly  reduce  costs  close  to  zero.  The  range  of  costs  was  further 
developed  based  on  whether  guidelines  are  produced  by  a  government  Department,  are  externally 
contracted or are drafted by the EU and adapted by Member States. In addition, some Member States 
e.g. FR, BE already have guidelines which would reduce this cost. 

Victim Support Services – easy, effective access:  
Total cost: Less than €23,500,000  for 17 States that have no or limited VSO 

This option gives Member States wide flexibility in implementation. This may result in Member 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
States either carrying out few changes or not implementing to the extent described below. As such it 
can be assumed that costs will be lower than options 3a, 3b and 4. 

Costings are based on known budgets from several national organisations adjusted based on whether 
there was no known victim support organisation in a Member State (CY, DK, EL, IT, LV, LT, PL, SI 
and ES - 9 States), whether existing VSOs achieved national coverage (AT, BE, EE, FI, DE, NL, PT, 
SK, SE, UK – 10 States) or did not (BG, CZ, FR, HU, IE, LU, MT, RO - 8 States). 

Interpretation and Translation – minimise communication difficulties:  
Total cost: Less than €30,000 – €6,880,000 

This option provides a wide leeway for implementation by Member States. Costs of implementation 
are expected to fall on government authorities at a national and regional level. Cost for leaflets should 
only  be  borne  once  and  for  any  subsequent  changes  to  content.  There  are  unlikely  to  be  annual 
translation costs. Costs for translation of proceedings are expected to remain relatively constant. 

Costs ranges are based on whether Member States choose to produce leaflets (assumed as being 4 
pages) or in addition provide short summaries of the outcome of proceedings. 

In relation to the leaflets LT, LU, NL, PT, ES, UK are already know to provide this information. 
Calculations are therefore made for 21 States. A short 4 page information leaflet for 21 States 
translated into 22 languages would range from €29,933 – €86,739.  However, Member States are 
likely to do this based on the most common languages used in their jurisdiction rather than for all 22 
EU languages. Thus costs are likely to be lower. 

In relation to summaries of proceedings, AT, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, LT, LU, NL, RO, SK, ES, SE, 
UK (15 States) already provide translation and interpretation services for all victims. Calculations are 
made  therefore  for  12  States  (BE,  BG,  CZ,  CY,  DK,  IE,  IT,  LV,  MT,  PL,  PT,  SI).  The  cost  of 
producing 1 page summaries is therefore estimated to range from €2.91 to €6.79 million . 

Restorative Justice Services (RJS) – safeguards where RJS exists: 
Total cost: €0 – €878 million 

(accreditation and legal advice for 21 States) 

21 Member States provide some form of RJS (AT, BE, BG, CZ, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, IE, IT, LV, 
LU,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SI,  ES,  SE,  UK).  Calculations  on  safeguards  will  thus  only  be  based  on  costs  in 
those states. 

Member  States  could  implement  this  requirement  ranging  from  no  significant  costs  since  many 
safeguards  do  not  impose  financial  burdens  (such  as  the  requirement  of  consent  to  participate  in 
RJS),  to  the  most  expensive  safeguards  accreditation  schemes  and  provision  of  legal  advice  (in 
accordance  with  the  UN  guidelines  on  RJS  safeguards).  Cost  estimates  will  thus  only  be  given  on 
those two safeguards. 

Total cost of accreditation schemes: €413, 914 – €3,420,182  (assuming implemented by 21 States).  

Total cost of legal advice: €606 – €875 million  (assuming implemented by 21 States). This is based 
on the most likely costing scenario, i.e. on the number of cases that currently go to court and a 50% 
take  up  rate.  However,  it  is  assumed  that  costs  would  be  lower  as  not  all  50%  of  victims  would 
actually receive RJ (case not suitable, offender refusal) or would not get to a stage where legal advice 
was required or desired. 

Attendance of trial – establish guidelines: 
Total cost: €146,000 - €1,580,000 

This policy option involves the establishment of guidelines to better inform victims concerning trial 
dates and possibility of reimbursement. Based on the analysis of guidelines on training in studies, the 
following costs are expected:  

Guidelines attending trial  

Internally 
Ministry of Justice 

developed 

by 

Externally contracted 

EU Drafted, MS adaptation 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
€145,616 

€970,000 - 1,580,000 

€236,201 

Separate waiting areas – development of guidelines and protocols:  
Total cost: €146,000 - €1,580,000 

This policy option involves the establishment of guidelines and protocols for court officials to assist 
them in ensuring that risk of contact between victims and offender is minimised. The calculation of 
the costs estimates are the same as for guidelines on attendance of trial (see above).  

Social impact   This option is likely to raise awareness of the rights available among both victims and professionals 
with whom they are in contact (e.g. through adoption of guidelines, exchange of best practices). This 
would contribute to the required change in culture, increase the victim's access to justice, support and 
protection. However, the risk that guidelines are not made sufficiently available and are adhered only 
on a voluntarily bases, limits this positive impact.  

The  exclusion  of  indirect  victims  and  the  narrow  approach  of  vulnerable  victims  (limited  to  child 
sexual abuse and exploitation and human trafficking) would significantly reduce the beneficiaries of 
common EU standards. 

The  introduction  of  minimum  requirements  as  regards  the  availability  of  support  services, 
mechanisms  to  minimise  communication  difficulties  and  a  review  mechanism  would  clearly 
strengthen the individual's right to access to justice. However, without common standards as regards 
the quality of these services or mechanisms, there is a serious risk that the situation of victims will not 
really improve in many Member States. 

This  option  would  positively  affect  the  right  of  the  individuals  to  move  freely  within  the  EU  by 
ensuring that a victim continues to benefit from a protection measure when crossing borders. 

Fundamental 
rights 

Under  this  option,  the  precise  impact  on  fundamental  rights  would  very  much  depend  on  how 
Member States implement EU legislation. For those Member States which are ambitious, the positive 
impact on fundamental rights of option 2 could come close to option 3. In general, it is possible to 
state that option 2 is likely to ensure a higher level of respect for the victim's fundamental rights than 
option 1. However, consisting mainly of soft-law measures and giving the overall situation as regards 
the lack of possibilities to enforce those rights (see Section 2.4), this positive impact remains limited.  

In any event, this option will have a impact on several fundamental rights, in particular:  

•  The right to human dignity and right to the integrity of the person will be strengthened due to 
the development of measures related to identification of the needs of victims. This right would be 
also enhanced by the adoption of the guidelines for practitioners on the appropriate treatment of 
victims and the requirement to ensure easy and effective access of victims to support services. 

•  Right  to  an  effective  remedy  and  to  a  fair  trial  could  be  more  effectively  put  in  practice  as 
victims  could  provide  their  views  before  a  decision  not  to  prosecute  is  made.  Member  States 
obligations to set minimum quality standards for RJS would also contribute in ensuring that right 
to a fair trial is guaranteed within this specific procedure. Victims would also benefit from setting 
minimum requirements as regards the provision of information to victims about the trial.  

•  The  rights  to  life,  the  respect  for  private  and  family  life  and  freedom  of  movement  and 
residence will be positively impacted by an efficient solution as regards the cross border provision 
of protection measures. 

•  A mutual recognition instrument in this area could potentially impact the fundamental rights of the 
offender  such  as  the  right  to  liberty  and  security,  the  respect  for  private  and  family  life, 
protection  of  personal  data,  freedom  of  movement  an  residence  rights  to  effective  remedy 
and to a fair trial and the principle of legality and proportionality of criminal offences. The 
impact  on  these  rights  and  the  proportionality  of  their  limitation  would  depend  on  the 
concrete type of protection measures which would be defined or subject to mutual recognition. For 
instance,  Member  States  can  impose  national  protection  measures  which  can  result  in  anything 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
from  restrictions  on  making  phone  calls  to  an  individual  through  to  being  barred  from  a  family 
home.  A  mutual  recognition  instrument  would  result  in  such  similar  measures  being  applied  in 
another Member State to which the victim moves or travels. In that case, respect for private and 
family  life  will  be  particularly  affected.  Recognition  of  the  protection  order  would  also  require 
that  information  on  the  offender  is  exchanged  between  Member  States'  authorities  which  could 
impact the protection of personal data. The instrument will have to ensure that any such possible 
limitations  to  the  rights  of  the  offender  are  justified  by  providing  the  necessary  safeguards  to 
ensure  that  such  impact  would  be  proportionate  and  necessary  to  the  aim  of  protection  of  the 
victim.  Any  limitations  of  the  rights  of  the  offender  will  have  to  be  formulated  in  a  clear  and 
predictable  manner.  The  right  of  the  offender  to  challenge  before  a  tribunal  the  protection 
measures will have to be ensured as well as presumption of innocence and right of defence.. 

•  The measures relating to this option would increase the rights of the child and several other rights 
affected  with  regard  to  victims  of  human  trafficking  by  requiring  minimum  level  of  support 
services available for these two groups, this option would only have limited impact on the rights 
of  the  child  in  general,  of  the  rights  of  the  elderly  and  the  integration  of  person  with 
disabilities in general since the group of victims do not benefit from specific protection.  

Impact on MS 
judicial 
systems 

Limited since the proposal consists either of soft law measures (guidelines, exchange of practices) or 
of  legal  requirements  aiming  at  a  minimum  level  of  ambition,  thus  requiring  little  changes  in  the 
national legal systems. 

5.1.3.  Policy option 3a: Medium prescription 

Expected Impact 

Effectiveness 
in meeting 
objectives 

High:  This  option  is  predicted  to  be  highly  efficient  in  terms  of  achieving  the  general  and  specific 
objectives. The concrete obligations imposed on Member States and the quality standards introduced 
will allow monitoring and effective infringement procedures at EU level. For those measures where 
there is not yet a common culture among Member States (e.g. restorative justice services) this option 
would  start  by  creating  a  common  culture  (through  awareness  raising,  exchange  of  best  practices), 
whilst  also  setting  certain  minimum  quality  standards  where  restorative  justice  systems  are  indeed 
used.  A  range  of  synergies  could  occur  for  instance  where  victims  support  organisations  are 
strengthened they may provide training at reduced costs. Where training of practitioners is effective, 
their increased awareness of victim support and restorative justice will allow those organisations to 
plug  into  the  criminal  justice  system  more  easily  and  at  a  lower  overall  cost.  In  the  most  well 
established  victim  support  organisations,  needs  assessments  are  carried  out  by  those  organisations 
rather than government, at a much lower cost.  

Political 
Feasibility 

Medium High - Given the obligations imposed on Member States and the costs involved, negotiation 
and implementation will entail severe discussion, in particular for those Member States which have 
the  lowest  standards  in  place.  However,  this  option  imposes  a  low  obligation  on  Member  States 
regarding one of the most controversial and costly matters, i.e. restorative justice, which should ease 
the political acceptability and increase the likelihood of agreement. This option is thus more feasible 
than option 3b which imposes a higher obligation on Member States with regard to restorative justice 
services.  

Financial and 
economic 
impact 

Total  costs  are  expected  to  be  the  in  the  lower  middle  of  the  four  options  (excluding  Status  quo). 
Almost all costs will fall to public administrations on both a national and local level.  

Minimum 
Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) 

Maximum 
Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) 

Training 
(1st  year  costs,  range  of  cost  reduction 
factors exist) 
Victim Support Services 
(Annual running costs) 

4.61 
(opportunity 
71.27) 
< 24 

cost: 

17.28 
(opportunity 
72.29) 
< 27 

cost: 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
Interpretation/ translation 
(Annual costs) 
Restorative Justice (AS OPTION 2) 
(Annual costs - however, due to reduction 
in  reoffending,  significant  savings  for  the 
criminal justice system can be expected) 
Attendance of trial 
(Annual costs) 
TOTAL  
Separate waiting areas  
(per 50m2 new waiting area per court) 

< 89.29 

0 

240 

357.9 

< 205.49 

878 

242.9 

1,370.67 
0.23 

Training – legal practitioners trained, training available for judges, some detail on content:  

Training of police and judiciary: €4.61 – €17.28 million  (based on single training scenario for 
all practitioners assuming no Member State currently provides training) 
Opportunity cost of attending training: €71.27 million – €72.29 million 
No figures available for prosecutors or court staff. 

Costs are based on estimates for a 2 hour face to face training session for police officers and judges. 
Costings are based on minimum-maximum ranges for hourly wages of trainers (including 
development of the course), number of police officers and judges and their average national salaries.  

It should be noted that the above costs could be significantly reduced due to a range of factors: 

•  The above scenario assumes no training is currently provided. However, although exact details are 
not  available,  we  know  that  some  Member  States  already  provide  training.  Respondents  in  the 
APAV interim report, felt that police officers and legal practitioners in BE, CY, FI, FR, EL, HU, 
IE, IT, MT, PL, PT, SK, SI and SE need more training programmes in order for them to meet the 
needs of most victims. It was also felt that professionals in DE and UK who deal with victims do 
not have enough knowledge 

•  Since training of judges is not mandatory in this option, it can be assumed that not all judges will 

be trained. Costs will therefore be lower. 

•  We would also anticipate that costs would be significantly lowered by providing victims training 
during  basic  training  i.e.  before  practitioners  are  practicing.  Further  reductions  could  be  made 
through  online  or  e-learning  to  minimise  lost  work  time.  Costs  are  also  much  lower  where 
provided by victim support organisations. The more such organisations are strengthened the more 
likely they are to carry out such tasks. 

•  Finally  these  costs  are  based  on  the  first  year  of  training  provision.  Subsequent  training  at  this 
level  would  only  be  needed  for  new  recruits  and  thus  2nd  year  costs  onwards  would  be  much 
lower. 

Victims support services – establish services or support existing ones. Minimum standard. 
Total cost: Less than €24 – €27 million 
Cost for accreditation: €477,000 – €3.58 million 
Cost of services: Less than €23.5 million  for 17 States that have no or limited VSO 

to establish nationwide services. 

Costs  are  based  on  calculations  in  option  2.  Additional  costings  are  provided  in  relation  to 
accreditation  (based  on  restorative  justice  accreditation)  since  this  option  requires  that  services  are 
provided by competent practitioners.  

Interpretation and Translation – provided on basis of proportionality 
Total costs: Less than €89.29 – €205.49 million 
Translation: €87.42 – €203.61 million   
Interpretation: €1.88 million   

As with option 2, this option is difficult to cost. A proportionality test has been introduced to provide 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
where  necessary  and  to  a  necessary  extent.  This  should  effectively  reduce  cost  implications  in 
particular in relation to low level crimes (where for instance a simple summary may be provided) or 
where the victim has indicated they do not wish to receive translations etc.  

Translation: Costs are based on translating an average of 30 pages. On this basis, the total cost for 
the 9395 cases involving foreign victims in those 12 States that don't currently provide interpretation 
and translation ranges from €87.42 – €203.61 million.

Interpretation: It has been estimated that the average cost of interpretation for the accused for 1 case 
is around €200 . Based on this costing, it is estimated that interpretation for the 12 States that do not 
currently provide interpretation for all victims would cost around €1.88 million  at a maximum. 

However,  these  costings  only  provide  a  baseline.  Since  Member  States  will  apply  a  proportionality 
test, it is assumed that costs can be reduced. In addition, interpretation costs are based on UK figures 
for interpretation. It has been observed that interpretation in the UK is provided to a very high level 
and it can therefore be assumed that these costs are at the maximum end of the scale.  

Restorative Justice Services (RJS) – safeguards where RJS exists: 
Total cost: €0 – €878 million 

(accreditation and legal advice for 21 Member States) 

Costs are based on calculations made in option 2. 

Attendance of trial – assessment on exclusion, trial date info, reimbursement 
Total cost: €240 – €242.9 million 
Cost of providing information: - €0 – €2.9 million 
Reimbursement: €240 million 

Key costs relate to informing the victim of the trial date and reimbursing the victim for attendance. 
Assessment  of  exclusion  of  the  victim  is  not  expected  to  impose  significant  financial  costs  though 
some additional administrative burden will be experienced. 

Information  on  trial  date:  Costs  are  established  for  the  19  States  that  do  not  currently  inform  all 
victims of the trial date (CY, DK, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU,IT, LU, MT, NL, PT, RO, SK, SI, ES,SE, 
UK) though in reality they will be lower since many victims are witnesses. Cost are based on mailing 
information to victims and are estimated at €2.9 million.  These costs could be reduced to near zero by 
sending the official communication by E-mail. 

Reimbursement  for  attendance:  Costs  are  established  for  the  9  States  which  only  reimburse 
witnesses or parties to proceedings or have no provisions on reimbursement ((BE, CY, DK, EE, IE, 
IT,  UK,  MT  and  ES.  Based  on  studies,  the  total  costs  for  these  9  states  amounts  to  around  €240 
million.  

Separate  waiting  areas:  progressive  adaptation  of  existing  court  premises  to  have  separate 
waiting areas for victims and establishment of such area in newly constructed court premises 
Maximum €200,000 - €230,000 per newly constructed waiting area 

This cost is very difficult to estimate since little information is available from the Member States. We 
can therefore not provide an EU total cost on this measure. 

To  get  an  indication,  the  external  study  relied  on  information  retrieved  from  the  UK  Ministry  of 
Justice, where the design of a court with complete separation for victims (Sunderland Justice Centre) 
had just been completed. In the Sunderland Justice Centre, the extra witness area over and above the 
normal vulnerable witness suite is about 10 sq m per court; the extra circulation is about 40 sq m per 
court, thus totalling about 50 sq m per court. The cost for building separate waiting areas in a new 
court68  is  in  the  range  of  £3,500  -  £4,000  (€4,000  -  €4,600)  per  m2.  The  cost  of  separate  witness 
waiting room is therefore about £175 000 - £200 000 (€200,000 - €230,000) per courtroom.  

