Victims of crime in the EU : the extent and nature of support for victims.
Date: 2014-12-23
Institutions: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
Subjects: EU Member State, EU law, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, access to the courts, charter on human rights, crime against individuals, directive (EU), fundamental rights, help for victims, legal system, report, right to justice

F

R

A

V

i

c

t

i

m

s

o

f

c

r

i

m

e

i

n

t

h

e

E

U

:

t

h

e

e

x

t

e

n

t

a

n

d

n

a

t

u

r

e

o

f

s

u

p

p

o

r

t

f

o

r

v

i

c

t

i

m

s

JUSTICE

Victims of crime in the EU: 
 the extent and nature  
of support for victims

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This report addresses matters related to the right to an effective remedy (Article 47) falling under Title VI ‘Justice’ 
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Photo (cover & inside): © Shutterstock

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
Schwarzenbergplatz 11 – 1040 Vienna – Austria
Tel. +43 158030-0 – Fax +43 158030-699 
Email: info@fra.europa.eu – fra.europa.eu

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014

ISBN 978-92-9239-522-3 
doi:10.2811/77450

© European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014
Reproduction is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

Printed on process chlorine-free recycled paper (PCF)

Victims of crime in the EU: 
the extent and nature of 
support for victims

Preface

Support services to victims of crime are essential to victims’ rights. Crime victims need support so they can access 
the justice system. This report by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) analyses victim sup‑
port services in the European Union (EU) and is an important source of information for us, policymakers, on how well 
victim services are implemented across EU Member States and which gaps remain.

The Victims’ Directive is a big step forward for victims of crime. All victims have the right to effective access to jus‑
tice as laid down in Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, this right only becomes a practical 
reality when victims are aware that such support exists and get help to make use of it. As the report shows, in the 
absence of victim support services, it is likely that victims will not report their experiences, and will find it difficult 
to navigate their way through the legal system to see their case through.

FRA’s report clearly shows the different traditions underlying victim support services in the EU Member States. We 
should welcome this diversity of approaches. However, there are essential characteristics that all victim support ser‑
vices must share. For example, they should be available to all victims free of charge, and must not be dependent on 
other criteria such as a victim’s residence status or whether they have reported a crime to the police.

This report is a useful overview of the support services available to crime victims in the EU today. Together with FRA’s 
other work on access to justice and its large scale surveys of groups that are disproportionally likely to become victims 
of crime, this report can help us to better understand and improve support for victims of crime throughout the EU.

Vĕra Jourová
European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality

3

Foreword

The right of victims of crime to have access to justice should exist not only on paper, as in the Charter of Fundamen‑
tal Rights of the European Union (EU), but also in practice. FRA research has, however, repeatedly and consistently 
shown that victims of crime are reluctant to report their victimisation to the police. Several factors account for this 
systematic under‑reporting. Victims are often not aware of their rights or do not know where to turn for help. Some 
victims weigh the costs of what they expect to be lengthy and bureaucratic procedures against the improvements 
these procedures would in the end make to their situation. Certain groups of victims suffer from feelings of fear, guilt 
or shame. In short, there are major factors that impede victims’ access to justice or discourage victims from coming 
forward. This can translate into fewer investigations and prosecutions and missed opportunities for victims to seek 
redress and to experience justice being done. As a result, offenders go unpunished and victims’ rights (and needs) 
can remain unmet.

To overcome these hurdles it is of crucial importance that all victims of crime are offered adequate support, advice 
and assistance. The Victims’ Directive (2012/29/EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 – 
establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime – obliges EU Member States 
to ensure that “victims, in accordance with their needs, have access to confidential victim support services, free of 
charge, acting in the interests of the victims before, during and for an appropriate time after criminal proceedings”. 
At the same time, the Victims’ Directive makes it clear that there is more than one way to achieve this goal. Special‑
ist support services can be provided in addition to or as an integrated part of general victim support services; victim 
support services may be set up as public or non‑governmental organisations and may be organised on a profes‑
sional or voluntary basis. These various options reflect the diverse situations on the ground in each Member State, 
which again relate to different social and legal traditions and environments concerning recognition of and responses 
to victims of crime.

