COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Executive summary of the Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the Eurropean Parliament, to the Council, to the European economic and social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions - Strenghthening victim's rights in the EU
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) 581 final 

[…] 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Executive summary of the Impact Assessment 

Accompanying the document 

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

          Strenghthening victim's rights in the EU 

{COM(2011) 274 final} 
{SEC(2011) 580 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
1. 

POLICY CONTEXT AND PROCEDURE 

In the Stockholm Programme (2010-2014), the European Council called for further action to 
place the needs of victims of crime at the centre of our justice systems, which was reaffirmed 
in the Commission's action plan to implement the Stockholm Programme. The Commission 
Work Programme 2011, Annex I, 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. Moreover, 
the Commission's "Citizenship Report" of 27 October 2010 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. 
The problems, objectives and policy options assessed were based on the outcome of a public 
consultation, two studies by external contractors and the expertise brought together by the 
Commission. An Inter-Service Steering Group was also set up. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

The problem of victimisation of crime in Europe is considerable – roughly 15% of the EU's 
population suffer directly from crimes every year.1 The impact assessment addresses the 
quality of treatment that victims receive in the aftermath of crime and during the criminal 
proceedings that follow, and their right to 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.  
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 ensure mutual 
trust and the operation of mutual recognition of judgments. This means that judiciaries 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.  
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 their 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 
on victims' rights in accordance with standards already established through international 
instruments and case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).  
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 current EU legislation is therefore inadequate to meet the needs of victims.  
The issues identified are covered by the two problems detailed below: 

1 

According to Eurostat data, around 30 million crimes (excluding minor crime) were recorded in the EU 
Member  States  in  2007  (Eurostat,  Statistics  in  focus,  36/2009).  Based  on  an  analysis  of  the  EU 
International Crime Survey in "The Burden of Crime in the EU" (www.europeansafetyobservatory.eu), 
to  this  figure  is  added  an  assumed  rate  of  unreported  crime  of  60%,  resulting  in  approximately 
75 million direct crime victims per year (roughly 15% of the EU population). 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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. 
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 

The EU has adopted the Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA on the standing of victims in 
criminal proceedings (the "Framework Decision") and Directive 2004/80/EC on the 
compensation of crime victims. The level of implementation by the Member States of these 
two pieces of legislation has been mixed. The Compensation Directive has been largely 
transposed by the Member States, but will require further study to establish to what extent it is 
really effective. The implementation of the Framework Decision, on the other hand, is not 
satisfactory. 
Whilst the scope of the Framework Decision covers most of the rights of victims of all types 
of crime and is overall still relevant, any new action needs to cover a wider range of rights and 
obligations on the Member States given the growing awareness and changing judicial culture 
to address not only the rights and needs of the prosecuted but also those of the victims. 
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 mutual recognition of protection measures, 
and access to justice. 
The Framework Decision 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. The ineffectiveness of this legislation is due to ambiguous drafting, a lack of 
concrete obligations and a lack of infringement possibilities against Member States. 
While building on and complementing existing instruments, this legal framework will 
establish minimum standards to ensure that the situation of victims is improved in law and 
policy throughout the EU and that victims of crime receive the same basic rights, services and 
access to justice in all EU Member States. 

2.2. 

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

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 access to compensation and restoration. The fact that these 
needs generally are not sufficiently or adequately met in the Member States is the key 
problem that the proposed measures will address. 

•  Issue  1  –  Victims  are  not  sufficiently  recognised  and  treated  with  dignity  and 
respect. 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  all  persons  involved  in  the  judicial  process.  Particular  attention 
should be given to the needs of vulnerable victims e.g. children, disabled person, victims of 
sexual violence. Indirect victims (e.g. family members) also need to be recognised as the 
consequences of the crime affect them too. 

•  Issue 2 – Victims are not sufficiently protected. Victims need to be protected to prevent 
further crime or intimidation from the offender. For victims of chronic violence, security is 
both their primary need in reporting a crime, but also their primary concern. Victims also 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
need  to  be  protected  from  secondary  victimisation  during  proceedings  due  to  poor 
treatment in connection with and during the judicial process.  

•  Issue  3  –  Victims  are  not  sufficiently  supported. In  the  immediate  aftermath  of  a  crime, 
victims  need  support  mainly  through  emergency  assistance  together  with  psychological 
first  aid.  Support  during  the  subsequent  judicial  process,  whether  legal,  emotional  or 
practical,  is  also  often  needed  by  and  crucial  to  victims,  and  in  particular  vulnerable 
victims. Support may be needed both in the short and long term as a consequence of the 
crime. 

•  Issue 4 – Victims do not have effective access to justice. Victims must be given access to 
justice,  such  as  accessibility  of  court  processes,  availability  of  adequate 
legal 
representation  in  criminal  trials,  access  to  more  informal  legal  processes  and  the  right  to 
review a decision on whether or not to prosecute the offender. Victims must also be able to 
understand the information received and the proceedings.  

•  Issue 5 – Victims do not have effective access to compensation and restoration. Victims 
must  be  given  the  choice  to  access  restorative  justice  services,  as  a  complement  to  the 
normal judicial process. Restorative justice gives victims an opportunity to confront their 
offenders face to face and allows offenders account for what they have done. This process 
helps victims to get on with their lives. 

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.  
Meeting victims' needs before, during and after criminal proceedings may considerably 
mitigate these negative consequences and can also prevent that they potentially worsen due to 
bad treatment during the process. If a victim receives appropriate support and protection, 
he/she will recover quicker bother physically and emotionally from the crime, and will thus 
for example limit his/her 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.  