With  only  one  example  these  figures  are  not  particularly  robust.  Clearly  much  depends  upon  the 
design  of  the  building  and  any  site  constraints  placed  on  the  design,  as  well  as  the  general 
construction costs in a particular Member State. Surveys on international construction costs available 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
  
 
building costs average. Therefore, while we cannot speculate on specific costs for individual Member 
States, we can assume that the cost for Member States to build one court room of 10 m2 and of 40 m2 
extra circulation area are likely not to exceed €200,000 - €230,000. 

Considering that only four Member States (LT, NL, RO, UK) already have an obligation to provide 
separate waiting areas for victim and offender (conditional or unrestricted), the cost implication for 
the  other  24  Member  States  will  potentially  be  significant  depending  on  the  degree  of  ambition  in 
providing such separate areas (e.g. whether such premises should be connected to separate entrances 
and  corridors).  As  we  do  not  have  any  information  on  the  possibilities  and  plans  in  the  different 
Member  States  to  adapt  existing  court  premises,  or  on  plans  for  the  construction  of  future  court 
houses, we cannot estimate a total EU cost for this option. However, a number of factors are likely to 
reduce annual cost implications since we do not expect large numbers of new courts to be built every 
year. In addition, the size of such a waiting area is likely to be much smaller for many courts than the 
example of the UK court referred to above (50m2 including a separate corridor). 

Social impact   Beyond  the  benefits  identified  in  option  2,  enforceable  common  standards  as  regards  both  the 
availability  and  the  quality  of  services  would  significantly  improve  the  situation  of  specific 
categories of victims (including family members of a murdered, children, disabled, elderly etc.). This 
positive impact is strengthened by an obligation for Member States to carry out a needs assessment 
for  each  victim  to  ensure  their  individual  needs  are  properly  met  as  well  as  by  a  mandatory  list  of 
services  which  all  victims  are  entitled  to.  This  latter  measure  would  significantly  improve  the 
situation of victims, in particular in those Member States which do not yet have a strong culture of 
victim  support  services  and  which  might  otherwise  be  tempted  to  offer  only  a  limited  range  of 
services. 

As regards the victim's access to justice, this option goes clearly beyond option 2 since it introduces 
mandatory  rules  as  regards  the  victim's  right  to  be  informed  about  the  process,  the  right  to 
reimbursement  for  attending  trial,  the  right  to  have  the  decision  not  to  prosecute  reviewed.  This 
positive  impact  is  even  more  important  in  cross-border  cases  since  the  victim  will  be  entitled  to 
interpretation and translation of court proceedings.  

The introduction of minimum requirements where restorative justice services are already used will 
clearly strengthen the individual's right in the 21 Member States which use such schemes. 

The  obligation  to  minimise  direct  contact  between  the  victim  and  the  offender  in  court  rooms  and 
police stations would have a positive impact on the protection of the victim. However, this obligation 
is to some extent put in place progressively, thus delaying the positive impact of this option in time. 

Fundamental 
rights 

This option would have a significant positive impact on the fundamental rights of victims. It would go 
beyond the impacts of policy option 2 in several respects.  

•  The right to human dignity and right to the integrity of the person would be strengthened by 
mandatory  rules  on  training  for  all  professionals  in  contact  with  victims  and  by  introducing 
minimum  standards  as  regards  availability  and  quality  of  victim  support  services  that  would  be 
made available also to an immediate family and dependents of the victim of murder. Assessments 
of  victims  would  allow  specific  needs  of  certain  victims  who  do  not  fall  under  a  presumed 
category of vulnerability to be addressed. This procedure also contributes to the fact that victims 
are granted adequate compensation and may not need to take part in formal proceedings. Clearly 
obligations or standards for RJS will provide strong protection of victims in particular, in relation 
to their fundamental rights. 

•  The  introduction  of  a  review  mechanism  against  the  decision  not  to  prosecute  would  have  a 
positive  impact  on  the  right  to  an  effective  remedy  and  to  a  fair  trial.  This  impact  will  very 
much  depend  on  the  way  this  right  is  implemented  since  option  3s  leaves  much  discretion  to 
Member States. The victim would be entitled to receive information about the criminal procedure, 
to attend trial (unless there are exceptional circumstances), to receive interpretation and translation 
in the relevant steps of the criminal proceedings and where proportionate. In order to mitigate the 
risk that the right to a fair trial of the accused could be unproportionally limited, the option recalls 
that the victim could be excluded from trial in exceptional circumstances which will be defined by 
the Member States of the judicial authority. There is a risk that strengthening the victim's right to 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
fair trial might impact the fair trial of the accused. Attendance of victims will have to respect the 
right of fair trial and defence of the offender.  

•  As regards protection of personal data, when implementing several of the proposed  measures, 
such as the operation of victims support services or the needs assessment, sensitive personal data 
may  be  treated  or  processed.  Such  data  shall  be  collected  for  specified,  explicit  and  legitimate 
purposes and processed fairly, lawfully and in a way that is compatible with those purposes.  

•  As  regards  the  rights  of  the  child,  rights  of  the  elderly  and  the  integration  of  people  with 
disabilities,  option  3a  clearly  goes  beyond  option  2  by  increasing  the  number  and  quality  of 
support services for several specific groups of vulnerable victims as well as of family members. 
Children and people with disabilities would be also presumed to be vulnerable. Particular attention 
would be also paid to the training of the professionals on how to adequately address the needs of 
these groups.  

•  The cross-border provision of protection measures under option 3a has the same impact on all the 
fundamental rights as option 2. The right to private and family life will also be strengthened by the 
reduction of direct contact between victims and offenders in court rooms and police stations. 

Impact on MS 
judicial 
system 

There could be a large impact on Member States judicial system, in particular in those Member States 
which have a low standard as regards the standing of victims in the judicial procedure. However, this 
option  does  not  contain  concrete  measures  which  would  have  the  most  serious  impact  on  Member 
States' judicial system (e.g. judicial review as regards the decision not to prosecute, restorative justice 
as mandatory part of the judicial procedure) and, wherever needed, would leave sufficient discretion 
to Member States in implementation.  

5.1.4.  Policy option 3b: Medium/High prescription 

Expected Impact 

Effectiveness 
in meeting 
objectives 

High:  This  option  is  predicted  to  be  highly  efficient  in  terms  of  achieving  the  general  and  specific 
objectives. The concrete obligations imposed on Member States and the quality standards introduced 
will allow monitoring and effective infringement procedures at EU level. For those measures where 
there  is  not  yet  a  common  culture  among  Member  States  (e.g.  establishment  of  restorative  justice 
services) this option would start by creating a common culture (through awareness raising, exchange 
of best practices), whilst also setting certain minimum quality standards. A range of synergies could 
occur for instance where victims support organisations are strengthened they may provide training at 
reduced costs. Where training of practitioners is effective, their increased awareness of victim support 
and  restorative  justice  will  allow  those  organisations  to  plug  into  the  criminal  justice  system  more 
easily  and  at  a  lower  overall  cost.  In  the  most  well  established  victim  support  organisations,  needs 
assessments are carried out by those organisations rather than government, at a much lower cost. 

Political 
Feasibility 

Medium  -  Given  the  obligations  imposed  on  Member  States  and  the  costing  involved,  negotiation 
and implementation will entail severe discussion, in particular for those Member States which have 
the lowest standards in place. This option goes further than option 3a with regard to restorative justice 
and requires Member States to establish or enhance such services, which might be controversial. 

Financial and 
economic 
impact 

Total costs are expected to be the in the  higher middle of the four options (excluding Status quo). 
Almost all costs will fall to public administrations on both a national and local level.  

Training 
(1st  year  costs,  range  of  cost  reduction 
factors exist) 
Victim Support Services 
(Annual running costs) 
Interpretation/ translation 

Minimum 
Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) 

Maximum 
Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) 

4.61 
(opportunity cost: 
71.27) 
< 24 

17.28 
(opportunity cost: 
72.29) 
< 27 

< 89.29 

< 205.49 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
(annual costs) 
Restorative Justice 
(Annual running costs) 
Attendance of trial 
(Annual Costs) 
TOTAL  
Separate waiting areas  
(per 50m2 new waiting area per court) 

20.08 

240 

377.98 

2,641.58  

242.9 

3,134.25 
0.23 

Training – legal practitioners trained, training available for judges, some detail on content:  

Training of police and judiciary: €4.61 – €17.28 million  (based on single training scenario for 
all practitioners assuming no Member State currently provides training) 
Opportunity cost of attending training: €71.27 million – €72.29 million 
No figures available for prosecutors or court staff. 

Costs are based on calculations made in option 3a.  

Victims support services – establish services or support existing ones. Minimum standard. 
Total cost: Less than €24 – €27 million 
Cost for accreditation: €477,000 – €3.58 million 
Cost of services: Less than €23.5 million  for 17 States that have no or limited VSO 

to establish nationwide services. 

Costs are based on calculations made in option 3a.  

Interpretation and Translation – provided on basis of proportionality 
Total costs: Less than €89.29 – €205.49 million 
Translation: €87.42 – €203.61 million   
Interpretation: €1,879,000   

Costs are based on calculations made in option 3a.  

Restorative Justice Services (RJS) – establish or enhance RJS based on minimum standards 

Total  cost of establishing RJS and  apply minimum  standards  (including  establishment  costs, 
accreditation and legal advice:  
€20.1 million to €2.6 billion 

Total cost of establishing RJS (in 6 Member States):  
€19.6 million (at €75 per case) to €1.7 billion (at €6570 per case). 

Total cost of accreditation: €477,296 –  €3.58 million  (assuming implemented by all 27 States) 

(assuming  implemented  by  all  27  States) 
Total  cost  of  legal  advice:  €645  –  €938  million 
Note that this cost will only be included in the maximum costing since Member States are not 
obliged to carry it out. 

This option requires that restorative justice services are provided and establishes certain standards to 
be achieved including that practitioners are competent in restorative justice. Costings are provided for 
establishing RJS and for implementing the two most expensive safeguards accreditation schemes and 
provision of legal advice (in accordance with the UN guidelines on RJS safeguards). Further details 
are provided in Annex 10. 

Cost of establishing and running RJS: 21 Member States have some form of RJS in place. The cost 
estimates are thus made on the basis of only those six States which do not have RJS (CY, DK, LT, 
MT, NL, SK). The cost per case can vary widely from €75 in France €6570 per case in the UK. Based 
on a calculation using 261,507 court cases in the six States concerned (assuming there is a 50% take 
up  of  RJS  by  the  approximately  523.000  victims  with  court  cases  in  these  countries),  the  cost  for 
establishing  RJS  could  range  from  €19.6  million  (at  €75  per  case)  to  €1.7  billion  (at  €6570  per 
case).  

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
include all 27 Member States: €477,296 – €3.58 million .  

The cost of legal advice is based on the same calculations as in option 3a, except that they include all 
27 Member States: €645 – €938 million. 

Attendance of trial – assessment on exclusion, trial date info, reimbursement 
Total cost: €240 – €242.9 million 
Cost of providing information: €0 – €2.9 million 
Reimbursement: €240 million 

Costs are based on calculations made in option 3a.  

Separate  waiting  areas  –  progressive  adaptation  of  existing  court  premises  to  have  separate 
waiting areas for victims and establishment of such area in newly constructed court premises 
Maximum €200,000 - €230,000 per newly constructed waiting area 

Costs are based on calculations made in option 3a.  

Social impact   This option has the same social impact as option 3a with the additional consideration that restorative 
justice services will be strengthened. This is a service that is not yet a common practice in all Member 
States  and  the  requirement  to  establish  and  apply  minimum  standards  as  regards  the  quality  of  the 
services provided in this area can potentially significantly increase the victims' feeling that justice is 
done and that the criminal justice systems cares about their feelings. 

Fundamental 
rights 

This  option  has  the  same  positive  impacts  on  fundamental  rights  as  option  3a.  The  following 
considerations should be noted with regard to restorative justice services: 

•  The right to human dignity and right to the integrity of the person would be strengthened by 
the  increased  possibilities  for  the  victim  to  benefit  from  some  form  of  restorative  justice.  This 
does  not  negatively  impact  the  corresponding  rights  of  the  offender  since  this  technique  always 
requires the consent of both parties involved and consent of the state authority. Indeed, it has been 
found  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  offenders.  This  option  includes  the  elaboration  of  common 
standards and safeguards ensuring the respect of fundamental rights during this procedure. 

Impact on MS 
judicial 
system 

This  option  has  the  same  or  even  larger  impacts  on  Member  States'  judicial  systems  as  option  3a. 
Under  this  option,  Member  States  would  in  addition  have  the  obligation  to  establish  or  enhance 
restorative  justice  services  which  could  have  a  significant  impact,  in  particular  in  those  Member 
States which either do not have such services in place or have low standards for such services.  

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
5.1.5.  Policy option 4: High prescription 

Expected Impact 

Effectiveness 
in meeting 
objectives 

Very  high:  This  policy  option  is  predicted  to  yield  an  even  higher  level  of  efficiency  in  terms  of 
achieving the general and specific objectives than options 3a and 3b. Greater efficiency is expected in 
particular in terms of ensuring that all victims in the EU are treated with respect and dignity since the 
option entails detailed common quality requirements as regards training, individual need assessment 
and the respect of the specific needs of vulnerable and indirect victims. Equally, this option is likely to 
demonstrate higher efficiency in relation to achieving the specific objective of ensuring that victims 
are supported (broad range of services available through independent non governmental bodies), have 
access to justice (right to judicial review, full interpretation and translation of court proceedings free 
of  charge,  full  reimbursement  of  attendance  to  trial  etc.)  and  are  entitled  to  benefit  from  the  most 
important  forms  of  restorative  justice.  Similar  synergies  to  those  described  in option 3a  and  3b  will 
also be achieved. 

Political 
Feasibility 

Low: Given the high level of obligations imposed on Member States and the high cost implications, 
this  option  will  be  difficult  to  negotiate  and  to  implement.  In  particular,  the  high  cost  of  providing 
legal advice may have to be borne by victim support and restorative justice organisations which may 
not be in a position to do so. 

Financial and 
economic 
impact 

Total costs are expected to be the highest of the four options (excluding Status quo). Almost all costs 
will fall to public administrations on both a national and local level. Depending on the Member States' 
implementation,  victim  support  and  restorative  justice  services  may  bear  the  costs  of  implementing 
any new safeguards in their sectors, such as training or accreditation.  

Training 
(1st  year  costs,  range  of  cost  reduction 
factors exist) 
Victim Support Services 
(Annual running costs) 
Interpretation/ translation 
(annual costs) 
Restorative Justice 
(Annual running costs) 
Attendance of trial 
(Annual Costs) 
TOTAL  
Separate waiting areas 
(per 50m2 new waiting area per court) 

Minimum 
Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) 

Maximum 
Total EU cost 
(Millions of euros) 

4.61  
(opportunity 
71.27) 
4,074  

cost: 

17.28 
(opportunity 
72.29) 
6,617 

cost: 

89.29 

20.08 

240 

4,427.98 

205.49 

2,641.58  

242.9 

9,724.25 
0.23 

Training: mandatory training for police, prosecutors, judges, court staff 

Total training of police and judiciary – €4.61 – €17.28 million 
for all practitioners assuming no Member State currently provides training) 
Lost police and judicial time - €71.27 million – €72.29 million  

(based on single training scenario 

Costs are based on the same calculations as in option 3a and 3b. However, this option makes training 
for judges mandatory and is therefore expected to be more costly than that option. 

Victims Support Services (VSS) – establish or support independent VSS. Legal advice shall be 
provided. 
Total Cost – €4.07 – €6.6 billion 
Cost of services – Less than €23.5 million for 17 States that have no or limited VSO 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost for accreditation: €477,000 – €3.58 million 
Cost for legal aid: €4.05 – €6.59 billion 

Costs are based on calculations provided in option 3a and 3b. However, in this option, VSS are 
required to be independent, autonomous and to provide legal advice or assistance. It can be assumed 
that whilst most costs should remain the same, the provision of legal advice could significantly 
increase costs.  

It is difficult to calculate the cost of providing such advice. Some victim support organisations already 
do so either through in house or external lawyers. Costs can vary greatly depending on how advice is 
given but also on the nature of the advice. If it is basic and related to information on general rights etc 
this could be provided by less qualified persons. However, legal counsel could be extremely 
expensive.  

Costs are based on national hourly wages of lawyers in Member States, 1 hour of advice being 
provided by an external lawyer. On this basis the total EU cost would be between €4.05 – €6.59 
billion. 

Interpretation and Translation – provided for all victims during proceedings 

Total Costs: €89.29 – €205.49 million  

Costs  are  based  on  calculations  made  in  option  3a  and  3b.  However,  no  flexibility  is  provided  in 
relation  to  when  translation  and  interpretation  is  provided  which  will  minimise  the  possibility  to 
reduce costs.  

Restorative Justice Services (RJS) – establish or enhance RJS based on minimum standards 

Total  cost  of  establishing  RJS  and  apply  minimum  standards  (including  establishment  costs, 
accreditation and legal advice:  
€20.1 million to €2.6 billion 

Total cost of establishing RJS (in 6 Member States):  
€19.6 million (at €75 per case) to €1.7 billion (at €6570 per case). 

Total cost of accreditation: €477,296 –  €3.58 million  (assuming implemented by all 27 States) 

(assuming  implemented  by  all  27  States) 
Total  cost  of  legal  advice:  €645  –  €938  million 
Note that this cost will only be included in the maximum costing since Member States are not 
obliged to carry it out.). 

Costs are based on the same calculations as in option 3b. However, this option make RJS mandatory 
and in accordance with certain standards and is therefore expected to be more costly than that option. 