This report looks at achievements in the area of victim support provision and aims to take stock of the various models 
that have emerged in EU Member States. It examines Member States’ obligations under the Victims’ Directive to ensure 
the availability of support services to all victims of crime and explores the situation on the ground. The report high‑
lights achievements as well as promising models and practices that can serve as a source of inspiration to Member 
States in implementing the Victims’ Directive. Finally, the research findings are intended as a resource for the European 
Commission when reviewing the existence and effectiveness of victim support services in the EU Member States.

Morten Kjaerum
Director

5

Country codes

Code

EU Member State

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Germany

Denmark

Estonia

Greece

Spain

Finland

France

Croatia

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Latvia

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Sweden

Slovenia

Slovakia

United Kingdom

6

Contents

PREFACE  ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3

FOREWORD  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND FRA OPINIONS  �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  11

INTRODUCTION  ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 17

1  VICTIMS’ RIGHTS IN EUROPEAN AND NATIONAL LAW  �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  25
1.1.  Victim support and fundamental rights ................................................................................................................. 25
1.2.  Victims in the criminal justice system: a diversity of concepts and legal frameworks  ................................  28
1.3.  The Victims’ Directive  ..............................................................................................................................................  30
Conclusions  ..........................................................................................................................................................................  38

2  ASPECTS OF VICTIM SUPPORT  ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 41
2.1.  Access to legal aid  ....................................................................................................................................................  42
2.2.  Decision not to prosecute  .......................................................................................................................................  45
2.3.  Rights at trial to prevent repeat and secondary victimisation  .........................................................................  47
2.4.  Provision of information  .......................................................................................................................................... 49
2.5.  Training of criminal justice practitioners   .............................................................................................................. 51
2.6.  Referral  ......................................................................................................................................................................  52
Conclusions  ..........................................................................................................................................................................  54

3  VICTIM SUPPORT SERVICES IN EU MEMBER STATES  ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  57
3.1.  Public or private provision of victim support  ......................................................................................................  57
3.2.  Organisational aspects  ............................................................................................................................................  62
3.3.  Regionalisation  ......................................................................................................................................................... 66
3.4.  The role of volunteers in victim support provision  .............................................................................................  67
3.5.  European umbrella organisations  ..........................................................................................................................  70
Conclusions  ..........................................................................................................................................................................  74

4  SUPPORT FOR SPECIFIC GROUPS OF VICTIMS  ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  77
Individual assessment  .............................................................................................................................................  77
4.1. 
4.2.  Provision of support to specific groups  ................................................................................................................  78
Conclusions  .......................................................................................................................................................................... 89

5  PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND INDICATORS  ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 91
5.1.  Quality standards  .....................................................................................................................................................  91
5.2.  Quality in a cross‑border setting  ........................................................................................................................... 94
5.3.  Emerging indicators of victims’ effective access to criminal justice  ...............................................................  95
Conclusions  ........................................................................................................................................................................  100

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS  ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 103

REFERENCES  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 105

ANNEX 1:  LIST OF GENERIC VICTIM SUPPORT ORGANISATIONS, BY EU MEMBER STATE  ��������������������������������������������� 111

ANNEX 2:  ANNOTATED LISTING OF UMBRELLA ORGANISATIONS IN EUROPE WITH RELEVANCE TO 

SUPPORT SERVICES FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME  ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  115

ANNEX 3:  TABULATED COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FRAMEWORK DECISION AND THE VICTIMS’ DIRECTIVE  ���������  119

ANNEX 4:  OVERVIEW OF COMPARATIVE TABLES AVAILABLE ONLINE  ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  121

7

Figures and tables
Figure 1:  Year of origin of generic victim support services  ................................................................................................ 21

Figure 2:  Year of first national legislation referring to the rights and/or support and protection of 

victims of crime in EU Member States  ................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 3:  Three main approaches to dealing with victims of crime, number of EU Member States by approach  ........... 31

Figure 4:  EU instruments related to victims of crime, especially support services  .......................................................  32

Figure 5:  Structure and content of the Victims’ Directive  ..................................................................................................  37

Figure 6:  Right to an effective legal remedy against a decision by the public prosecutor not to 

prosecute or to discontinue proceedings  ............................................................................................................. 46