2.4. 

The underlying drivers of the problems 

The primary drivers for the identified problems are: non-prioritisation of victims and a lack of 
knowledge about their needs, rooted in historical and cultural attitudes; a lack of enforcing 
mechanisms for victims' rights and a lack of practitioner knowledge of victims' issues. 

2.5. 

Baseline Scenario 

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. The Framework Decision – even after the European Court of 
Justice acquires jurisdiction in 2014 pursuant to the Lisbon Treaty – will not provide a 
satisfactory legal framework since it suffers from ambiguous drafting and weak obligations. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
As such, enforcement proceedings will be difficult to institute and in many situations little 
action will need to be taken to demonstrate compliance. 

2.6. 

The need for action at EU level 

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. Moreover, there 
is also a cross-border dimension for crimes against people in their country of residence (e.g. 
where 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 thus 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. 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.  
In addition, 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.  

3. 

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. 
The specific and operational objectives are described in the table below: 

EN 

4 

   EN 

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

B. 
victims are protected 

To ensure that 

A.1 
A.2 

A.3 

B.1 

Operational Objective 

Ensure the needs of indirect victims are met. 
Ensure all police, prosecutors, judges and court staff who come into contact with 
victims receive appropriate victims training.  

Establish needs assessment mechanisms for all victims to identify the needs of 
victims and vulnerable victims and their needs. 

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

B.2 

Ensure contact between the offender and victim is avoided during proceedings. 

C 
To ensure that 
victims are supported. 

C.1 

Ensure effective victims support services are available. 

To ensure that 

D. 
victims have effective 
access to justice 
. 

D.1 
D.2 

D.3 

Ensure all victims are able to attend trial 
Ensure all victims are assisted in understanding their rights, obligations and the 
proceedings 
Ensure all victims have a right to have prosecution decisions reviewed. 

To ensure 

E. 
victims have access to 
compensation and 
restoration 

E.1 

Ensure all victims have access to effective Restorative Justice Services. 

The specific objectives 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, including trafficking in human 
beings and sexual abuse and exploitation of children and child pornography, and are 
consistent with the approach taken in these areas. The proposed measures will build on and 
complement existing instruments, and establish minimum standards on victims' rights which 
will improve the general environment for protecting all victims of all types of crime in EU 
law and policy, including for instance victims of terrorism and road traffic crimes.  
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 will 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.  

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Options examined in this assessment all take a combined approach with varying levels of 
detail or obligation being imposed, 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.  
The impact assessment considers five options: retention of the status quo (option 1) and three 
policy options (options 2, 3a, 3b and 4). The retention of the status quo would involve taking 
no action at EU level, which is not sufficient to achieve minimum common standards on the 
protection of victims across Europe, while the other four alternative policy options have been 
identified to improve victims' situation across Europe. The four policy options range from 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Low - Medium - High level of obligation imposed on Member States and the detail of such 
obligations:  

Option 1 – 

Status Quo 

Option 2 – 

Low level of 
obligation 

Option 3a –
Medium level 
obligation 

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, to 
establish  services  and  rights  and  imposes  provisions  on  what  such  services  should  be 
while defining minimum details on what standards to be applied. However, the level of 
obligation  on  Member  States  to  establish  of  Restorative  Justice  Services  (RJS)  (see 
measure 11 below) 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. 

Option 3b –
Medium/High 
level obligation 

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. 
However, the level of obligation on Member States regarding RJS is higher than option 
3a because Member States must establish RJS and apply minimum standards.  

Option 4 –
Highest level of 
obligation 

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. 

Each policy option has been assessed against the following eleven measures, which would 
have the most effect in reaching the operative objectives and that are likely to have the most 
significant cost implications and impact:  

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

Coverage of indirect victims 

Provision of training 

Assessment of victims' needs 

Identification of vulnerable victims and provision of specific services 

Cross border provision of protection measures 

Provision of separate waiting areas to avoid contact between victim and offender 

Establishment  of  a  minimum  level  of  Victim  Support  Services,  including  support 
during proceedings 

Attendance of trial 

Provision of interpretation and translation 

Review of decisions 

Establishment of Restorative Justice Services 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  

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. Moreover, all 
options, except status quo, are expected to have a positive impact on fundamental rights with 
the options having biggest impact also improving fundamental rights the greatest. 
The impact of the different options on the Member States will vary depending on their level 
of existing standards on victims' rights. Considering that the existing national laws and 
practices differ to a varying degree from the minimum standards that the proposed measures 
aim to achieve, the impact of the proposed measures would presumably be greatest in the 
Member States where victims' rights are 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.  

6. 

COMPARING THE 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. 
Implementing the preferred Policy option 3a would help achieving 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).  

–  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).  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
–  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  provided  certain  minimum  standards  are 

applied in all Member States (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 and reimbursed for their attendance (D1).  

–  Contact  between  the  offender  and  victim  is  minimised  during  proceedings.  Any 

new courts are constructed with separate waiting areas (B2).  

–  In general the legislation will relate to direct victims. However, all rights will be 
applied  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, including: 

–  Study on state compensation and offender restitution. 

–  Study on legal assistance and legal aid available to 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 
involve the development of training programmes.  

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Providing for a robust monitoring and evaluation mechanism is crucial to ensure that the 
rights envisaged are complied with in practice as well as in legislation. 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 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
than using the means hitherto available as well as all an evaluation in the perception of 
victims in term of the meeting of their needs. 

EN 

9 

   EN