Attendance of trial – right to attend trial, informed of date and reimbursed, availability considered. 

Total cost – > €240 – 242.6 million 

Cost of providing information: > €0 – 2.6 million 

Reimbursement: > €240 million  

Costs  are  based  on  calculations  made  in  option  3a  and  3b.  However,  since  full  information  should 
provided to victims about the attendance of trial and also the victims availability should be taken into 
account when determining the date of the trial, the costs of reimbursement are likely to be higher. 

There are no figures available in relation to victims attendance of any matter related to proceedings, 
but even if we assume as a minimum that the victim has to attend two further sessions of questioning 
during the investigation process this would treble reimbursement costs. 

Separate waiting areas: all courts, existing and new, must have separate waiting areas for victims 
Maximum €200,000 - €230,000 per newly constructed waiting area 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
would  be  considerably  higher  considering  that  Member  States  would  need  to  establish  separate 
waiting areas for victims in both existing and new waiting areas in all their court houses.  

Social impact 

The social impact of this option will go clearly beyond the impact of option 3a and 3b since it will 
introduce detailed and enforceable rights for all victims. The advantages compared to option 3a and 3b 
concern the respect for the need of specific categories of victims (full range of services available to 
vulnerable victims such as children) and access to justice (full judicial review of the decision not to 
prosecute) as well as the respect of the victim's privacy (complete separation of victim and offender in 
all courts).  

Fundamental 
rights 

The impact of option 4 would be quasi identical as for option 3a and 3b with the difference that the 
impact  is  sometimes  stronger  and  fundamental  rights  of  more  individuals  are  enhanced  due  to  its 
higher level of ambition. 

Impact on MS 
judicial 
systems 

There is a significant impact on Member States judicial system, including in those where the standing 
of  victims  is  already  a  priority.  All  Member  States  would  be  obliged  to  introduce  major  changes  to 
their national criminal procedure laws. 

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS  

6.1. 

Comparative assessment of policy options 

Although highly feasible, Policy option 1 (status quo) does not meet the identified objectives 
and is therefore not considered. Policy option 2 is also poor and does not sufficiently fulfil the 
operational objectives that the European Commission intends to achieve with the adoption of 
the new measures.  

Policy option 4 is the most likely to meet all the objectives and to meet them to the greatest 
extent. However, it is the most prescriptive providing Member States with the least amount of 
flexibility.  It  also  imposes  additional  obligations  on  Member  States.  As  a  result  costs  are 
likely  to  be  much  higher  than  in  the  other  options  and  it  is  the  least  feasible  in  terms  of  it 
being agreed. The degree of additional benefit that could be achieved is not considered to be 
proportionate to the additional costs.  

Policy options 3a and 3b are also highly likely to meet the objectives though not to the same 
extent as option 4. However, with increased flexibility for States these options are both more 
feasible  to  negotiate  and  bear  a  lower  financial  burden  than  option  4.  Furthermore,  risks  of 
reduced  effectiveness  will  be  mitigated  through  practical  measures.  Nevertheless,  it  is 
considered that in relation to the specific measure on restorative justice services the feasibility 
and cost implications are such that the mixed option 3a is preferred. Implementing option 3a 
will in particular considerably reduce the total cost of implementation compared to option 3b. 
Policy option 3a is therefore the preferred option. 

6.2. 

The preferred option 

Implementing the preferred Policy option 3a would help achieve the following results: 

•  Adoption  of  legislation  by  European  Parliament  and  Council  (operational  objectives 

referred to in brackets): 

–  Easily  accessible  victim  support  services are  available  in  all  Member  States  and 

meet specified minimum standards of service (C1).  

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
–  Police,  prosecutors  and  court  staff  are  trained  in  victims'  matters  in  all  Member 

States. Judicial studies are available to judges (A2).  

–  Mechanisms exist in all Member States to assess the individual needs of victims 

and to identify vulnerable victims (A3).  

–  Where a person is identified as vulnerable certain identified minimum services are 

available to them (A3).  

–  Interpretation  and  translation  is  available  to  victims  during  proceedings  in  all 
Member States to an extent proportionate to the circumstances of the case (D2).  

–  Where  Restorative  justice  services  are  used,  certain  safeguards  and  minimum 

quality standards should be applied (E1).  

–  Where  requested,  and  based  on  mutual  recognition,  protection  measures  are 
provided  to  persons  already  benefitting  from  a  protection  measure,  when  they 
travel or move abroad (B1).  

–  The victim has a right to request a review of the prosecution in all Member States. 
The exact mechanism for carrying out such a review is determined at a national 
level (D3).  

–  Exclusion  of  a  victim  from  a  trial  is  based  on  an  individual  assessment  and  the 

victim is informed of the date of trial (D1).  

–  Contact  between  the  offender  and  victim  is  minimised  during  proceedings.  Any 
new  courts  are  designed  with  the  possibility  to  provide  separate  waiting  areas 
(B2).  

–  In general the legislation will relate to direct victims. However, rights will apply 
to  the  immediate  family  of  murder  victims.  Support  services  and  protection  will 
be available to the immediate family of all victims (A1) 

•  Establishment  of  practical  measures  to  accompany  legislative  action  to  facilitate 

implementation and to consider future EU action: 

A  list  of  appropriate  practical  measures  shall  be  established  to  facilitate  implementation, 
including:  

–  Study on state compensation and offender restitution. 

–  Study on legal assistance and legal aid for victims of crime. 

–  Support projects to develop best practice which will provide Member States with 
a  more  detailed  understanding  of  how  best  to  achieve  the  objectives  in  the 
legislation.  

–  The  European  Commission  will  also  carry  out  its  own  projects  and  studies  to 
further  develop  knowledge  in  the  field.  This  could  include  for  instance  the 
establishment  of  interactive  websites  in  all  Member  States  to  enable  victims  to 
better  understand  the  criminal  justice  process  and  their  role  in  it.  Or  it  could 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
involve the development of training programmes.  

Whilst costs for the preferred option could range from 358 million to around €1.4 billion, this 
amounts  to  only  about  €5  –  19  per  victim  (when  considering  75  million  direct  victims  of 
crime in the EU). In addition, as explained in the analysis, a range of factors a likely to result 
in costs being lower. 

It  should  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  action  envisaged  is  likely  to  reduce  the  significant 
costs associated with crime (extrapolated to around €233 billion). In particular, effective and 
proper treatment of victims can help reduce the emotional and physical impact of the crime 
which can in turn have a positive economic impact in terms of the speed with which victims 
return  to  work,  increased  productivity  due  to  faster  and  better  recovery  etc.  Moreover,  the 
action on mutual recognition of protection measures has a direct impact on crime prevention. 
Putting effective protection measures in place reduces repeat victimisation and the costs saved 
in terms of police and judiciary interventions for not having to deal with such crimes can be 
significant. 

In terms of fundamental rights, policy option 3a will bring an overall positive impact on the 
fundamental rights of the victim. The measures relating to protection could have an impact on 
the rights of the offenders and will require to be accompanied by the necessary safeguards to 
ensure compliance with fundamental rights. 

Action  under  policy  option  3a  has  a  clear  EU  added  value.  It  builds  on  and  reinforces  the 
existing  national  and  EU  legal  frameworks  and  will  ensure  that  victims  of  crime  are  given 
non-discriminatory minimum level of rights across the EU, irrespective of their nationality or 
country of residence. The mutual recognition mechanism for protection measures is entirely 
new and will cover both criminal and civil law matters, and the EU added value in such cross 
border situations is considerable.  

With  this  action  the  EU  can  contribute  to  make  crime  victims'  needs  a  central  part  of  the 
justice  systems,  alongside  catching  and  punishing  the  offender.  This  action  will  raise  the 
standards on victims' rights in the Member States and will ensure that victims benefit from a 
level  playing  field  across  the  EU.  These  minimum  safeguards  and  standards  will  facilitate 
judicial cooperation and increase quality of justice. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The timeframe for transposition of the EU legislation by Member States will be up to three 
years  from  its  entry  into  force.  The  legislation  would  create  a  range  of  Member  State 
obligations  which  although  mirroring  to  a  large  extent  existing  international  standards,  are 
nevertheless in existence to varying degrees in Member States. It is expected that a three-year 
deadline  would  provide  Member  States  with  sufficient  time  to  effect  necessary  changes  to 
their respective national laws and practice. Potential risks to implementation in time will be 
identified  in  an  Implementation  Plan  accompanying  proposed  legislation  which  set  out 
relevant measures by the Commission aimed at countering these risks.  

Providing  for  a  robust  monitoring  and  evaluation  mechanism  is  crucial  to  ensure  that  the 
rights envisaged in the legislation are complied with in practice. The legislation will stipulate 
that  Member  States'  should  report  on  the  effective  implementation  of  legislative  or  non-
legislative  measures  based  on  the  nature  of  the  proposed  changes.  Annex  11  contains 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
indicators  to  evaluate  the  implementation  of  the  proposal  against  policy  objectives.  Data 
provided by Eurostat, Eurobarometer and the Council of Europe will assist in the formation of 
a useful baseline for monitoring the situation. This may be coupled by a Commission funded 
victim survey prior to and subsequent to implementation of the Directive. 

Besides  quantitative  data  provided  by  Member  States,  other  possible  sources  of  qualitative 
information on legislative and practical compliance will be gathered from the Justice Forum, 
the ECtHR, the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary, Victim Support Europe and 
its  members  and  the  European  Forum  for  Restorative  Justice  and  its  members.  If  the 
anticipated review of the mandate of the Fundamental Rights Agency extends that mandate to 
former  third  pillar  areas,  it  could  play  a  role  in  collecting  data,  carrying  out  studies  and 
compiling reports on the rights covered in the Directive.  

Member States should be encouraged to collect relevant data to assist in this process as there 
is reliable empirical data is currently weak.  

The Commission envisages carrying out a specific empirical study with an emphasis on data 
collection 3-5 years into the implementation of the proposal to gain in-depth quantitative and 
qualitative insights into the effectiveness of the proposal. The data, combined with the Victim 
surveys would enable the Commission to evaluate actual compliance in Member States more 
robustly than using the means hitherto available as well as an evaluation on the perception of 
victims in term of the meeting of their needs. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1 – CONSULTATION OF PARTIES 

ANNEX  

The Commission first hosted an experts' meeting on 17 November 2008 where there 
was broad agreement on the need to improve the situation of victims in particular in 
relation to the provision of support. In 2009, the Commission pursued the preparation 
process of the Impact Assessment and a full consultation process therefore began in 
early  2010.  The  Commission's  five  minimum  standards  on  consultations  were 
followed.  Experts 
law 
enforcement  agencies,  NGOs,  international  organisations  and  universities  took  part 
in  detailed  discussions  on  the  legislative  plans  well  before  the  conclusion  of  this 
impact assessment. 

from  different  background 

including  governments, 

A  meeting  of  academic  experts,  NGOs  and  Member  States  was  held  on  18-19 
February 2010 and was followed by a further Justice Forum on 14 April 2010. Key 
messages resulting from these meetings were: 

•  discussion  on  how  to  identify  vulnerable  victims  (children,  trafficked  persons, 

etc); 

•  the need to focus on implementing and monitoring the existing legislation; 

•  the need to change practitioners' attitudes and culture through training on rights of 

victims of crime; 

•  the need to provide information, protection and compensation to victims; 

•  the need for coordination of victims support organisations; 

•  the importance of having minimum standards for courtrooms and the layout of the 

courts in Europe; 

•  the importance of cultural competences and qualifications of the interpreter; 

•  the need to ensure the right to remedy to victims; 

•  the idea of having a single instrument covering compensation and victims rights;  

•  the access to restorative justice. 

On  25  May  2010,  a  meeting  was  also  held  with  Member  State's  to  discuss  the 
specific issue of protection orders in both civil and criminal proceedings. Citing the 
efficiency  of  national  protection  measures,  these  experts  considered  that  mutual 
recognition is not necessarily the best option to ensure effective protection of cross-
border victims. Recognising that speed and flexibility matter more than the kind of 
procedure  (criminal,  civil  or  administrative),  EU  action  could  be  useful  to  ensure 
that: 

•  all MS have an efficient protection measure in place;  

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
•  when issuing their national protection measure, all MS ensure adequate assistance 

to foreign applicants (translation, legal advice); 

•  the  victim  does  not  need  to  prove  again  the  facts  (circulation  of  evidence);  this 
could  be  done  either  via  rule  on  recognition  on  evidence  or  via  exchange  of 
information rules. 

The  European  Commission  also  contracted  an  external  Study  to  assist  with  the 
impact  assessment  in  identifying  the  needs  of  victims  of  crime,  which  measures 
could be established to meet these needs and to examine the impacts of any possible 
options.69 

A  further  study  was  contracted  to  examine  options  in  relation  to  the  specific 
objective of ensuring that the protection gained through a protection order is not lost 
when a protected person travels or moves to another Member States.70 

In the middle of the preparation process of the Impact Assessment, the Commission 
held a public consultation from 15.07.2010 to 30.09.2010, open to all members of the 
public,  to  non-governmental  and  governmental  organisations  asking  their  views  on 
what action the EU should take to improve the situation of victims of crime.  

This public consultation was held to confirm developing views and initial results of 
the  external  study  as  well  as  to  identify  if  any  other  needs  of  victims  had  been 
missed. A summary of the results of that consultation are found at Annex 3 but can 
be briefly listed as: 

•  Victims’ right to privacy must be protected; all victims should be provided with 
some  type  of  immediate  assistance;  translation  and  interpretation  are  crucial  to 
ensure  that  victims  fully  understand  their  rights  and  the  information  they  are 
given; and minimum standards should apply to Restorative Justice proceedings; 

•  Victim Support Organisations are indispensible for providing effective services to 

victims; 

•  Cooperation  and  best  practice  sharing  between  all  organisations  involved  with 
victims  within  a  Member  State  and  the  EU  is  crucial  across  a  large  number  of 
issues,  including  victims’  needs  assessment,  implementing  EU-wide  protection 
measures, improving the quality of practitioners’ training; 

•  Both  victims’  rights  and  defendant’s  rights  should  be  respected  during  criminal 

proceedings. 

In addition to direct consultation, the Commission has drawn on a number of studies 
and publications.  Particular reference is made to the: 

•  Victims in Europe (VinE) Project71, carried out by the Portuguese Victim Support 
Organisation APAV. This project involved a legal and organisational analysis of 
the implementation of the 2001 Framework Decision on the Standing of victims in 
criminal proceedings 72;  

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
•  Project ONE73,  carried  out  by  the  Bulgarian  Centre  for  the  Study  of  Democracy 
again  analysed  implementation  of  the  2001  Framework  Decision  as  well  as  the 
Compensation Directive. 

Moreover, the analysis of the replies to the questionnaire to delegations with a view 
to  a  possible  submission  by  Spain  and  other  Member  States  of  an  initiative  for  a 
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Protection 
Order74  showed  the  support  of  all  Member  States  to  legal  measures  for  protect 
victims of crime. 

Overall, the consultation process has revealed widespread agreement on the need to 
substantially  improve  the  situation  of  victims.  There  is  general  agreement  that  the 
2001  Framework  Decision,  whilst  being  comprehensive,  has  many  vague  articles 
with limited obligations which creates difficulties in implementation and reduces the 
likelihood of implementation. 

The input received during the consultation has been taken into account in the Impact 
Assessment  and  has  resulted  in  the  identification  of  the  five  needs  of  victims,  the 
development of the problem analysis, objectives and options.  

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 2 –SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

DIRECTORATE GENERAL JUSTICE 

Analysis of Public Consultation Responses: 
Taking Action on Rights, Support and Protection of Victims of Crime 
and Violence 

Disclaimer 

In  keeping  with  our  values  of  integrity  and  excellence,  Matrix  has  taken  reasonable 
professional  care  in  the  preparation  of  this  report.    Although  Matrix  has  made 
reasonable efforts to obtain information from a broad spectrum of sources, we cannot 
guarantee absolute accuracy or completeness of information/data submitted, nor do we 
accept  responsibility  for  recommendations  that  may  have  been  omitted  due  to 
particular or exceptional conditions and circumstances. 

Confidentiality  

This  report  has  been  prepared  for  the  client  within  the  terms  of  our  contract,  and  contains 
information which is proprietary to Matrix and confidential to our relationship.  This may not be 
disclosed to third parties without prior agreement. 

Except where permitted under the provisions of confidentiality above, this document may not be 
reproduced, retained or stored beyond the period of validity, or transmitted in whole, or in part, 
without Matrix Insight’s prior, written permission. 

EN 

© Matrix Insight Ltd, 2009  

51 

Any enquiries about this report should be directed to enquiries@matrixknowledge.com  

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

1.0 

2.0 

3.0 

4.0 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

4.4 

4.5 

5.0 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 53 

Respondent Characteristics ........................................................................................ 54 

Response Characteristics............................................................................................ 55 

Key Findings .............................................................................................................. 57 

Recognition ................................................................................................................ 57 

Protection.................................................................................................................... 60 

Support ....................................................................................................................... 63 

Access to Justice......................................................................................................... 64 

Compensation and Restoration................................................................................... 65 

Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 66 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

Introduction 

In  2011,  the  European  Commission  intends  to  adopt  a  package  of  measures  to  improve  the 
rights  and  support  available  to  victims  of  crime  across  Europe.  To  inform  the  Commission’s 
work in this area, a public consultation ‘Taking Action on the Rights, Support and Protection of 
Victims  of  Crime  and  Violence’  was  launched  giving  stakeholders  the  opportunity  to  present 
their views on existing difficulties and suggestions for concrete actions that could be developed 
at EU level. The consultation was launched by DG Justice on 15 July 2010 and closed on 30 
September  2010.75  This  report  summarises  and  analyses  the  responses  to  the  public 
consultation. All replies received until 8 October 2010 are included in the analysis.  