Figure 7:  EU instruments related to victims of crime .......................................................................................................... 96

Table 1:  Summary overview – the Framework Decision compared to the Victims’ Directive  ..................................... 35

Table 2:   Legal aid for victims and witnesses in 10 EU Member States  ...........................................................................  42

Table 3:  Availability of legal aid to crime victims  .............................................................................................................. 44

Table 4:  Provider of legal aid, by EU Member State  ..........................................................................................................  45

Table 5:  Victims’ rights at trial  .............................................................................................................................................. 48

Table 6:  Main models of victim support  ..............................................................................................................................  58

Table 7:  Ministries responsible for victim support provision  ........................................................................................... 64

Table 8:  Overview of staff/volunteers working for main generic victim support organisations in 

selected EU Member States  .................................................................................................................................... 69

Table 9:  Advantages and disadvantages of volunteers’ work in victim support organisations in 

selected EU Member States  ....................................................................................................................................  70

Table 10:  Selected European umbrella organisations in the area of victim support – members and coverage  ......... 71

Table 11:  Overview of specific areas of victim support chosen, by EU Member State  .................................................  79

Table 12:  Victims of violence who said they were satisfied with the assistance they received 

following the most serious incident, by type of perpetrator and type of violence  ......................................  93

Table 13:  Awareness of institutions or services that offer services to victims of violence against 

women, by EU Member State (%)  .........................................................................................................................  93

Table 14:  Reasons for not contacting any organisation or service (other than the police) following 

the most serious incident, by type of violence and perpetrator (%)  ..............................................................  93

Table 15:  Structural indicators for victim support services (with indications of availability)  ....................................... 98

Table 16:  Process indicators for victim support services (with indications of availability)  .......................................... 99

Table 17:  Outcome indicators for victim support services (with indications of availability)  ........................................ 99

8

Glossary

Damage (non‑pecuniary) 

Detrimental effect for the victim of a crime without a financial loss

Damage (pecuniary) 

Detrimental effect for the victim of a crime with a financial loss

ECHR 

ECtHR 

European Convention for the Protection of Human 
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

European Court of Human Rights

Framework Decision 

Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA on the standing of 
victims in criminal proceedings, replaced by the Victims’ Directive

General/generic victim support service  Victim support service covering all types of victims of crime

Moral harm 

Partie civile 

Damage to the moral integrity of a victim of a crime

Civil party in a judicial procedure

Repeat victimisation 

Situation suffered by victims where they fall victim to crime repeatedly

Secondary victimisation 

Additional damage suffered by victims caused by harmful 
conduct by society, public workers, police officers, doctors, or any 
other person that enters into contact with victims of crime

Specialist support service 

Victim support service focused on one or 
several specific types of victims

Victim 

Victims’ Directive 

Perceived victim of a criminal offence. A person who 
arguably claims or who could arguably claim that his or her 
rights protected under criminal law have been violated

Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and 
replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA

Victims’ package 

Package of legislative proposals adopted by 
the EU to support victims of crime

Victim support organisations 

Organisations providing support services to victims of crime

Victim support services 

Vulnerability/vulnerable persons 

Services provided to victims of crime, including those 
provided by victim support organisations

‘Vulnerability’ or similar words are used to refer to the 
situations that people find themselves in and do not 
intend in any way to locate problems in people.

9

Executive summary and FRA opinions

This report outlines the research findings of the Euro‑
pean Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) on 
support services for victims of crime across the Euro‑
pean Union (EU) from a fundamental rights perspective. 
It aims to give an overview of how current victim sup‑
port service provision across the 28 EU Member States 
compares in practice with the objectives and goals for 
victim support set out by the EU Victims’ Directive. The 
focus is on victim support services, not all aspects of the 
Victims’ Directive. Articles 8 and 9 on support services 
are therefore at the centre of this report, although other 
closely related provisions are also considered.

The provision of victim support services – assistance 
available to victims before, during and after criminal pro‑
ceedings, including emotional and psychological support 
and advice relating to legal, financial and practical issues 
as well as to risks of further victimisation – to victims 
of crime is fundamental to achieving justice for victims 
and ensuring victims can claim their rights. In particular, 
access to victim support services is of crucial impor‑
tance to crime victims’ ability to exercise their right to 
effective access to justice, as laid down in Article 47 
of the Charter on ‘Right to an effective remedy and to 
a fair trial’. The right of victims to access justice is firmly 
grounded not only in EU primary and secondary law, 
but also in Council of Europe and United Nations (UN) 
instruments, as well as in national legislation.