The consultation questionnaire is structured around the five victims’ needs areas: Recognition, 
Protection,  Support,  Access  to  Justice  and  Compensation  and  Restoration.  The  questionnaire 
contains  17  questions  in  total,  including  5  general  questions  and  12  questions  dealing 
specifically  with  the  aforementioned  needs  areas.  The  questionnaire  was  made  available  in 
three  languages  (English,  German,  and  French).  Replies  were  accepted  in  all  official  EU 
languages.  Responses  were  submitted  in  English,  German,  French,  Spanish,  Finnish, 
Romanian  and  Slovenian.  Non-English  responses  were  translated  into  English  by  the  Matrix 
Insight team.  

In total 77 responses were submitted and are included in this analysis. The main objective of 
the  analysis  is  to  highlight  what  issues  have  been  raised,  and  the  number  and  types  of 
stakeholders  raising  each  of  the  key  issue.  Where  applicable,  the  data  is  broken  down  by 
country  and/or  stakeholder  group.  The  analysis  of  the  responses  focuses  on  the  following 
aspects: 

•  Detailed  information  is  provided  on  respondent  characteristics  and  broken  down  by 

country and stakeholder group (Section 2). 

•  Detailed information is provided on the characteristics of the replies, accounting for the 
frequency of replies by question and needs area. Replies are furthermore broken down 
by country and stakeholder group (Section 3).  

•  A  detailed  discussion  is  provided,  outlining  the  main  arguments  put  forward  in  favour 
and  against  the  relevant  policy  options  that  are  currently  under  consideration  by  the 
European Commission (Section 4).  

A conclusion is offered in Section 5. A separate excel spreadsheet accompanying this report 
compiles all replies, broken down by individual questions and sub-questions. ‘Key tags’ for 
individual replies by issue area are also provided. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

Respondent Characteristics  

In  total  77  submissions  were  made  in  response  to  the  public  consultation.  The  table  below 
illustrates the break-down of responses by country. Replies received from countries outside of 
the  European  Union  or  from  international  organisations  (e.g.  UNICEF)  are  grouped  together 
under  ‘International’.  Replies  received  from  pan-European  organisations  are  listed  under 
‘European’.  Responses  that  did  not  indicate  a  country  of  origin  are  categorised  as  ‘unknown’. 
Replies  were  received  from  18  EU  Member  States  (EU12/EU15  split  equals  7/11).  By  far  the 
most responses were submitted by the UK, followed by Belgium and Spain.  

a)  Table 1: Responses by Country 

Responses by Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Spain 

The Netherlands 

UK 

European 

3 

9 

1 

1 

3 

1 

6 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2 

1 

8 

3 

16 

6 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
 
International 

Unknown 

Source: Consultation Responses and Matrix Calculations  

3 

3 

The  figure  below  illustrates  the  break-down  of  responses  by  stakeholder  group.  Replies  are 
categorised  according  to  the  following  stakeholder  groups:  NGO/think  tank,  Citizen,  Judiciary, 
National  Government,  Other,  Academic,  Law  Enforcement  (e.g.  police),  Legal  Profession, 
Medical  Profession).    The  ‘Other’  category  contains  responses  from  non-NGO  civilian  run 
groups and an MEP. NGOs/think tanks (including victim support organisations), citizens and the 
judiciary  provided  more  than  75%  of  the  responses.  Only  six  responses  were  submitted  by 
national governments. No responses were provided by members of the medical profession.  

b)  Figure 1: Responses by Stakeholder Group 

Responses by stakeholder group

NGO/think thank

Citizen

Judiciary

National Government

Other

Academic

Law enforcement - e.g. 
police
Legal profession

Source: Consultation Responses and Matrix Calculations  

– 

Response Characteristics  

The consultation questionnaire is divided into two parts. Part I presents five general questions 
and  Part  II  narrows  in  on  the  five  needs  areas.    With  regard  to  Part  II,  the  percentage  of 
respondents  answering  questions  varies  by  needs  area.  As  is  illustrated  in  the  figure  below, 
questions  on  ‘recognition’  and  ‘protection’  were  particularly  popular  with  65%  and  62%  of 
respondents providing answers respectively. Relatively fewer respondents were concerned with 
questions on ‘support’ where only 55% of all respondents provided input.   

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
c)  Figure 2: Percentage of Respondents Answering in Each Area 

Source: Consultation Responses and Matrix Calculations  

A  break-down  by  stakeholder  group  reveals  that  compensation  and  restoration  is  particular  a 
point of concern for citizens. Approximately twice as many citizen replies address questions on 
compensation  and  restoration  compared  to  any  of  the  other  issues.  In  contrast,  national 
governments as well as members of the judiciary are more concerned with questions that have 
implications for a country’s judicial system. The attention of respondents from NGO/think tanks 
(including victims support organisations) is equally divided among all needs areas.  

e)  Table 2: Frequency of replies by needs area – cross tabulate responses by country/stakeholder group 

d) 

Responses by stakeholder group 

RECOGNITION 

PROTECTIO
N 

SUPPORT 

ACCESS 
TO 
JUSTICE 

COMPENSATION 
RESTORATION 

Responses by stakeholder group / area 

NGO/think thank 

Citizen 

Judiciary 

National Government 

Other 

Academic 

Law  enforcement  -  e.g. 
police 

Legal profession 

Medical profession 

31 

19 

10 

9 

4 

2 

1 

1 

0 

32% 

16% 

29% 

16% 

100% 

100% 

56% 

25% 

56% 

25% 

29% 

16% 

70% 

56% 

25% 

29% 

11% 

90% 

56% 

25% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

0% 

0% 

100% 

100% 

n/a 

n/a 

0% 

0% 

n/a 

0% 

100% 

n/a 

Source: Consultation Responses and Matrix Calculations  

26% 

32% 

70% 

44% 

75% 

50% 

0% 

100% 

n/a 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

Key Findings 

This  section  provides  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  consultation  responses.  Since  the  vast 
majority  of  questions  are  open-ended  (and  even  polar  questions  leave  room  for  open-
ended responses), the submissions are predictably broad.  It is therefore not possible to 
quantify the answers without distorting the information provided. Instead, a qualitative 
analysis  of  the  answers  has  been  carried  out,  whereby  the  main  arguments  are 
summarised for each individual question, with the relevant respondents identified in the 
footnotes.  For  brevity’s  sake,  respondents  are  listed  by  their  identification  number.  A 
corresponding list may be found in the Appendix. 

a.  Recognition 

38 respondents (49%) replied to Question 6(a): ‘Do you think victims related training 
should be compulsory for practioners?’ 

Approximately  80%  of  the  respondents  would  welcome  additional  training  for 
practitioners. 19 of the 37 respondents are in favour of making training compulsory, and 
the importance of compulsory training for practioners dealing with female victims and 
children has been emphasised repeatedly76. On the other hand, six respondents believe 
that making training compulsory is not warranted. Among those, the perception is that 
existing  documentation  (e.g.  Victims  Charter,  Guide  to  the  Criminal  Justice  System) 
provides  sufficient  guidance  for  practitioners.77  Moreover,  concerns  were  raised  that 
obligatory  training  would  be  too  restrictive  and  could  potentially  interfere  with  the 
independence of the judiciary.78 

33  respondents  (43%)  replied  to  Question  6(b):  ‘How  do  you  think  the  quality  of 
training programmes can be improved?’ 

Suggestions  on  how  to  improve  the  quality  of  training  programmes  have  been  made 
with reference to three aspects. First and foremost,  the value  of combining theoretical 
knowledge  with  practical  experience  of  victims  has  been  emphasised.79  To  this  end, 
cooperation with academic institutions and sharing best practices are perceived as useful 
instruments.80,81 Secondly, it was suggested that training should be introduced when first 
obtaining one’s professional qualification82
  and should be provided on a continuous basis thereafter.83  
The possibility of specialised training by victim type84 and needs areas85 was highlighted. Thirdly, 
the importance of adequate financial resource allocation was raised.86  

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
36  respondents  (47%)  replied  to  Question  7:  ‘How  should  it  be  ensured  that  the 
individual needs of victims are properly assessed?’ 

First and foremost, it was suggested that multidisciplinary teams should carry out victims’ needs 
assessment  and  that  they  should  involve  all  relevant  agencies  (e.g.  VSO,  police,  judiciary).87 
The point was made that victims should be interviewed at the earliest opportunity following the 
crime88,  with  follow-up  discussions  used  to  identify  changing  needs  over  time.89  The  need  for 
individualised  assessment,  as  outlined  in  Article  2 of  the  Framework Decision was  stressed.90 
Although  a  number  of  respondents  highlighted  the  usefulness  of  questionnaires  and 
checklists91,  others  emphasised  the  importance  of  adopting  a  more  qualitative  approach  that 
would put the victim at the centre, by listening to the victim and observing his/her behaviour.92 
Some Victim Support organisations across Europe have developed Assessment Frameworks to 
assess  the  needs  of  each  individual  victim  they  work  with,  to  ensure  their  service  meets  the 
need  of  the  individual.  These  should  be  shared  with  or  similar  programmes  developed  by 
criminal justice agencies.93  

32 respondents (42%) replied to Question 8(a): ‘How do you think vulnerable victims 
should be identified? 

A variety of different views were taken on the identification of vulnerable victims. While the point 
was  made  that  children  and  disabled  people  should  automatically  be  categorised  as 
vulnerable94,  the  risks  of  identifying  vulnerable  victims  outside  of  that  scope  were  also 
addressed.  Firstly,  as  the  vulnerability  of  a  victim  is  to  a  large  part  determined  individually, 
making potentially all victims vulnerable95, it would be difficult to come up with a limited number 
of meaningful categories across the board.96  Secondly, creating potentially numerous additional 
sub-categories would further complicate the already complex criminal justice systems.97 Thirdly, 
shifting focus to vulnerable victims bears the risk of diverting attention away from the needs of 
non-vulnerable  victims.  98  Nevertheless,  the  point  was  made  that  a  definition  of  ‘vulnerable 
victim’  is  needed  (e.g.  age,  disability  or  circumstance  of  crime99)  and  should  be  applied 
universally.100  

The  vulnerability  of  a  victim  should  be  assessed  by  using  the  expert  knowledge  of  a 
multidisciplinary  team101  at  the  earliest  opportunity  following  the  crime.102  For  instance,  the 
identification  of  vulnerable  child  victims  can  only  take  place  through  close  cooperation  with 
those  professionals  in  constant  contact  with  children.    However,  there  are  systematic  gaps  in 
taking  advantage  of  those  professionals.  To  illustrate  with  an  example,  while  a  kindergarten 
teacher in Germany is bound by law to report a suspected crime, school teachers and trainers 
are not.  It would hence be useful to employ school nurses and school psychologists across the 
country.103   

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
27  respondents  (35%)  replied  to  Questions  8(b):  ‘What  special  measures  should  be 
available to vulnerable victims? 

A  number  of different  measures  are perceived  as  important, almost  all of which  pertain  to  the 
victim’s participation in criminal proceedings. In addition to offering vulnerable victims legal and 
psychological assistance104  this includes providing information and explanations on procedural 
decisions105  and making the information accessible in an easily understood language106.  

Measures with regards to providing evidence are deemed as particularly important. The use of 
specially  trained  professionals107  and  video  links108    as  well  as  the  victim’s  right  to  be 
accompanied  by  a  trusted  person109  is  considered  important.  While  repeat  questioning  should 
be avoided110, the point was made that a general restriction on the number of questionings not 
viable with reference to the fair trial principle. Since the initial questioning of the victim is usually 
used as basis for the indictment, it is not possible to restrict the court used for the proceedings 
from asking clarifying questions to the victim again.111 112 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
b. 

Protection 

31 respondents (40%) replied to Questions 9(a): ‘Do you think measures are needed to 
protect a victim’s privacy and if so how? 

All 31 respondents reiterate the victim’s right to privacy, particularly where it concerns sensitive 
information about the individual’s life113  and in cases of sexual abuse and domestic violence114. 
Measures to protect victims’ privacy should furthermore extend beyond the end of the criminal 
proceedings.115  

The  relationship  with  the  media  is  of  particular  concern  and  the  point  was  made  that  States 
should,  where  appropriate,  with  full  respect  for  freedom  of  expression,  encourage  the  media 
and journalists to adopt self-regulatory measures to ensure the protection of private and family 
life  of  victims.116  For  example,  Bulgarian  Media  is  required  to  exercise  prudence  in  the 
disclosure of the victims’ identity, refrain from glorifying or unnecessarily sensational reporting of 
crime,  violence  and  cruelty,  and  cautioned  not  to  provide  media  as  a  platform  to  those  who 
promote, incite or use violence.117 Nevertheless, the effectiveness of media codes of conducts 
has been called into question.118 As a minimum, information on the progress of the investigation 
or file should be communicated to the victim before being sent to media.119  

A  central  theme  is  the  balance  between  victims’  rights  and  defendants’  rights  is  perceived  as 
important.  Accordingly, a point was made that there should be a uniform general obligation that 
requires  the  rights  of  the  victim  to  privacy  and  confidentiality  to  be  balanced  by  the  judge 
against  the  rights  of  the  defendant  and  the  state.120  Measures  are  already  in  place  in  some 
countries (e.g. Germany, Lithuania) and are perceived as sufficient.121  

25 respondents (32%) replied to Question 9(b): ‘What protection measures should be 
available?’ 

The two measures mentioned with regards to the protection of victims’ privacy are (a) keeping 
proceedings  confidential  when  permitting122  and  (b)  removing  any  personal  data  (e.g.  contact 
details,  images)  from  case  files,  and  not  distributing  them  without  prior  consent.123  Moreover, 
protection  orders  should  be  available  for  victims  who  experience  threatening,  alarming  or 
distressing  behaviour  that  does  not  yet  constitute  a  crime  or  in  the  aftermath  of  a  high  profile 
crime.124  

Voluntary yet enforceable codes of conduct on disclosure of private information are suggested 
as one possibility.125 For example, ethical codes for lawyers should cover the types of questions 
which  should  not  be  asked  of  vulnerable  victims,  while  leaving  it  up  to  the  judge  to  make  the 
final decision.126 Other measures available to the court should be the power to impose reporting 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
restrictions  to  prevent  the  media  identifying  the  victim  (e.g.  for  child)  and  proportionate 
measures such as restricting public access to the court room for parts of the trial.127  

Opinions  on  legislation  on  separation  of  offender  and  victim  in  court  are  divided.  While  some 
respondents  believe  that  legislation  is  necessary128,  others  argue  that  legislation  (or  other 
regulations) on separation of the offender and victim in court and police station is not necessary, 
as this is the responsibility of the police and the courts. The assumption is that they are capable 
to fulfil their obvious duties.129  

35 respondents (45%) replied to Question 10(a): How do you think victims should be 
protected from offenders/potential offenders in relation to intimidation/further harm? 

Most  of  the  measures  listed  under  this  question  pertain  to  court  proceedings.  To  this  end, 
victims and defendants are to be kept apart by providing separate facilities130, enabling victims 
to give evidence remotely through video link or having read their testimony in their absence.131 
Alternatively,  victims  could  give  testimony  at  court  while  the  defendant  is  not  present.132 
Nevertheless, the point was made that a separation of victim and defendant often fails in the court's duty to 

clarify the facts and that an EU wide regulation in this regard would only be sensible if core areas of the 
taking evidence are harmonised.133  

Other  measures  considered  important  include  protective  bail134  and  restraining  orders135, 
providing secure housing and witness protection programmes136. Finally,  early police arrival at the 
crime scene  as well as frequent police patrols around offender homes not in custody were mentioned as 
well137. 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
24  respondents  (31%)  replied  to  Question  10(b):  As  regards  to  protection  orders, 
what  do  you  think  is  the  most  feasible  and  effective  option  to  achieve  EU  wide 
protection? 

Opinions  as  regards  the  feasibility  and  effectiveness  of  the  European  Protection  Order  (EPO) 
are  divided.  However,  a  point  strongly  conveyed  is  that  an  effective  system  of  EU  wide 
protection  orders  is  necessary  given  the  extent  of  free  movement  of  EU  citizens  and  their 
frequent change of location. 

The  variety  of  approaches  used  across  the  EU  means  that  an  EU-wide  protection  measure 
cannot  be  a  simple  mutual  recognition  instrument138,  and  cooperation  between  authorities  of 
different countries and harmonization of applicable measures is necessary.139 To this end, the 
proposed  EPO  is  perceived  as  workable  model  provided  that  it  can  be  made  to  work  without 
disproportionate  complexity  under  the  control  of  the  judiciaries  of  the  EU.140  The  argument  is 
that a procedure like the EPO should be short and simple - the main obstacle for victims with 
the EPO would be that the procedure contains two steps (EPO and transformation in national 
legislation)  with  a  lot  of  procedural  rights  (translation,  appeal,  oral  procedure).  This  procedure 
might take more time than starting a new procedure in another Member State.141  

It  was  suggested  that  the  European  Protection  Order  could  work  in  conjunction  with  practical 
assistance.  These  include  setting  out  the  facts  and  details  of  the  protection  order  in  one 
Member State, so that another Member State (the state to which a vulnerable person is moving) 
has the information needed to enable them to make a decision as to whether suitable protection 
can  be  accommodated  within  their  system.  However,  it  was  also  stated  that  the  legal  base of 
current  draft  of  the  EPO  is  too  wide  and  that  it  can  only  properly  cover  criminal  protection 
measures.142  

On the other hand, the view is that the EU wide recognition of protection orders is probably not 
necessary.143  The  German  Bundesrat  has  already  rejected  the  possibility  for  an  EU-wide 
protection  order  (26  March  2010  (BR-Drs.  43/10).144  There  is  much  that  can  be  done  without 
legislation and suggestions are for the Commission to consider working with some of the more 
practical  tools  at  the  EU’s  disposal,  such  as  the  e-justice  portal.  Moreover,  the  Commission 
could  translate  and  promote  information  specifically  about  protection  measures  available  in 
Member States.145  

Support does exist for enforcing protection orders given in one Member State in another State 
to which the victim have moved. This would be in line with the EU’s aim of mutual recognition 
and  providing  equal  protection  to  all  people  who  fall  victim  to  crime  in  Europe.146  Pursuant  to 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  44/2001  of  22  December  2000,  decisions  must  be  recognised  in 
the Member States and may be enforced there.147  

Another central theme that has emerged is that protection orders should be recorded on an EU 
wide  database  of  information  (e.g.  on  offenders)  and  shared  between  security  service  via 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europol  or  a  similar  organisation.148  In  this  way,  EU  citizens  who  travel  to  other  EU  member 
states would be afforded cross-border protection against the potential threats from an offender 
or his associates. 

c. 

Support 

37  respondents  (48%)  replied  to  Question  11:  How  do  you  think  victim  support 
organisations can be assisted to provide effective services to victims? 

The  most  widely  recognised  instrument  is  the  provision  of  enough  resources  for  staff  and 
professional training and in particular financial assistance.149 Moreover, the official recognition of 
the work of these organisations by national governments is perceived as crucial.150 One way of 
doing so would be though commissioning these organisations to deliver services and support to 
victims.151  

42 respondents (55%) replied to Question 12:  What services do you think they should 
provide? 

There  is  broad  support  for  the  following  services:  specialised  medical  care,  psychological 
support  either  directly  or  through  a  help-line  available  24/7,  legal  and  financial  assistance, 
provision  of  secure  housing,  provision  of  information,  practical  support  such  as  escort  to  the 
court and court assistance, provision of mediation and restoration services. 

32  respondents  (42%)  replied  to  Question  13(a):    Do  you  think  foreign  and/or 
domestic victims should be provided immediate basic assistance? Who should provide 
such assistance? 

Respondents  unanimously  agree  that  –  depending  on  the  crime  –  some  type  of  immediate 
assistance should be provided to victims. For minor crimes, access to phone and internet was 
seen  as  useful.  For  more  serious  crime  transitional  accommodation  as  well  as  food  vouchers 
were  perceived  as  useful  assistance.  Providing  this  type  of  support  is  seen  as  primarily  the  role  of 
consular authorities followed by Social Services and VSOs. 

The point was made that with regards to foreign victims, a distinction should be made between 
tourists  and  temporary  residents  as  the  latter  might  need  less  assistance  (depending  on  the 
crime).  In all cases, the issue of language should be taken into account either by translation of 
informative documents or the provision of a social interpretation.152  

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
d. 

Access to Justice 

31  respondents  (40%)  replied  to  question  14(a):  How  should  we  ensure  that  victims 
fully understand their rights and the information they are given? 

There  is  universal  agreement  that  translation  and  interpretation  are  crucial  to  ensure  victims 
fully understand their rights through availability of translation and interpretation. Additionally the 
importance of implementing proper quality control regarding the provision of interpretation has 
been  raised,  where  service  provided  to  victims  should  be  no  less  than  that  provided  to  the 
defendant.153 

20  respondents  (26%)  replied  to  Question  14(b):    What  other  ways  exist  to  ensure 
victims fully understand their rights? 

Most  respondents  agree  on  the  importance  of  easily  accessible  written  information  to  be 
available  for  victims,154  which  is  targeted  to  victims  according  to  their  characteristics  such  as 
age,  nationality  and  education.155  Examples  of  means  through  which  victims  should  access 
such  information  are:  advertising  campaigns,  leaflets,  consultation  events,156  internet,157  and 
service providers like police and hospitals.158 

38 respondents (49%) replied to Question 15: Should victims have a right to provide 
information before key decision are made, such as decisions to stop an investigation or 
prosecution, and to seek the review of such decisions afterwards? 

There  is  some  agreement  that  victims  should  have  the  right  to  express  their  opinion  with  full 
knowledge of the consequences,159  as well as the right to appeal against the court decision.160  

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
e. 

Compensation and Restoration 

37  respondents  (48%)  replied  to  Question  16:  How  do  you  think  victims  should  be 
assisted when making compensation claims and when seeking to enforce compensation 
orders? 

A  number  of  different  approaches  to  help  victims  making/enforcing  compensation  schemes 
were favoured by the respondents, including State operated compensation scheme,161  advance 
state  payments  for  victims  with  high  debts162,    free  legal  assistance    and  access  to  a  victims 
fund or a flat-rate financial help for victims163,164  Generally speaking, the availability of clear and 
simple  information  and  forms,  which  would  need  to  be  translated  into  EU  languages  to  assist 
both  national  and  foreign  victims,  is  seen  as  crucial.165  The  point  was  made  that  providing 
victims with a point of contact to ask for advice in throughout the procedure could be helpful. 166 

30  respondents  (39%)  replied  to  Question  16(a):  Should  restorative  justice  be 
available to all victims?  

There is universal agreement that Restorative Justice (RJ) should be available but only about 
half  of  respondents  agree  with  the  statement  unconditionally.167  Most  respondents  set  some 
stipulation on the provision of RJ. In addition to regulation the practice of RJ168 and using only 
qualified  personnel169,  RJ  should  be  applied  only  to  appropriate  cases  only170,  neither 
offenders171 nor victims should be compelled to participate in the RJ process.172   

19  respondents  (25%)  replied  to  Question  17  (b):  Should  minimum  standards  be 
applied to organisations providing such service? 

There  is  universal  agreement  that  minimum  standards  should  be  applied  to  RJ,  including: 
practice standards related to a variety of types of service provision for child victims in different 
situations; standards that guarantee adequate children’s rights, and access to coherent service 
delivery with minimum changes of mediators during the process and standards for qualifications 
of mediators between justice systems and children in different situations. 173 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

Conclusion 

The  data  emerging  from  a  topic  this  complex  and  a  public  consultation  this  broad  is  predictably 
multifaceted.  Nevertheless,  the  analysis  carried  out  in  this  paper  reveals  a  number  of  overarching 
trends and patterns:  

•  Universal agreement among respondents exists on the following points: 

o  Victims’ right to privacy must be protected; 
o  All victims should be provided with some type of immediate assistance; 
o  Translation and interpretation are crucial to ensure that victims fully understand their 

rights and the information they are given; and 

o  Minimum standards should apply to Restorative Justice proceedings.  

•  Victim  Support  Organisations  are  indispensible  for  providing  effective  services  to 
victims.    To  continue  doing  so,  they  need  financial  assistance.  To  further  increase  their 
profile, the importance of their work must be recognised by national governments, which could 
also be involved in raising awareness of these organisation.  

•  Cooperation  and  best  practice  sharing  between  all  organisations  involved  with  victims 
(e.g.  police,  judiciary,  VSOs)  within  a  Member  State  and  across  the  EU  is  crucial  across  a 
large  number  of  issues,  including  victims’  needs  assessment,  implementing  EU-wide 
protection measures, improving the quality of practioners’ training.  

•  A  central  them  is  the  balance  between  victims’  rights  and  defendant’s  rights  during 
criminal proceedings. While restrictions on repeated questions is desirable from the victim’s 
perspective, general restrictions on the number of questionings is not viable with reference to 
the fair trial principle. Although the victim has an undeniably right to privacy, this right must be 
balanced  against  the  right  of  the  defendant  and  the  State.  While  separation  between  victim 
and defendant at court seems sensible, it often fails in the face of the court’s duty to clarify the 
facts.   

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix  

Entry 
ID 

Name of Respondent 

A  G  Cowie  MA(Hons)  MBA.  Chief 
Superintendent,  Chair,  ACPOS  Victims  & 
Witnesses Portfolio Group 

01 

UK (Scotland) 

02  Alianza de Solidaridad Extremeña 

Spain 

Margarida  Medina  Martins  (Member  of  the 
Board) 

03 

Portugal 

Officers 

of  Chief 
Association 
Police 
in 
Scotland  Victims  & 
Witnesses 
Portfolio 
Group 

Law  enforcement 
- e.g. police 

Alianza  de  Solidaridad 
Extremeña 

NGO/think thank 

Associação  de  Mulheres 
a  Violência 
Contra 
(AMCV)  Association  of 
Women 
Against 
Violence  

NGO/think thank 

04 

John Allman 

UK  

Beulah Baruch Ministries  Other 

05  Laia Herrera i Guardiola 

Spain (Catalan) 

06  Mgr. Markéta Vitoušová 

Czech Republic 

The  Restorative  Justice  Council  (formerly 
Restorative Justice Consortium) 

07 

UK  

GERMAN  FEDERAL  MINISTRY  OF 
JUSTICE  

Germany 

Catalan 
Women's 
Institute  (Institut  Català 
de les Dones) 

NGO/think thank 

Czech  victim  support  - 
Bily kruh bezpeci  

NGO/think thank 

The  Restorative  Justice 
(formerly 
Council 
Restorative 
Justice 
Consortium) 

NGO/think thank 

GERMAN 
MINISTRY 
JUSTICE  

FEDERAL 
OF 

National 
Government 

Victims  and  Witnesses  for  England  and 
Wales 

England 
Wales 

and 

Victims  and  Witnesses 
for England and Wales 

NGO/think thank 

Mr. 
Senior beleidsmedewerker 

H.M.J. 

Ezendam

The Netherlands 

Ministerie  van  Justitie  - 
Dutch Ministry of Justice 

National 
Government 

08 

09 

10 

11  Ministry of Justice for England and Wales 

England 
Wales 

and 

Ministry  of  Justice  for 
England and Wales 

National 
Government 

12  ENCJ - Spain 

Spain 

13  ENCJ - Scotland 

Scotland 

14  ENCJ - Italy 

Italy 

European  Network  of 
Councils 
the 
for 
Judiciary (ENCJ) 

Judiciary 

European  Network  of 
Councils 
the 
for 
Judiciary (ENCJ) 

Judiciary 

European  Network  of 
the 
for 
Councils 
Judiciary (ENCJ) 

Judiciary 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
15  ENCJ - The Netherlands 

The Netherlands 

16  ENCJ - Lituania 

Lituania 

17  ENCJ - Romania 

Romania 

18  ENCJ - Ireland 

Ireland 

19  ENCJ - Bulgaria 

Bulgaria 

European  Network  of 
Councils 
the 
for 
Judiciary (ENCJ) 

Judiciary 

European  Network  of 
the 
for 
Councils 
Judiciary (ENCJ) 

Judiciary 

European  Network  of 
the 
for 
Councils 
Judiciary (ENCJ) 

Judiciary 

European  Network  of 
Councils 
the 
for 
Judiciary (ENCJ) 

Judiciary 

European  Network  of 
Councils 
the 
for 
Judiciary (ENCJ) 

Judiciary 

20  ENCJ - Joint response from expert group  

Expert group with 
from 
judges 
and 
England 
Spain, 
Wales, 
Italy,  Denmark, 
Romania 
and 
Bulgaria 

ENCJ 

Judiciary 

Caoimhe  Sheridan  -  Editorial  and  Policy 
Assistant  

21 

International 

ENAR- 
Network Against Racism  NGO/think thank 

European 

Kirsi 

Ms 
Legal 
Ministry of Justice  

22 

Pulkkinen 
Adviser 

Finland 

Finish Ministry of Justice 

National 
Government 

CENTRAL  OFFICE  OF 
VICTIM SUPPORT SERVICE 

23 

JUSTICE

Hungary 

David 
Gabinet 
Direcció de Serveis 

Fernández 

24 

Barba
Tècnic

Spain 

CENTRAL  OFFICE  OF 
JUSTICE 
VICTIM 
SUPPORT SERVICE 

Security 
Programme 
against  Gender  Violence 
(Government 
of 
Catalonia, Spain) 

NGO/think thank 

National 
Government 

Belgium,  France, 
Greece, 
Ireland, 
Italy, 
Luxembourg, 
Netherlands, 
Poland,  Portugal 
Romania, 
Slovenia,  Spain, 
the 
United 
Kingdom. 

- 
FEVR 
Federation 
Traffic Victims 

European 
of  Road 

NGO/think thank 

Brigitte 
President FEVR 

25 

Chaudhry 

26  Victim Support Europe 

International 

Victim Support Europe 

NGO/think thank 

Regional  Representative  for  Europe  of  the 
United  Nations  High  Commissioner  for 
Human  Rights,  the  Director  of  the  Bureau 
for  Europe  of  UNHCR,  the  Director  of  the 
UNICEF Brussels Office, Relations with the 
EU  Institutions,  the  Head  of  the  UNODC 

27 

international 

Various 

NGO/think thank 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
of 

the 

Liaison  Office  with  the  EU  Institutions,  the 
International
Director 
Labour  Organisation  (ILO)  Office  for  the 
European  Union  and  the  Benelux  countries, 
and  the  Officer  in  Charge  of  the  UNIFEM 
Brussels Office 

Margaret 
Senior Policy Adviser, 

28 

Wachenfeld 

International 

UNICEF 

NGO/think thank 

European  Women’s  Lobby  Centre  on 
Violence against Women 

29 

International 

30  Amy Aeron-Thomas 

31  Dr Claire Corbett  

32  Diana Dodds 

Dr  David  Gadd,  Senior  Lecturer 
Criminology,  
Deputy Interim Research Director for Social 
Institutes
Research 
Science 
Keele University 

in 

33 

34  Eric Davies 

35  Ferial Hamid  

Britain 

Britain 

Ireland 

UK 

UK 

Portugal 

European 
Lobby 
Violence against Women  NGO/think thank 

Women’s 
on 

Centre 

Road Peace 

NGO/think thank 

N/A 

MEP 

Citizen 

Other 

Keele University 

Academic 

N/A 

N/A 

Citizen 

Citizen 

36  Save the Children 

International 

Save the Children 

NGO/think thank 

37  Portuguese Association for Victim Support 

Portugal 

Portuguese  Association 
for Victim Support 

NGO/think thank 

38 

 Kathleen O'Hara 

US / England 

consultant for the Federal 
Office  for  Victims  of 
Crime in the US / Victim 
Support England  

39 

(Dr) Martin Wright 

40  Sylvia Robbins Huntley 

41  Ann 

42  Robert Shaw 

UK 

Malta 

UK 

UK 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Citizen 

Academic 

Citizen 

Citizen 

Citizen 

43  Slachtofferhulp Nederland 

The Netherlands 

Slachtofferhulp 
Nederland 

NGO/think thank 

44  Unknown 

45 

Jan Klemenčič 

Finland 

Slovenia 

N/A 

N/A 

Citizen 

Citizen 

46  Worlwide Campaign Against Tourture 

International 

Worlwide 
Against Tourture 

Campaign 

Other 

47  Alison Wills 

48 

Jake Maverick 

Unknown 

UK 

N/A 

N/A 

Citizen 

Citizen 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
49  Kevin Hennessey 

UK 

N/A 

Citizen 

50  Wirtschaftskammer Oesterreich 

51  Austrian Bar Association 

Austria 

Austria 

52  Austrian Federal Ministry of Justice 

Austria 

Wirtschaftskammer 
Oesterreich 

National 
Government 

Austrian Bar Association  Legal Profession 

Austrian 
Ministry of Justice 

Federal 

National 
Government 

53  Frauenhauskoordinierung 

Germany 

Frauenhauskoordinierung  NGO/think thank 

54  Deutsche Kinderhilfe 

Germany 

Deutsche Kinderhilfe 

NGO/think thank 

Hesse  Ministry  of  Justice,  Integration  and 
Europe 

55 

Germany 

German  Association  of  Judges  -  Deutscher 
Richterbund 

56 

Germany 

Hilfsorganisation 
Mord,Tötungs,Suizid und Vermisstenfällen 

für  Angehörige 

von 

57 

58  Raymond Bell 

59  Unknown 

60 

Julen Fernández Conte 

Camila de Epalza Azqueta 

61 

62  Txema URKIJO 

Fundación Miguel Angel Blanco 

63 

64  Unknown 

65  Consultation eur SASJ Arlon 

66  Consultation eur SASJ Dinant 

Consultation eur SASJ Huy 

67 

68  Consultation eur SASJ Liège II 

69  Consultation eur SASJ Marche 

Germany 

Finland 

Unknown 

Spain 

Spain 

Spain 

Spain 

Unknown 

Belgium 

Belgium 

Belgium 

Belgium 

Belgium 

70  Consultation eur SASJ Neufchâteau 

Belgium 

71  Consultation eur SASJ Nivelles 

72  Consultation eur SASJ Verviers 

Belgium 

Belgium 

Hesse  Ministry 
of 
Justice,  Integration  and 
Europe 

National 
Government 

German  Association  of 
Judges 
-  Deutscher 
Richterbund 

Judiciary 

Hilfsorganisation 
Angehörige 
Mord,Tötungs,Suizid 
und Vermisstenfällen 

für 
von 

N/A 

N/A 

CGAE 

NGO/think thank 

Citizen 

Citizen 

NGO/think thank 

Delegation of the Basque 
Country 

National 
Government 

Víctimas del Terrorismo  NGO/think thank 

Fundación  Miguel  Angel 
Blanco 

NGO/think thank 

N/A 

SASJ 

SASJ 

Citizen 

NGO/think thank 

NGO/think thank 

SASJ 
Reclassement  

-  Aide 

et 

NGO/think thank 

SASJ 

SASJ 

SASJ 

SASJ 

SASJ 

NGO/think thank 

NGO/think thank 

NGO/think thank 

NGO/think thank 

NGO/think thank 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
73  Luminita Ratiu 

74  Arthur Lepp 

Unknown 

75 

76 

Jacques Duhayon 

77  Xavier Brosse 

Romania 

Canada 

China 

Belgium 

France 

N/A 

N/A 

Chinese  Victims  Of 
Directed  Energy  And 
Neurological Weapons 

N/A 

N/A 

Citizen 

Citizen 

Other 

Citizen 

Citizen 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
SUPPLEMENT TO ANNEXES 3-7 
OVERVIEW: STATE OF PLAY - MEMBER STATES 

VICTIMS NEEDS 

I  –  Recognition  as 
victims 

indirect 

II – Repetitive questioning 

II.1.  Limits  on  repetitive 
questioning  

II.2.  Questioning  of  child-
witnesses 

RESPECT/ 
RECOGNITION 

PROTECTION 

II.3. 
victims 
disabilities 

Questioning 

of 
with  mental 

II.4. Questioning of victims 
of  sexual  and  domestic 
violence 

II.5.  Questioning  of  cross-
border victims 

III  –  What  are  the  criteria  used 
to define vulnerable victims? 