While legislation such as the Victims’ Directive is impor‑
tant, it is also crucial that it is applied in practice so that 
victims can actually make use of their rights.

That victims currently do not or cannot fully exercise 
their rights is underlined by the level of underreport‑
ing previous research by FRA has uncovered. In FRA’s 
four large‑scale surveys concerning the victimisation of 
minorities, of LGBT persons, antisemitic offences and 
violence against women, for example, the results con‑
sistently show that many victims do not report crimes to 
the police. While these four surveys looked at the situ‑
ation of specific categories of victims (such as women 
victims of violence), the findings uncovered (for exam‑
ple in relation to underreporting) are often of relevance 
to victims of crime more generally, and so certain find‑
ings of a more general applicability are highlighted in 
the report.

For  this  report,  FRA  collected  data  from  across  the 
28 EU Member States. These data show how victim 
support services have developed. They track the dif‑
fering pace, perspectives, contexts and organisational 
models at work in the evolution of such services across 
the  Member  States.  These  varying  backdrops  have 
shaped the nature and scope of services offered. For 

some Member States this means that putting the Vic‑
tims’ Directive into practice will present a challenge. 
FRA research identified several areas in particular in 
which Member States currently fall short of meeting 
the Victims’ Directive’s requirements. More must there‑
fore be done to ensure that the directive’s objectives 
are achieved.

Notwithstanding the challenges that remain, FRA evi‑
dence also brings to light many positive developments 
and promising practices. While these practices could 
inspire further development at the national as well as 
at the EU level, the different historical and cultural con‑
texts in which they have arisen cannot be overempha‑
sised. These differences should be kept in mind when 
considering the feasibility of transferring models and 
solutions across borders. Unless otherwise specified, 
however, the promising practices this report presents 
are not considered specific to particular models of victim 
support and are generally thought to be transferable 
to other Member States looking to improve their victim 
support structures in line with the Victims’ Directive.

Based on these findings, FRA has formulated opinions 
which suggest concrete measures that EU institutions 
and Member States can take to improve their victim 
support services.

Victims’ rights in European 
and national law

Guaranteeing the right of victims 
to access support services and 
to effective remedy

The Victims’ Directive acknowledges the existence of 
different criminal justice systems across EU Member 
States and the varying roles attributed to victims within 
these systems. Nonetheless, its implementation must 
not fall short of the standards guaranteed by Article 47 
of the Charter of the EU and the case law of the Euro‑
pean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) relevant to fair 
trial and the right to a remedy. This includes the right 
of effective access to court proceedings – facilitated by 
good victim support services – the right to challenge 
a prosecutor’s decision and the right to legal aid.

Victims’ effective access to justice depends in large 
part on the availability of targeted victim support ser‑
vices. The need to provide victims with a set of ser‑
vices  that  can  enable  them  to  enjoy  their  rights  is 
underlined by FRA research on the reporting of peo‑
ple’s experiences of crime. Results on, for example, 

11

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

experiences  of  hate  crime  in  the  EU‑MIDIS  survey 
(http://fra.europa.eu/eu‑midis) and on reporting pat‑
terns in the violence against women survey (http://fra.
europa.eu/en/survey/2012/survey‑gender‑based‑vio‑
lence‑against‑women), show that improvements are 
necessary to encourage reporting.

FRA opinion

EU  Member  States  must  ensure  the  effective 
provision  of  and  access  to  support  services  in 
order  to  comply  with  the  Victims’  Directive  and 
to  meet  their  obligations  under  Article  47  of 
the  Charter.  When  implementing  the  Victims’ 
Directive,  EU  Member  States  should  take  into 
account Article 47 and relevant ECtHR case‑law to 
assess the rights of victims to actively participate 
in  criminal  proceedings,  such  as  the  right  to  be 
heard and the right to provide evidence.

Interpreting ‘victim’ inclusively

As  the  Victims’  Directive  sets  higher  standards  in 
a number of areas than the Council Framework Deci‑
sion 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of 
victims in criminal proceedings (OJ L 82/1), definitions 
of the relevant concepts in national law, or their inter‑
pretation, should reflect this development in an appro‑
priate manner. FRA findings suggest that the legislation 
of some EU Member States might require amendments 
in this regard to be brought in line with the Victims’ 
Directive. Several Member States, for example, define 
the term ‘victim’ narrowly in their legislation, exclud‑
ing ‘indirect’ victims such as family members. Some 
Member States fail to define the term at all.

FRA opinion

The  Victims’  Directive  requires  that  a  victim’s 
family  members  are  included  in  the  definition 
of  victim  (in  relation  to  victims  whose  death  is 
a direct cause of a criminal offence) so that they 
also  have  access  to  victim  support  services  in 
accordance  with  their  needs  and  the  degree  of 
harm suffered as a result of the criminal offence 
committed  against  the  victim.  The  term  ‘family 
members’,  as  well  as  other  key  terms,  such  as 
‘particularly  vulnerable’,  should  therefore  be 
broadly  interpreted  so  as  not  to  unnecessarily 
restrict the list of potential rights holders.

Allocating sufficient resources

Certain new obligations, as well as non‑compulsory 
provisions of the Framework Decision that the Victims’ 
Directive makes obligatory, will require EU Member 
States to invest further in personnel, equipment or facil‑
ities. This includes ensuring that victims’ waiting areas 
at court are separate from those of the accused, at the 
very least in any new court premises (Article 10 (3) Vic‑
tims’ Directive). Member States must also acquire the 
technology needed for video‑links and video record‑
ings, provide obligatory training for front‑line practition‑
ers such as police officers and court staff (Article 25 (1) 
Victims’ Directive) and ensure that victims are indi‑
vidually assessed to identify their specific protection 
needs (Article 22 (1) Victims’ Directive). FRA findings 
show that some Member States have yet to implement 
these measures. Fewer than half the Member States, 
for example, currently provide separate waiting areas 
for victims.

According to the directive, EU Member States should 
also promote general and specialist training for judges 
and prosecutors on victims’ rights and needs. FRA find‑
ings show that not all Member States have yet imple‑
mented these measures.

FRA opinion

EU  Member  States  must  ensure  they  comply 
with  the  Victims’  Directive’s  new  obligations  on 
training police officers and court staff, providing 
individual  assessments  of  victims  and  ensuring 
separate  waiting  areas  for  victims  in  new  court 
premises.  EU  Member  States  should  make 
available  the  additional  resources  needed  to 
implement  such  measures  by  the  transposition 
deadline.

Aspects of victim support

Making legal aid available

Although available to most victims in the majority of EU 
Member States, FRA findings show that obtaining legal 
aid is often conditioned on, for example, an economic 
means test (to determine those who are financially eli‑
gible for free legal assistance) or on legal residence. 
While these conditions might be justifiable, they can 
present  difficult  bureaucratic  hurdles,  particularly 
where legal aid is required quickly to guarantee the 
victim’s rights. Some global standards also recommend 
a more restrictive use of means testing. The 2012 United 
Nations Guidelines and Principles on Access to Legal Aid 
in Criminal Justice Systems stipulates, for instance, that 
children are always to be exempted from such testing.

12

Executive summary and FRA opinions

FRA opinion

FRA opinion

Legal  aid  guaranteed  under  Article  13  of  the 
Victims’ Directive should be available to victims 
who are party to criminal proceedings in the same 
way  as  it  is  currently  available  to  defendants. 
Bureaucratic hurdles, such as lengthy proceedings 
or economic means testing, should be identified 
and removed. Means testing may not always be 
in compliance with UN guidelines.

EU  Member  States  should  introduce  measures 
that  ensure  that  victims,  at  all  stages  of  the 
process,  have  access  to  information  about  their 
rights  and  available  support  services,  as  well 
as  to  relevant  information  about  the  case.  EU 
Member  States  should  particularly  consider 
putting in place an effective referral system that 
would guide victims through the support service 
system.