IV  –    Measures  for  protection 
from the offender 

1.  Parents (21 MS) 
2.  Children (21 MS) 
3.  Other family members (20 MS) 
4.  Same sex partners (13 MS) 
5.  First responders (11 MS) 

6.  No limits (15 MS) 
7.  Repetitive Questioning is limited 

for all victims (1 MS) 

8.  Repetitive questioning is limited 
for certain vulnerable victims 
(11 MS) 

9.  No special attention (none) 
10.  Discretion of individual 
examiner (3 MS) 

11.  Performed by specially trained 

police officers (20 MS) 

12.  Trusted adult present and/or a 
child-friendly environment (27 
MS) 

13.  Television-link, and/ or video 

recording (24 MS) 

14.  No special attention (8 MS) 
15.  Should take place in the 

presence of a trusted adult (15 
MS) 

16.  Can take place through a 

television-link and/ or video 
recording of earlier questioning 
(11 MS) 

17.  No special attention (10 MS) 
18.  Should be conducted by a 

police officer of the same sex 
(10 MS) 

19.  Allowed to be conducted in the 

presence of a companion (10 
MS) 

20.  Specialized rape or domestic 
violence teams ( 8 MS) 
21.  Special guidelines for sexual 

and domestic violence (12 MS) 

22.  No special attention (none) 
23.  Translators are available for the 

questioning (29 MS) 

24.  Video/telephone conferencing 
or earlier video-recording (14 
MS) 
Immediate statement (14 MS) 

25. 
26.  Age victim (27 MS) 
27.  Handicap victim (19 MS) 
28.  Type of crime (20 MS) 

29.  Police protection of victim and 

family (22 MS) 

30.  Preventive custody of offender 

(22 MS) 

31.  Provision of protection 
equipment (8 MS) 

32.  Relocation of victims (19 MS) 
33.  Facilities at court (17 MS) 
34.  Measures to prevent offenders 

from tracing (14 MS) 

35.  Right to complete anonymity for 

victims (14 MS) 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
V – Are there any obligation to 
provide separate waiting areas 
for victim and offender? 

36.  No obligation (24 MS) 
37.  Conditional obligation (3 MS) 
38.  Unrestricted obligation (1 MS) 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
VI – The existence and position 
of 
Support 
Organisations (VSO)  

Victim 

VII – Percentage of victims that 

received  victim  support  of 
those indicating a need for it 

(percentage  in  a  period  of  five 
years)  

VIII – Exclusion of victims from 
trial: are there a right to supply 
the  courts  with 
information 
relevant  to  the  victims’  need 
for compensation? 

IX 
– 
translation 

Interpretation 

and 

IX.1. 
safeguards 

Communication 

39.  There is no national VSO (9 

MS) 

40.  There is a national VSO (10 

MS) 

41.  The VSO has achieved national 

coverage (10 MS) 

42.  The VSO provides general 

services for all victims of crime 
(13 MS) 

43.  The VSO provides specialised 
services meeting the needs of 
specific groups (11 MS) 

44.  The VSO is consulted on 

national policies concerning 
crime victims (10 MS) 

45.  1996 Surveys 
46.  2000 Surveys 
47.  2004/05 Surveys 

48.  No obligation (2 MS) 
49.  Participatory right of victim or 

lawyer (25 MS) 

50.  Formal duty of public prosecutor 

(6 MS) 

51.  Victim Impact Statement (12 

MS) 

52.  Translators and interpreters are 
available for victims, free of 
charge (27 MS) 
Information should be made 
available in different languages 
(6 MS) 

53. 

Eligibility 

IX2. 
communication 
safeguards 

for 

54.  No victims (none) 
55.  At least for victims as witnesses 

(27 MS) 

56.  Other victims as well (15 MS) 

SUPPORT 

ACCESS TO JUSTICE 

– 

X 
to 
prosecution decision 

Right 

review 

57.  No right to review (6 MS) 
58.  Non-institutionalized review 

(none) 
Institutionalized review (21 MS) 

59. 
60.  No (6 MS) 
61.  Yes (21 MS) 

XI.1.  –  Is  Restorative  Justice 
allowed? 

XI.2.  Are  there  Guidelines  or 
Agency Code for agents of the 
Criminal Justice System? 

62.  No (5 MS) 
63.  Yes (11 MS) 
64.  Data not available (12 MS) 

RESTORATION 

Abbreviations:   

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EW = England and Wales / SNI = Scotland and Northern Ireland / S = Scotland / NI = Northern Ireland 

NOTE:  

Sources: 

APAV Report: The Implementation of the EU Framework Decision on the standing of victims in the criminal proceedings in the 
Member States of the European Union. Lisboa: APAV, 2009. 

VAN DIJK, Jan; VAN KESTEREN, John; SMIT, Paul. Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective: Key findings from the 
2004-2005 ICVS and EU ICS. Den Haag: WODC, 2007, p. 125. 

WILLEMSENS, Jolien. Restorative justice: an agenda for Europe – the role of the European Union in the further development of 
restorative justice. Final report of AGIS Project JLS/2006/AGIS/147. Leuven: 2008, p. 188-194. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3 – MEMBER STATE POSITIONS IN RELATION TO RESPECT AND RECOGNITION 

RESPECT/ RECOGNITION 

I – Recognition as indirect victims 

1. Parents (21 MS); 2. Children (21 MS); 3. Other family members (20 MS); 4. Same sex partners (13 MS); 5. First responders (11 MS) 

II – Repetitive questioning 

6. No limits (15 MS); 7. Repetitive Questioning is limited for all victims (1 MS); 8. Repetitive questioning is limited for certain vulnerable victims 

II.1. Limits on repetitive questioning 

(11 MS) 

II.2. Questioning of child-witnesses 

9. No special attention (none); 10. Discretion of individual examiner (3 MS); 11. Performed by specially trained police officers (20 MS); 12. 

Trusted adult present and/or a child-friendly environment (27 MS); 13. Television-link, and/ or video recording (24 MS) 

II.3. Questioning of victims with mental disabilities 

14. No special attention (8 MS); 15. Should take place in the presence of a trusted adult (15 MS); 16. Can take place through a television-link 

and/ or video recording of earlier questioning (11 MS) 

II.4. Questioning of victims of sexual and domestic violence 

17. No special attention (10 MS); 18. Should be conducted by a police officer of the same sex (10 MS); 19. Allowed to be conducted in the 

presence of a companion (10 MS); 20. Specialized rape or domestic violence teams ( 7 MS); 21. Special guidelines for sexual and domestic 

violence (11 MS) 

II.5. Questioning of cross-border victims 

22. No special attention (none); 23. Translators are available for the questioning (27 MS); 24. Video/telephone conferencing or earlier video-

recording (12 MS); 25. Immediate statement (13 MS) 

III – What are the criteria used to define vulnerable victims? 

26. Age victim (27 MS); 27. Handicap victim (19 MS); 28. Type of crime (20 MS) 

MS/Issu
M S
es 

I

EN 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

CY 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK 

MS 

Total 

76 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

MS/Issu
M S
es 

I

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

21 

21 

20 

13 

11 

15 

1 

Total 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

CY 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK 

MS 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

√ 

16. 

  √ 

√ 

17. 

18. 

√ 

EN 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

11 

none 

3 

20 

27 

24 

8 

15 

11 

10 

10 

77 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
19. 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ (EW) 

10 

7 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

Total  
28√ 

EN 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ (EW) 

11 

√(SNI) 

√ (SNI) 

None 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ (EW) 

27 

√ (S) 

√ (NI) 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ (EW) 

12 

√ (S) 

√ (NI) 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ (S) 

13 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ (NI) 

√ 

√ 

√ 

27 

19 

20 

18 

16 

16 

16 

11 

10 

16 

17 

13 

19 

13 

13 

13 

14 

15 

13 

19 

11 

16 

16 

10 

11 

10 

12 

15 

17 

15 

78 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4 - MEMBER STATE POSITIONS IN RELATION TO PROTECTION 

PROTECTION 

IV –  Measures for protection from the offender 

29. Police protection of victim and family (22 MS).; 30. Preventive custody of offender (22 MS); 31. Provision of protection 

equipment (8 MS); 32. Relocation of victims (19 MS); 33. Facilities at court (17 MS); 34. Measures to prevent offenders from 

tracing (14 MS); 35. Right to complete anonymity for victims (14 MS) 

V – Are there any obligation to provide separate waiting areas for victim and 

36. No obligation (24 MS); 37. Conditional obligation (3 MS); 38. Unrestricted obligation (1 MS) 

offender? 

MS/Issu
M S
es 

I

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

CY 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK 

MS 

Total 

29. 

30. 

31. 

32. 

33. 

34. 

35. 

36. 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

EN 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

79 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

22 

22 

8 

19 

17 

14 

14 

24 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
37. 

38. 

Total 
10√ 

8 

5 

6 

6 

6 

7 

4 

5 

1 

4 

6 

2 

4 

8 

5 

7 

3 

5 

√ 

5 

4 

6 

1 

6 

7 

7 

7 

9 

√ 

√ 

√ 

3 

1 

EN 

80 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5 - MEMBER STATE POSITIONS IN RELATION TO SUPPORT 

SUPPORT 

VI – The existence and position of Victim Support Organisations (VSO)  

39. There is no national VSO (9 MS); 40. There is a national VSO (10 MS); 41. The VSO has achieved national coverage (10 

MS); 42. The VSO provides general services for all victims of crime (13 MS); 43. The VSO provides specialised services meeting 

the needs of specific groups (11 MS); 44. The VSO is consulted on national policies concerning crime victims (10 MS) 

VII – Percentage of victims that received victim support of those indicating a need 

45. 1996 Surveys; 46. 2000 Surveys; 47. 2004/05 Surveys 

for it 

(percentage in a period of five years) 

MS/Issu
M S
es 

I

39. 

40. 

41. 

42. 

43. 

44. 

Total 6√ 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

CY 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK 

MS 

Total 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

5 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

5 

√ 

√ 

√ 

3 

√ 

√ 

√ 

3 

1 

1 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

5 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

5 

0 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

5 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

5 

33 

1 

6 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

5 

0 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

0 

2 

1 

1 

3 

45. 

18 

16 

13 

EN 

81 

9 

10 

10 

13 

11 

10 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

4 

27 

25 (UK) 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
38 (EW) 

24 (S) 

23 (NI) 

46. 

47. 

15 

22 

6 

9 

44 

8 

5 

33 

29 (UK) 

40 (EW) 

28 (S) 

38 (NI) 

38 

28 

10 

27 

6 

11 

8 

4 

1 

13 

7 

11 

35 

4 

21 

30 (UK) 

31 (EW) 

40 (S) 

37 (NI) 

EN 

82 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6 - MEMBER STATE POSITIONS IN RELATION TO ACCESS TO JUSTICE 

ACCESS TO JUSTICE 

VIII – Exclusion of victims from trial: are there a right to supply the courts 

48. No obligation (2 MS); 49. Participatory right of victim or lawyer (24 MS); 50. Formal duty of public prosecutor (5 MS); 51 Victim 

with information relevant to the victims’ need for compensation? 

Impact Statement (10 MS) 

IX – Interpretation and translation -  

52. Translators and interpreters are available for victims, free of charge (27 MS); 53. Information should be made available in 

IX.1. Communication safeguards 

different languages (6 MS) 

IX.2. Eligibility for communication safeguards 

54. No victims (none); 55. At least for victims as witnesses (27 MS); 56. Other victims as well (15 MS) 

X – Right to review prosecution decision 

57. No right to review (6 MS); 58. Non-institutionalized review (none); 59. Institutionalized review (21 MS) 

MS/Issu
M S
es 

I

48. 

49. 

50. 

51. 

EN 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

CY 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK 

MS 

√ 

√ 

2 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ (EW) 

24 

Total 

√ (S) 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ (EW) 

5 

√ (S) 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ (EW) 

10 

83 

√ (S) 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
52. 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

53. 

54. 

55. 

56. 

57. 

58. 

59. 

Total 
12√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

7 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

5 

√ 

4 

√ 

3 

√ 

4 

√ 

4 

√ 

√ 

√ 

6 

√ 

√ 

√ 

7 

√ 

√ 

√ 

5 

√ 

√ 

√ 

5 

√ 

√ 

√ 

5 

√ 

√ 

√ 

5 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

5 

√ 

4 

√ 

4 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

6 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

6 

4 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

7 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

5 

√ 

6 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

6 

√ 

√ 

√ 

5 

√ 

√ 

4 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

6 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

6 

√ (NI) 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

8 

27 

6 

None 

27 

15 

6 

None 

21 

EN 

84 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 7 - MEMBER STATE POSITIONS IN RELATION TO RESTORATION 

XI.1. Is Restorative Justice allowed? 

60. No (6 MS); 61. Yes (21 MS) 

XI.2. Are there Guidelines or Agency Code for agents of the Criminal Justice 

62. No (5 MS); 63. Yes (10 MS); 64. Data not available (12 MS) 

RESTORATION 

System? 

MS/Issu
M S
es 

I

60. 

62. 

63. 

64. 

Total  

2 

5√ 

EN 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

CY 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK 

MS 

Total 

61. 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

6 

21 

5 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

2 

√ 

2 

√ 

2 

√ 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

√ 

2 

√ 

2 

√ 

√ 

2 

√ 

√ 

2 

√ 

2 

√ 

2 

√ 

2 

85 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ (EW) 

10 

√ 

2 

√ 

2 

√ 

2 

2 

√ 

2 

2 

2 

√ (S) 

12 

2 

2 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 8 - INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS RELATED TO  
VICTIMS OF CRIME 

f.  United 
Nations 

h. 

k. 

g. 

i.  International 
Criminal 
Court 

j. 

l.  Council of 
Europe 

•  Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of 

Power, GA Res. 40/34 of 29 November 1985 

•  Basis Principles on the Use of Restorative e Justice Programmes in Criminal 

Matters, ECOSOC Res. 2002/I2, 2002 

•  UN  Convention  against  Transnational  Organized  Crime,  Articles  1,  14,  24 

and 25, 2000 

•  Protocol  to  Prevent,  Suppress  and  Punish  Trafficking  in  Persons,  Especially 
the  UN  Convention  against 

Women  and  Children,  supplementing 
Transnational Organized Crime, 2000 

•  Guidelines  on  Justice  for  Child  Victims  and  Witnesses  of  Crime,  ECOSOC 

Res. 2005/20, 2005 

•  Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for 
Victims  of  Gross  Violations  of  International  Human  Rights  and  Serious 
Violations of International Humanitarian Law, GA Resolution 60/147, 2005 

•  Draft UN Convention on Justice and Support for Victims of Crime and Abuse 

of Power 

•  Statute of Rome to establish the International Criminal Court, Articles 36 (8), 

42 (9, 43 (6), 54 (I), 68, 69, 75, 79 and 93, 1998 

•  Selection  of  the  Rules  of  Procedure  and  Evidence,  relating  to  victims  and 

witnesses, 2002 

•  European  Convention  on  the  Compensation  of  Victims  of  Violent  Crimes, 

Strasbourg, 24.XI.1983 (CETS 116) 

•  Recommendation (1985) 11 on the Position of the Victim in the Framework 

of Criminal Law and Procedure, adopted on 28 June 1985 

•  Recommendation (1999) 19 concerning Mediation in Penal Matters, adopted 

on 15 September 1999 

•  Guidelines  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  on  the  Protection  of  Victims  of 

Terrorist Acts, adopted on 2 March 2005 

•  Recommendation  (2006)  8  on  Assistance  to  Crime  Victims,  adopted  on  14 

June 2006 

m.   

n. 

o.  European 
Union 

•  Framework  Decision  on  the  Standing  of  Victims  in  Criminal  Proceedings 

(2001/200/JHA) 

•  Directive  2004/80/EC  relating  to  Compensation  to  Crime  Victims,  29  April 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2004 

•  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on 
preventing  and  combating  trafficking  in  human  beings,  and  protecting 
victims, repealing Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA  

•  Proposal for a directive on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of 

children and child pornography, repealing FD 2004/68/JHA 

•  Communication from the Commission Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights 
of  the  Child,  COM(2006)  367  and  Communication  'An  EU  agenda  for 
children's rights', COM (2011) 60. 

•  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council,  the  European 
the 
Parliament, 
Committee  of  the  Regions,  Strategy  for  equality  between  women  and  men 
(2010-2015), COM(2010) 491. 

the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and 

•  Decision No 779/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 June 2007 establishing for the period 2007-2013 a specific programme to 
prevent and combat violence against children, young people and women and 
to protect victims and groups at risk (Daphne III programme). 

•  Framework Decision 2002/475/JHa of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism. 

•  Proposed  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on 
facilitating  cross-border  enforcement  in  the  field  of  road  safety  (not  yet 
adopted)  COM(2008)  151  final;  Framework  Decision  2005/214/JHA  of  24 
February  2005  on  the  application  of  principle  of  mutual  recognition  to 
financial penalties. 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 9 - OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED 
MEMBER STATES 

Member State 

Developments in the Legislative Pipeline 

Luxembourg 

Ireland 

Netherlands 

•  A  new  law  has  been  recently  enacted :  "Loi  du  6  octobre  2009 

renforçant le droit des victimes d’infractions pénales”). 

•  This law introduced the following changes : 

(cid:57)  Provision of information in a language understandable to the 

victim. 

(cid:57)  The  need  for  the  prosecutor  to  inform  the  victim  about  the 

proceeding within 18 months. 

(cid:57)  The  victim  receives  a  copy  of  his/her  accusation  free  of 

charge.  

•  The ‘Justice for Victims’ initiative174 was announced in 2008. 
•  A  bill  has  been  submitted  in  2009  which  proposes  among  others  to 
reform the victim impact statement mechanism, in particular, to give a 
statutory  right  to  make  a  statement  to  family  members  in  homicide 
cases  or  in  cases  where  the  victim  is  incapacitated  as  a  result  of  the 
crime  or  where  the  victim  is  a  child  or  is  unable  to  make  a  statement 
due to a mental disorder.175 

•  The Criminal Procedure Act was signed in 2010 
•  Up to now four legislative changes are in process to be implemented or 

finalised: 

(cid:57)  Victim Impact Statements 
(cid:57)  Bail 
(cid:57)  Domestic violence breach proceedings 
(cid:57)  Video identity parades 

•  On 1 July 2010, a new law came into force that gives victims the right 

to check the offender’s blood for contagious diseases. 

•  On  1  January  2011,  a  new  law  will  come  into  force  that  significantly 

strengthens the position of victims in the criminal procedure. 

•  A law on the Dutch Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund is pending as 
currently discussed in the parliament. The draft envisages expanding 
the rights of victims and surviving relatives with regard to state 
compensation. A decision is expected in 2011.  

Malta 

•  A  White  Paper  was  presented  for  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  on 

Restorative Justice in February 2009176. Its main aims are: 

(cid:57)  To initiate public consultation on the possibility of introducing 
new methods of dealing with the problem, shifting away from 
that 
imprisonment  as 
emphasises  social  protection,  reform,  and  the  problem  of 
relapse.  

to  a  wider  concept 

retribution 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Romania 

Finland 

Sweden 

Denmark 

(cid:57)  To outline the required institutional framework for Restorative 
Justice,  proposes  the  establishment  of  Restorative  Justice 
Procedures,  namely,  parole,  petition,  and  remission,  and 
makes  proposals  for  initiatives  aimed  at  the  education  of 
offenders and the management of victim support.  

•  Legislative changes in it Criminal Code as well as comprehensive 
reform  are planned,  and  the  first  draft  is  expected  to  be  tabled  in 
autumn 2010. 

•  The Ministry of Justice recently implemented minor changes in the 
context of a "small reform". A legislative proposal to introduce two 
new  articles  in  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code  has  been  approved 
by the government in its session on 23 July 2010.  

•  The  government  submitted  a  proposal  (78/2010)  regarding 

domestic and workplace violence to the Parliament in June 2010.  

•  According  to  the  government  proposal,  minor  assaults  at  work 

would be subject to public prosecution as well. 

•  The purpose of the proposal is to improve the situation of victims in 
need  of  special  protection  and  take  the  vulnerable  position  of  a 
victim of domestic violence better into account. 

•  The  amendment  of  the  Criminal  Code  is  proposed  to  come  into 

force from the beginning of 2011. 

•  The  Swedish  Budget  Bill  (Prop.  2007/08:1)  includes  several 
‘the 
for  example 
statements  on  crime  victims,  saying 
increased  demands  on 
judicial  authorities  embrace  a 
strengthening  of  the  crime  victims’  perspective  in  the  legal  chain’ 
and  that  ‘it  is  evident  that  victims  should  be  met  by  respect  and 
professionalism’.177 

that 

the 

•  The 2009 Swedish Action Plan on Violence178 lists up a number of 
measures to be undertaken by the government including a review 
of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act and stricter provisions in 
the  Social  Services  Act  clarifying  municipal  responsibility  for 
providing help and support to crime victims. 

•  The Minister suggested an improvement of the level of information 
provided  by  the  police/prosecution  to  victims  of  crimes,  including 
the  right  to  know  when  the  trial  takes  place;  to  receive  a  copy  of 
the court decision etc.179 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 10 - ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF FIVE KEY MEASURES 

OVERALL COSTS 

OPTION 2 

Total costs are expected to be the lowest in this option (excluding status quo). Almost all costs will fall to public administrations on both a national and local 
level. Some costs could fall to the voluntary sector. Some costs may be limited to the short run such as the development of guidelines, whilst others may incur 

Min - Total EU cost 

Max- Total EU cost 

(Millions of euros) 

(Millions of euros) 

Training (1 off development cost) 

Victim Support Services (annual running costs) 

Interpretation/ translation (annual costs) 

Restorative Justice (Annual running costs) 

Possible savings from reduced reoffending could more than offset total costs. 

Attendance of trial (annual costs) 

TOTAL  

ongoing running costs such as victim support services.  

0 

< 23 

< 0.03 

0 

0.146  

< 23.18 

1.58 

< 23 

6.88 

878 

1.58 

< 973.04 

EN 

90 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
OPTION 3a 

Total costs are expected to be the in the lower middle of the three options (excluding Status quo). Almost all costs will fall to public administrations on both a 

Training (1st year costs, range of cost reduction factors exist) 

4.61 (opportunity cost: 71.27) 

17.28 (opportunity cost: 72.29) 

Min (Millions of euros) 

Max (Millions of euros) 

Victim Support Services (Annual running costs) 

Interpretation/ translation (annual costs) 

Restorative Justice (Annual running costs)  

Possible savings from reduced reoffending could more than offset total costs. 

Attendance of trial (Annual Costs) 

TOTAL  

< 24 

< 89.29 

0 

240 

357.9 

< 27 

< 205.49 

878 

242.9 

1,370.67 

OPTION 3b 

national and local level.  
Total costs are expected to be the in the higher middle of the three options (excluding Status quo). Almost all costs will fall to public administrations on both a 

Training (1st year costs, range of cost reduction factors exist) 

4.61 (opportunity cost: 71.27) 

17.28 (opportunity cost: 72.29) 

Min (Millions of euros) 

Max (Millions of euros) 

Victim Support Services (Annual running costs) 

Interpretation/ translation (annual costs) 

< 24 

< 89.29 

Restorative  Justice  (Annual  running  costs)  Possible  savings  from  reduced 
reoffending could more than offset total costs. 

20.08 

Attendance of trial (Annual Costs) 

TOTAL  

national and local level.  

240 

377.98 

< 27 

< 205.49 

2,641.58 

242.9 

3,134.25 

EN 

91 

EN 

 
  
 
 
OPTION 4 

Total costs are expected to be the highest of the three options (excluding Status quo). Almost all costs will fall to public administrations on both a national and 
local  level.  Depending  on  the  Member  States'  implementation,  victim  support  and  restorative  justice  services  may  bear  the  costs  of  implementing  any  new 

Training (1st year costs, range of cost reduction factors exist) 

4.61 (opportunity cost: 71.27) 

17.28 (opportunity cost: 72.29) 

Min (Millions of euros) 

Max (Millions of euros) 

Victim Support Services (Annual running costs) 

Interpretation/ translation (annual costs) 

Restorative  Justice  (Annual  running  costs)  Possible  savings  from  reduced 
reoffending could more than offset total costs. 

Attendance of trial (Annual Costs) 

TOTAL  

safeguards in their sectors, such as training or accreditation.  

4,074  

89.29 

20.08 

240 

4,427.98 

6,617 

205.49 

2,641.58 

242.9 

9,724.25 

EN 

92 

EN 

 
  
 
 
TRAINING COSTS 

OPTION 2 

Training – development of guidelines:  near to zero – €1.58 million for 27 Member States 

Internally developed by Ministry of Justice 

Externally contracted 

EU Drafted, MS adaptation 

€145,615.60  (€678.60 in BG to 11,190.40 in LU) 

€970,000 and €1,580,000

.  

€236,201  

OPTION 3a 

OPTION 3b 

However, some Member States e.g. FR, BE already have guidelines which would reduce this cost. Alternatively, the European Network of Councils for 
the Judiciary recently produced basic guidelines for judges at virtually no cost. Such an approach for all practitioners could significantly reduce costs 
close to zero 

Training – legal practitioners trained, training available for judges, some detail on content:  

Total training of police and judiciary – €4.61 – €17.28 million  (based on single training scenario for all practitioners assuming no Member State provides training) 

Lost police and judicial time - €71.27 million – €72.29 million  No figures available for prosecutors or court staff. 

Costs are based on estimates for a 2 hour face to face training session for police officers and judges. Costings are based on hourly wages of trainers 
(including development of the course), number of police officers and judges and their average national salaries180.  

It should be noted that the above costs could be significantly reduced due to a range of factors: 

•  The  above  scenario  assumes  no  training  is  currently  provided.  However,  although  exact  details  are  not  available,  we  know  that  some  Member 
States already provide training.  Respondents in the APAV interim report, felt that police officers and legal practitioners in BE, CY, FI, FR, EL, HU, 
IE,  IT,  MT,  PL,  PT,  SK,  SI  and  SE  need  more  training  programmes  in  order  for  them  to  meet  the  needs  of  most  victims.  It  was  also  felt  that 
professionals in DE and UK who deal with victims do not have enough knowledge 

•  Since training of judges is not mandatory in this option, it can be assumed that not all judges will be trained. Costs will therefore be lower. 

We would also anticipate that costs would be significantly lowered by providing victims training during basic training i.e. before practitioners 
are practicing. Further reductions could be made through online or e-learning to minimise lost work time. Costs are also much lower where 
provided by victim support organisations. The more such organisations are strengthened the more likely they are to carry out such tasks. 

Finally  these  costs  are  based  on  the  first  year  of  training  provision.  Subsequent  training  at  this  level  would  only  be 

EN 

93 

EN 

 
  
 
needed for new recruits and thus 2nd year costs onwards would be much lower. 

OPTION 4 

Training: mandatory training for police, prosecutors, judges, court staff 

Total  training  of  police  and  judiciary  –  €4.61  –  €17.28  million 
provides training) 

Lost police and judicial time - €71.27 million – €72.29 million  

(based  on  single  training  scenario  for  all  practitioners  assuming  no  Member  State  currently 

Costings are based on the same calculations as in option 3. However, this option makes training for judges mandatory and is therefore expected to be 
more costly than that option 

EN 

94 

EN 

 
  
VICTIM SUPPORT SERVICES 

OPTION 2 

Victim Support Services – easy, effective access: 

Total Cost – Less than €23.5 million as suming implementation by 19 States 

This option gives Member States wide flexibility in implementation. This may result in Member States either carrying out few changes or not 
implementing to the extent described below. As such it can be assumed that costs will be lower than options 3 and 4. 

Known budgets for victim support organisations range from €20,000 for the smallest State (Malta), through to €119,000 for HU, 1.5 million for PT and 39 
Million for England and Wales. Given the wide range a median of €1.5 million has been taken as an average cost. Highest costs are expected in CY, 
DK, EL, IT, LV, LT, PL, SI and ES (9 States) where no national VS service has been identified. Running costs could total around €13.5 million. Set 
up  costs  are  unknown.  Lower  costs  would  be  expected  for  BG,  CZ,  FR,  HU,  IE,  LU,  MT,  RO  (8  States)  which  have  VS  services  but  not  national 
coverage. We therefore estimate a lower median cost of €1 million giving a total of €10 million. This option is unlikely to impact greatly on AT, BE, 
EE, FI, DE, NL, PT, SK, SE, UK which have achieved national coverage 

OPTION 3a 

OPTION 3b 

Victims support services – establish services or support existing ones. Minimum standard. Including accreditation 

Total Cost – Less than €23.5 million to establish nationwide services. 

Total cost for accreditation: From €477,000 – €3.58 million 

Costings based on calculations in option 2. Given that this option requires that those working for victim support services shall be competent to do so, it is 
assumed that there will be additional training costs for those services which do not already provide such training. No data is available on these costs or 
in which States such training is already provided. However, costings have been used in relation to accreditation, which includes accreditation of training. 
These have been taken from costings in relation to restorative justice accreditation (see Matrix Options Paper., p. 108) 

EN 

95 

EN 

 
  
 
OPTION 4 

Victims Support Services – establish or support independent services. Legal advice shall be provided. 

Total Cost – €4.07 – €6.6 billion 

Costs are based on calculations provided in option 3. However, in this option, VSS are required to be independent, autonomous and to provide legal 
advice or assistance. It can be assumed that whilst most costs should remain the same, the provision of legal advice could significantly increase costs.  

It is difficult to calculate the cost of providing such advice. Some victim support organisations already do so either through in house or external lawyers. 
Costs can vary greatly depending on how advice is given but also on the nature of the advice. If it is basic and related to information on general rights 
etc this could be provided by lower qualified persons. However, legal counsel could be extremely expensive. Costings have been attempted based on 
national hourly wages of lawyers in the Member States, 1 hour of advice being provided by an external lawyer.  

According to the ICVS, on average 43% of victims reporting four types of serious crime felt help would have been useful for them. This compares with a 
report by the UK's Victim's commissioner that only 20% of victims want support services. Since this takes account of victims of lesser crimes an average 
of 30% of victims will be taken for costings. It is assumed that some of these will not need advice, nevertheless costs are provided for all victims who 
could potentially receive support. On this basis if around 22.5 million victims (30% of all reported and unreported crimes) received 1 hour of legal advice 
at an average cost of €180 - €293 per hour, the total EU cost would be between €4.05 – €6.59 billion 

EN 

96 

EN 

 
  
INTERPRETATION AND TRANSLATION 

OPTION 2 

Interpretation and Translation – minimise communication difficulties:  

Total Cost – less than €30,000 – €6.87 million 

This option provides a wide leeway for implementation by Member States. Costs of implementation are expected to fall on government authorities at a 
national and regional level. Cost for leaflets should only be borne once and for any subsequent changes but there are unlikely to be annual translation 
costs. Costs for translation of proceedings are expected to remain relatively constant. 

As a minimum, this could involve providing information leaflets in a foreign language. According to the APAV study, in 6 States (LT, LU, NL, PT, ES, 
UK) information is already available in different languages. Those States may not have additional costs in this respect and so calculations are made 
for 21 States. 

According to studies, the estimated cost of translating a short 4 page information leaflet for 21 States would range from €1,360.60 (minimum 1 page cost 
is €340.15) – €3,942.68 (maximum 1 page cost is €985.67)181. This cost must be multiplied by the number of languages the document is translated into. If 
all 22 EU languages were translated costs would range from €29,933.20 – €86,738.96. However, Member States are likely to do this based on the most 
common languages used in their jurisdiction rather than for all 22 EU languages. Thus costs are likely to be lower. 

Member States could also provide a short summary of the outcome of proceedings.  

According to APAV 15 Member States (AT, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, LT, LU, NL, RO, SK, ES, SE, UK) already provide translation and interpretation 
services for all victims. The remaining 12 States provide such services but only for victims as witnesses. Since no data is available on the number of non-
witness victims, costings are based on total foreign victim population in the 12 Member States (BE, BG, CZ, CY, DK, IE, IT, LV, MT, PL, PT, SI). 

A  1  page  summary  would  cost  from  €310.15  -  €722.40  per  case  for  the  12  States  above.  It  is  estimated  that  around  57869  cases  involving  foreign 
victims actually go to court (figures are available for 17 Member States ranging from 27 cases in Cyprus to 27864 in the UK. 11 States have less than 
1000 cases and 16 States less than 7000. As such a median of 768 cases has been taken for Member States for which data were not available182). This 
works out at 9395 cases for the 12 Member States referred to above. The cost of producing 1 page summaries is therefore estimated to range from 
€2.91 million to €6.79 million 

EN 

97 

EN 

 
  
 
OPTION 3a 

Interpretation and Translation – provided on basis of proportionality 

OPTION 3b 

Total Costs: less than €89.29 – €205.49 million 

Translation: €87.42 – €203.61 million   

Interpretation: €1,879,000   

As with option 1, this option is difficult to cost. A proportionality test has been introduced to provide Member States with sufficient flexibility to ensure that 
translation and interpretation is provided only where necessary and to a necessary extent. This should effectively reduce cost implications in particular in 
relation  to  low  level  crimes  (where  for  instance  a  simple  summary  may  be  provided)  or  where  the  victim  has  indicated  they  do  not  wish  to  receive 
translations etc. 

Furthermore, additional costs are only expected to arise in relation to 12 Member States ((BE, BG, CZ, CY, DK, IE, IT, LV, MT, PL, PT, SI – see option 
2) remaining 15 already provide interpretation and translation to all victims. 

Translation: To provide a baseline for translation, the total estimated costs for translating 1 page ranges from €310.15 – €722.40 for the 12 Member 
States. It is estimated that in civil proceedings, each proceedings involves on average 30 pages. On this basis, the total cost for translating 30 pages 
for a total of 9395 cases involving foreign victims in those States ranges from €87.42 – €203.61 million.  