Ensuring effective training systems

Introducing an effective system of practitioner train‑
ing, as Article 25 of the Victims’ Directive requires, is 
a long‑term objective. FRA findings show that some EU 
Member States emphasise training for specific groups 
of victims. Others make training available but not com‑
pulsory for officials who are likely to come into contact 
with victims, such as police officers and court staff. EU 
Member States are therefore encouraged to increase 
their training capacity and raise awareness among crim‑
inal justice practitioners of the needs of specific groups 
of victims. They are encouraged to involve NGO victim 
support services where practicable.

FRA opinion

Law  reforms  should  aim  at  better  inclusion  of 
the victim in the criminal justice system. Victims 
should be enabled to play a more significant role 
in  criminal  proceedings,  as  set  out  in  Chapter 
3  of  the  Victims’  Directive.  Criminal  justice 
practitioners  can  support  this  process,  guiding 
victims  through  proceedings,  helping  them  to 
understand  the  legislation  and  fully  recognise 
its  practical  implications.  This  process  is  greatly 
aided by training of criminal justice practitioners.

Tackling underreporting of victims

FRA research – including four large‑scale surveys con‑
cerning the victimisation of minorities, of LGBT persons, 
antisemitic offences and violence against women – con‑
sistently shows that many victims do not report crimes 
to  the  police.  The  Council  Conclusions  of  6  Decem‑
ber 2013 on combating hate crime in the EU and the 
Council Conclusions of 5 June 2014 on preventing and 
combatting all forms of violence against women and 
girls underscore these findings. Victims may, however, 
approach other persons or organisations. Findings from 
FRA’s survey on violence against women show that 
victims of domestic violence are more likely to con‑
tact doctors and healthcare institutions than any other 
professional organisation or NGO. Therefore, these pro‑
fessionals could play a key role in identifying and pro‑
viding initial support to victims. Yet evidence also shows 
that doctors and other clinical professionals are rarely 
trained for an effective response to domestic violence. 
Hence initiatives to train and inform healthcare profes‑
sionals could be considered promising practices, espe‑
cially given that 87 % of the 42,000 women surveyed 
in the FRA study on violence against women said that 
they would welcome further questions from doctors if 
they showed signs of abuse.

Providing information - including 
referrals to support services

The timely provision of accurate information on victims’ 
rights that Chapter 2 of the Victims’ Directive requires 
is key to empowering victims to use their rights and 
also points them to the most appropriate support ser‑
vices. Examples of good practice highlighted in this 
report show that close cooperation between compe‑
tent authorities and victim support organisations can 
facilitate referrals.

FRA opinion

As  a  means  of  encouraging  victims  to  report 
crimes  and  of  facilitating  such  reporting,  EU 
Member States should make sure that information 
about victim support services and victims’ rights 
is  accessible  and  made  available  to  victims  by 
all  authorities  and  public  services  that  victims 
contact,  including  medical  service  providers, 
and  that  the  staff  of  these  organisations  are 
trained  to  deal  with  victims  in  an  informed  and 
sympathetic manner.

13

FRA opinion

is  coordinated  and 

EU  Member  States  should  ensure  that  victim 
referral – 
support 
according  to  Articles  4  (1)  and  8  (2)  of  the 
Victims’  Directive –  is  effective,  particularly  for 
certain groups of victims who may have specific 
protection needs and may fall under the remit of 
different ministries and/or support organisations.

that 

Victim support should be organised in a manner 
that allows victims, as much as possible, to benefit 
from  a  relation  of  trust.  The  support  system 
should  avoid  handing  the  victim  over  from  one 
support provider to another, where unnecessary. 
In this respect it is important that victims can be 
accompanied  to  court  proceedings  by  the  same 
person who supports them before and after the 
trial  phase,  as  required  by  Article  20  (c)  of  the 
Victims’ Directive.

Support services should be positioned in a manner 
that  allows  them  to  act  in  strict  confidence 
and  in  the  interests  of  the  victim  and  ensures 
that  support  services  can  also  be  perceived 
to  act  in  such  a  manner.  In  order  to  guarantee 
this  orientation,  organisations  providing  victim 
support should not also be tasked with providing 
mediation or probation services.