Interpretation:  according  to  the  2009  Impact  assessment  for  a  Proposal  for  a  Council  Framework  Decision  on  the  right  to  interpretation  and  to 
translation in criminal proceedings183, the average cost of interpretation for the accused for 1 case is around €200. Based on this costing, it is estimated 
that interpretation for the 12 States that do not currently provide interpretation for all victims would cost around €1,879,000 at a maximum. 

However, these costings only provide a baseline. Since Member States will apply a proportionality test, it is assumed that costs can be reduced.  

In addition, interpretation costs are based on UK figures for interpretation. It has been observed that interpretation in the UK is provided to a very high 
level and it can therefore be assumed that these costs are at the maximum end of the scale.  

OPTION 4 

Interpretation and Translation – provided for all victims during proceedings 

Total Costs: €89.29 – €205.49 million 

EN 

98 

EN 

 
  
 
Costing are based on calculations made in option 3. However, no flexibility is provided in relation to when translation and interpretation is provided which 
will minimise the possibility to reduce costs.  

EN 

99 

EN 

 
  
 
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE SERVICES 

OPTION 2 

OPTION 3a 

Restorative Justice Services (RJS) – safeguards where RJS exists 

Total cost - €0 – €878 millio n (accreditation and legal advice for 21 Member States) 

21 Member States provide some form of RJS (AT, BE, BG, CZ, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, IE, IT, LV, LU, PL, PT, RO, SI, ES, SE, UK). Calculations on 
safeguards will thus only be based on costs in those states. 

Member States could implement this requirement ranging from no significant costs since many safeguards do not impose financial burdens (such 
as the requirement of consent to participate in RJS), to the most expensive safeguards accreditation schemes and provision of legal advice (in 
accordance with the UN guidelines on RJS safeguards). Cost estimates will thus only be given on those two safeguards. 

Total cost of accreditation schemes – From €570,000 – €3.58 million (assuming implemented by all 21 States) 

Total Cost of Legal advice – from  €645 – 937 million (assuming implemented by all 21 States) 

A range of safeguards can be applied in relation to RJS. However, based on UN guidelines the key safeguards having cost implications are standards 
of competence which inevitably requires at least training but also possibly accreditation and the right to legal counsel.  

Accreditation:  Based  on  calculations  in  available  studies  (using  Member  States  wages  and  reported  and  unreported  crime  statistics),  the  cost  of 
accreditation schemes can vary based on whether the scheme accredits training and services only or individuals as well. It can also vary depending 
on  whether  accreditation  is  carried  out  through  paid  assessors  or  by  volunteers.  Costings  are  based  on  a  single  organisation  carrying  out 
accreditation.  Based on UK research estimated costs would result in the accreditation of around 350 individual practitioners, 120 training courses and 
10 restorative services/organisations over five years. This was deemed to be sufficient to meet victim/ offender demand. In addition any organisation 
carrying out accreditation could charge for such services and could do so on a profitable basis. However, it should be noted that a number of Member 
States are likely to have accreditation schemes in place already so the costs should be lower than those provided.  

Accreditation for 21 States 

EN 

100 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Individuals,  services,  training 
paid 

- 

Individuals,  services,  training 
volunteer 

- 

Services, training - paid 

Services, training – Volunteer 

€413,914 - €3,420,182 

€624,730 

€661,395 

€505,578 

Legal advice: Provision of legal counsel to victims is difficult to calculate due to a range of variables similar to those in relation to the provision of 
restorative justice. However, based on an assumption that 50% of victims wish to receive RJS and do in fact receive it, costings can be established 
based on the provision of 1 hour of legal advice. This provides a baseline costing but it is assumed that costs would be lower as not all 50% of victims 
would actually receive RJ (case not suitable, offender refusal) or would get to a stage where legal advice was required or desired. 

Based on hourly rates for legal advice for each Member State and on the victim population for each Member State (for reported crime) costs could at 
a maximum range from €2.4 billion to €3.7 billion. However, a more likely costing scenario, which we use for total costing, would be based on the 
number of cases that currently go to court. Based on available studies, this is estimated at 5,264,059 cases. With a 50% take up rate (i.e. 2,632,045) 
costs are estimated at between €606 million to €875 million. 

OPTION 3b 

OPTION 4 

Restorative Justice Services (RJS) – establish or enhance RJS based on minimum standards: 

Total cost of establishing RJS and apply minimum standards (including establishment costs, accreditation and legal advice:  

€20 million to €2.6 billion 

Total cost of establishing RJS for all victims who want it – from €19.6 million (at €75 per case) to €1.7 billion (at €6570 per
that do not have RJS) 

 case) (in 6 Member States 

Total cost of accreditation schemes – from €477,296  to €3.58 million (assuming im plemented by all 27 States) 

Total cost of legal advice – from €645 million to €938 million (ass uming implemented by all 27 States) – NB – this cost will only be included in the 

EN 

101 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
maximum costing since Member States are not obliged to carry it out. 

Cost of establishing and running RJS: 

Based on a recent report184, 21 Member States have some form of RJS in place(AT, BE, BG, CZ, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, IE, IT, LV, LU, PL, PT, RO, 
SI, ES, SE, UK). The cost estimates are thus made on the basis of only those States which do not have RJS (CY, DK, LT, MT, NL, SK).  

Various studies show that 30% to 50% of all victims are interested in a personal meeting with the offender. This percentage increases up to 70% or 
more when the possibility for indirect mediation is also presented185. For the purposes of costings an average take up rate of 50% is used which 
amounts to 261,507 cases based on 523,013 cases going to court in these six Member States. 

Given that this option does not specify what type of RJS should be provided, in relation to which offences, nor at what point in the formal process or 
indeed whether it should act as a diversion to the criminal justice system, calculation of costs are extremely difficult to make. A study carried out in the 
US shows that the cost per case can vary widely from $97 (€75) in France (for the category of less time-consuming cases) to $250 (€193 – 11.01.11 
exchange rates applied) in the US/California and $1.069 (€827) in Germany186. More recently, analysis of pilot restorative justice projects in the UK 
have shown costs of the schemes varied between £248 and £1,458 per case referred, or between about £3,261 and £5,457 (€6570) per case in which 
restorative justice was completed (these costs include staffing, premises, communications etc)187. 

Thus costs could range from €19.6 million (at €75 per case) to €1.7 billion (at €6570 per case). 

Accreditation and Legal advice: 

It  should  be  noted  that  this  option  establish  certain  standards  to  be  achieved  including  that  practitioners  are  competent  in  restorative  justice.  This 
implies that they will receive training and that accreditation will be carried out. Costing are not available for training but accreditation costs are based 
on restorative justice calculations. Member States may also choose to ensure that legal advice is provided. Costing have therefore been established. 
However, since they are not obliged to provide this service, such costs are only included in the maximum total cost. 

Cost  estimates  for  accreditation  and  legal  advice  are  provided  for  all  27  Member  States  since  no  data  is  available  on  which  States  provide  these 
safeguards. 

Accreditation:  Based  on  calculations  in  available  studies  (using  Member  States  wages  and  reported  and  unreported  crime  statistics),  the  cost  of 
accreditation schemes can vary based on whether the scheme accredits training and services only or individuals as well. It can also vary depending 
on  whether  accreditation  is  carried  out  through  paid  assessors  or  by  volunteers.  Costings  are  based  on  a  single  organisation  carrying  out 

EN 

102 

EN 

 
  
accreditation.  Based on UK research estimated costs would result in the accreditation of around 350 individual practitioners, 120 training courses and 
10 restorative services/organisations over five years. This was deemed to be sufficient to meet victim/ offender demand. In addition any organisation 
carrying out accreditation could charge for such services and could do so on a profitable basis. However, it should be noted that a number of Member 
States are likely to have accreditation schemes in place already so the costs should be lower than those provided.  

Accreditation for 27 States 

Individuals,  services,  training 
paid 

- 

Individuals,  services,  training 
volunteer 

- 

Services, training - paid 

Services, training – Volunteer 

€477,296 - €3,580,278 

€693,242 

€730,800 

€571,190 

Legal advice: Provision of legal counsel to victims is difficult to calculate due to a range of variables similar to those in relation to the provision of 
restorative justice. However, based on an assumption that 50% of victims wish to receive RJS and do in fact receive it, costings can be established 
based on the provision of 1 hour of legal advice. This provides a baseline costing but it is assumed that costs would be lower as not all 50% of victims 
would actually receive RJ (case not suitable, offender refusal) or would get to a stage where legal advice was required or desired. 

Based on hourly rates for legal advice for each Member State and on the victim population for each Member State (for reported crime) costs could at 
a maximum range from €2.6 billion to €4.2 billion. However, a more likely costing scenario, which we use for total costing, would be based on the 
number of cases that currently go to court. Based on available studies, this is estimated at 5,787,102 cases in the 27 Member States. With a 50% take 
up rate (i.e. 2,893,551) costs are estimated at between €645 million to €938 million. 

This total costing is expected to only be established over a prolonged period of time since the full establishment of such services will not be possible 
immediately.  It  will  take  time  to  establish  service  providers,  train  personnel  and  attain  complete  national  coverage.  In  the  short  term  costs  are 
therefore likely to be lower.  

It  should  be  noted  that  based  on  UK  study,  for  all  the  projects  and  counting  only  reductions  in  the  frequency  of  offending,  RJ  saved  the  Criminal 
Justice System around 8 times what it cost to deliver i.e. for every 1 euro spent, 8 euros were saved. The savings in relation to restorative justice for 
more serious crimes such as burglary are higher at around 14:1.188  

Based on this ratio, RJS could result in significant savings to the total criminal justice budget purely based on a reduction in reoffending which 
could more than offset the costs of establishing and running restorative justice services.  

The benefits to victims and offenders of the process would further enhance cost-value calculations. These calculations are also based RJS where the 
formal process continues. Where cases are diverted from the formal justice system, further significant savings can be made. 

EN 

103 

EN 

 
  
ATTENDANCE OF TRIAL 

OPTION 2 

Attendance of trial – establish guidelines –  

Total cost: between €146,000 to €1,580,000 

This policy option involves the establishment of guidelines to better inform victims concerning trial dates and possibility of reimbursement.  

Based on the analysis of guidelines on training in studies, the following costs are expected:  

Guidelines attending trial  

Internally developed by Ministry of Justice 

Externally contracted 

EU Drafted, MS adaptation 

€145,616 

between €970,000 and €1,580,000 

€236,201 

(€679 in BG to €11,190 in LU) 

OPTION 3a 

Attendance of trial: assessment on exclusion, trial date info, reimbursement 

OPTION 3b 

Total cost – €240 – €242.9 million 

Cost of providing information - €0 – €2.9 million 

Reimbursement – €240 million 

Key  costs  relate  to  informing  the  victim  of  the  trial  date  and  reimbursing  the  victim  for  attendance.  Assessment  of  exclusion  of  the  victim  is  not 
expected to impose significant financial costs though some additional administrative burden will be experienced. 

EN 

104 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Information on trial date: According the APAV Study, 8 Member States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, IE, LT, LV, NL) already inform all victims of the trial date with 
the  remaining  19  States  informing  witnesses.  Additional  Costs  are  calculated  for  these  19  States  though  in  reality  they  will  be  lower  since  many 
victims are witnesses. 

It  is  assumed  that  such  communication  will  be  made  in  writing.  If  this  is  done  by  letter,  it  is  estimated  that  the  cost  would  be  in  the  range  of  €2.9 
million for 19 Member States based on an estimated cost of stamps of €0,50 and around 5,787,102 cases going to court189. It should be noted that 
these costs could be reduced to near zero by sending the official communication by E-mail. 

Reimbursement for attendance: In 17 Member States (AT, BG, CZ, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, LV, LT, LU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SI, SE)190 reimbursement is 
already provided for victims. Those States should have no additional costs in this respect. In 7 Member States (BE, CY, DK, EE, IE, IT, UK)191 only 
witnesses are eligible for reimbursement of expenses of attending a trial. MT and ES have no provisions concerning reimbursement of attendance of 
trial192. The calculations are made for these 9 Member States considering the requirement of reimbursement of all their foreign cases. 

Based on available studies, the total costs for these 9 states amounts to around €240 million.193  

OPTION 4 

Attendance of trial – right to attend trial, informed of date and reimbursed, availability considered. 

Attendance of trial: Total cost – > €240 – 242.6 million 

Cost of providing information - > €0 – 2.6 million 

Reimbursement – > €240 million  

Costs are based on calculations made in option 3. However, as a result this requiring that full information is provided to victims about the attendance 
of trial and also taking into account the victims availability when determining the date of the trial, the costs of reimbursement are likely to be higher, 
since more victims are likely to attend and due to possible delays where the victims is unavailable. 

There are no figures available in relation to victims attendance of any matter related to proceedings, but even if we assume as a minimum that the 
victim has to attend two further sessions of questioning during the investigation process this would treble reimbursement costs. 

EN 

105 

EN 

 
  
 
 
ANNEX 11 – POTENTIAL MONITORING AND EVALUATION INDICATORS 

The core indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives of the proposal could be listed 
as follows:  

p.  Objective 

q.  Indicator 

r.  A -specific Objective: 

s.  Specific objective: to ensure 
that victims are recognised 
and treated with respect and 
dignity 

t.  A.1  To ensure that that the 
needs of indirect victims (co-
victims of murder and 
immediate family members of 
victims of crime in general) 
are met. 

u.  A.2  To ensure that police, 
prosecutors and court staff 
receive appropriate victims 
training. To ensure that the 
judiciary have access to judicial 
studies opportunities. 

•  Number of positive responses to the following 

range of questions:  

•  Did the staff of victim support, police, 

judiciary, prosecution service: 

• 

treat you politely, respect your rights, show 
interest in your personal story, take you 
seriously, show understanding of your situation, 
respect your privacy, treat your personal details 
confidentially, leave you waiting a long time 
before you could report the crime? show 
compassion, refer you to medical or mental 
health services? behave in a professional 
fashion? 

•  Practical – number of positive responses from 
co-victims of murder to the question did you 
receive the following services where you 
wished to receive such services (Services 
determined by content of Directive). 

•  Practical - number of positive responses from 

indirect victims did you receive the support and 
protection you had expressed a need for? 

•  Number of police, prosecutors and court staff 
that have received appropriate victims training 
in comparison with the total number of staff. 

•  Details of training plans to ensure staff are 

trained 

•  Evidence of what training programmes are 
available to judges and on what basis. 

v.  A.3   To establish needs 

assessment mechanisms to 

•  Evidence of what needs assessments have been 

established. 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
 
 
identify the needs of victims and 
to identify vulnerable victims 
and their specific needs. 

•  Number of needs assessments carried out 

compared with the number of victims reporting 
crimes. 

•  Number of identified vulnerable victims and 

trends in numbers. 

•  Number of victims who received specialist 

treatment having been identified as vulnerable. 

•  Number of victims confirming that they had 

been identified as vulnerable compared with the 
number of victims who felt themselves 
vulnerable but had not been identified as such. 

•  Number of victims confirming that they felt 
vulnerable compared with the number who 
confirmed they had received appropriate 
services. 

x.   

•  Number of victims receiving protection 

measures as a result of using the Directives 
mechanisms compared with those who would 
have liked such measures but did not receive 
them. 

w.  B.  Specific objective: to 
ensure that victims are 
protected 

y.  B.1   To ensure that victims do 

not lose the protection they have 
been given when they travel or 
move abroad. 

z.  B.2   To ensure contact between 
the offender and victim can be 
avoided during proceedings. 

•  Number of new courts built with separate 
waiting areas compared to those without. 

•  Evidence of the establishment of guidelines for 

aa. C  Specific objective: to 
ensure that victims are 
supported 

cc. C.1   To ensure that effective 
victims support services are 
available to victims. 

court staff. 

bb.  

•  Evidence of how support services have been 

established or facilitated. 

•  Number of victims receiving victim support 
services compared with number of known 
victims 

•  Number of victims expressing a wish for 
support and receiving that support. 

EN 

107 

   EN 

 
dd. C.2   To ensure that victims have 
the rights to be accompanied by 
a trusted person or victim 
support organisation during 
proceedings. 

•  Legislation: evidence that trusted persons are 
not excluded from accompanying a victim 
except in certain circumstances. 

•  Number of persons who were accompanied by a 
trusted person having expressed a wish for this. 

ee. D.  Specific objective: to 

ensure victims have effective 
access to justice 

gg. D.1  To ensure victims are only 
excluded from attending trial in 
exceptional circumstances and 
that they are informed of the 
trial date and receive 
reimbursement for attendance. 

hh. D.2  To ensure that victims are 
assisted in understanding their 
rights, obligations and the 
proceedings 

ii.  D.3   Ensure that victims have a 

right to have prosecution 
decisions reviewed. 

jj.  E.  Specific objective: to 

ensure victims have access to 
restorative justric 

kk.  

mm.  E.1 

  To ensure victims 

have access to effective 
Restorative Justice Services. 

nn.  

oo.  

ff.   

•  Legislation or other measures conforming with 

the objective. 

•  Number of victims attending trial who 

expressed a wish to do so. 

•  Number of victims who expressed a wish for 

interpretation and translation or documentation 
in their own language who received it. 

•  Number of victims stating that they had 
difficulties understanding information or 
proceedings. 

•  Number of reviews of prosecution decisions. 

•  Number of requests for review which have been 

rejected. 

ll.   

•  Number of victims who expressed a wish to 
take part in restorative justice services 

•  Number of victims who expressed a wish to 

take part in restorative justice services and who 
received those services 

•  Number of victims who expressed a wish to 
take part in restorative justice services but 
didn’t take part due to the refusal of the 
offender. 

EN 

108 

   EN 

 
EN 

109 

   EN