Involving volunteers

The tasks and training of volunteers working for victim 
support services vary depending not only on the nature 
of the service provider but also on the historical devel‑
opment of volunteerism in the country in question. FRA 
research shows increased reliance on volunteers, due in 
part to economic constraints and to a rise in volunteer‑
ism in several EU Member States where such traditions 
are less strong. While FRA findings highlight the need 
to strike a balance between the number of volunteers 
and professional staff working in victim support, over‑
all, FRA evidence shows that victim support systems in 
the vast majority of Member States rely to some extent 
on volunteers. There tends to be a higher provision of 
generic victim support services in those countries with 
a long‑standing culture of volunteerism.

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Victim support services 
in EU Member States

Ensuring access to generic victim 
support for all victims

Most Member States provide some form of generic 
victim support services, and all Member States pro‑
vide support services to at least some specific groups 
of victims. Eight Member States, however, have yet to 
establish the generic victim support services required 
by  Article  8  of  the  Directive.  Article  8  (5)  further‑
more specifies that provision of services should not 
be dependent on a victim making a formal complaint. 
Funding to support services should be carried out in 
a transparent and objective manner that ensures access 
to victim support services for all.

FRA opinion

EU Member States which have not yet established 
generic support services are encouraged to take 
urgent steps to comply with the Victims’ Directive 
(Article 8). Access to support services should be 
available to all crime victims free of charge and 
should  not  be  dependent  on  a  victim  reporting 
the crime to the police.

Providing comprehensive and 
confidential services

FRA  research  shows  that  a  majority  of  EU  Member 
States distribute responsibility for support services 
among several ministries. Most also rely on cooperation 
between public and private bodies to provide generic 
victim support. FRA research shows that generic sup‑
port services in a large number of Member States are 
clearly regionalised. For effective support services, the 
organisation must be designed with a view to establish‑
ing trust and confidence with victims. This can be done, 
for example, by ensuring that victims are not trans‑
ferred between organisations and individuals (although 
in some cases specialist referral may be necessary). The 
tasks of support services should also solely focus on 
providing support to victims. Mixing victim support with 
mediation and probation services, as some EU Member 
States do, would not, for example, instil sufficient con‑
fidence in the objective of the delivery of support. FRA 
findings also show that a number of EU Member States 
do not guarantee victims the right to be accompanied 
by support persons during trial.

14

Executive summary and FRA opinions

FRA opinion

FRA  recognises  the  importance  of  encouraging 
citizens to become involved in the performance 
of  public  tasks  and  recommends  initiatives  at 
EU  Member  State  level  to  foster  volunteerism, 
particularly  in  Member  States  where  voluntary 
work  may  be  a 
relatively  new  concept. 
Consideration  should  be  given  to  the  relation 
between the number of professional staff and the 
number of volunteers. In particular, organisations 
relying  on  volunteers  should  make  sure  that 
permanent  staff  offer  effective  guidance  to 
volunteers  and  supervise  the  quality  of  their 
work.  Tasks  performed  by  professionals  or 
volunteers of victim support organisations must 
be in line with quality standards and appropriate 
to  the  professional  background  of  the  person 
providing the support or advice.

Role of umbrella organisations at the 
EU level

A considerable number of organisations advocate at 
EU level for the rights of victims of crime in general 
or for specific groups of victims – such as women who 
are victims of violence. Such organisations contribute 
significantly to making the fundamental rights of per‑
sons living in the EU a reality. Importantly, the diver‑
sity of organisations at EU level mirrors the different 
approaches to the rights of victims and to the organi‑
sation of the provision of victim support both between 
and within Member States.

FRA opinion

The  EU  should  continue  its  interaction  with 
and  support  to  victim  support  organisations 
working at the European level, drawing on their 
expertise  and  ability  to  pool  best  practices  and 
knowledge among their members. This expertise 
includes the provision of further assistance with 
respect  to  the  increasing  need  for  cross‑border 
facilitation of victim support. Generic services at 
EU  and  Member  State  levels  should  cooperate 
with  and  draw  on  the  wealth  of  experience 
amassed  by  specialised  services,  in  particular 
that  of  organisations  that  support  women  who 
are victims of violence.

Support for specific groups 
of victims

Ensuring individual assessments 
to identify possible specific 
protection needs

Article 22 of the Directive stipulates that EU Member 
States must ensure that individual assessments of vic‑
tims are carried out to identify possible specific protec‑
tion needs. Such specific protection needs might refer 
to victims who have suffered considerable harm due 
to the severity of the crime, victims of crime based on 
bias or a discriminatory motive, or victims made vul‑
nerable by their relationship to and dependence on the 
perpetrator. FRA findings show that the police often 
refers victims to generic support services who then 
have to further assess the possible individual need for 
specialised support.

FRA opinion

EU  Member  States  must  ensure  that  individual 
assessments are carried out by the victim’s first 
point  of  contact,  typically  the  police  or  a  victim 
support organisation. Victims should be referred 
in a timely fashion to specialised victim support 
services  that  are  able  to  offer  them  the  help 
and support they need. EU Member States must 
ensure that children are always treated as persons 
in need of special protection, taking into account 
their  age,  maturity,  level  of  understanding  and 
any  communication  difficulties  they  may  have, 
and  in  accordance  with  Article  22  (4)  of  the 
Victims’ Directive.

Recognising the important role played 
by support services for victims with 
specific needs in EU Member States

Whether integrated within a larger generic structure 
or established as separate, individual services, the Vic‑
tims’ Directive stipulates that support services should 
adopt an approach that considers the specific needs of 
victims, the severity of the harm suffered as a result of 
a criminal offence, and also the relationship between 
victims, offenders and their wider social environment. 
This would include, for example, the specific needs of 
children. Individual support services targeting victims 
with specific needs might be particularly well placed to 
promote the rights of certain groups. Hate crime vic‑
tims, for example, might feel more comfortable con‑
fiding in and relying on the expertise of smaller and 
highly specialised organisations advocating their rights.

15

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

FRA opinion

While  recognising  that  specialist  services  can 
either  be  established  separately  and  in  addition 
to  general  support  services  or  integrated  into 
a generic organisation, EU Member States should 
ensure the existence of support services, including 
trauma  support  and  counselling,  that  provide 
targeted  support  for  victims  with  specific  needs. 
These  include  child  victims,  victims  of  sexual 
violence and other gender‑based violence, victims 
with a disability, victims who are irregular migrants 
and  victims  of  violence  in  close  relationships. 
In  accordance  with  the  Victims’  Directive,  these 
services must, as a minimum, develop and provide 
suitable interim accommodation for victims in need 
of a safe place due to an imminent risk of repeat 
victimisation, of intimidation and of retaliation.

In  addition,  when  implementing  the  Victims’ 
Directive, EU Member States should pay particular 
attention  to  the  protection  needs  of  victims  of 
crimes committed with a discriminatory motive.

Performance standards 
and indicators
Establishing quality control standards 
that respect the independence of 
civil society

Recital 63 of the Victims’ Directive stresses that in order 
“to encourage and facilitate reporting of crimes and to 
allow victims to break the cycle of repeat victimisation, 
it is essential that reliable support services are available 
to victims and that competent authorities are prepared 
to respond to victims’ reports in a respectful, sensitive, 
professional and non‑discriminatory manner”. To assess 
whether a given Member State’s services meet these 
criteria, clear and consistent quality control mechanisms 
should be established, including across borders.

FRA opinion

FRA  stresses  the  responsibility  of  EU  Member 
States  to  develop  a  comprehensive  network  of 
victim  support  services  and  to  monitor  support 
services’ performance, ensuring that they conform 
to designated standards while also respecting the 
independence of civil society.

FRA analysis highlights good examples of criteria 
and/or  membership  conditions  developed  by 
EU‑level umbrella organisations active in the fields 
of networking, coordinating and promoting generic 
victim  support,  or  supporting  specific  groups 
of  victims.  Such  criteria  include,  for  example: 

separation between victim support and probation 
services,  independence  from  political  activities, 
confidentiality  of  service  users  (i.e.  victims)  and 
transparency concerning sources of funding. Such 
standards could form a basis on which to explore 
additional  criteria  that  could  be  developed  at 
national, regional and EU levels, as appropriate.

Inspiration  for  a  system  of  quality  control  for 
victim support services could also be drawn from 
the peer‑review system used globally by National 
Human  Rights  Institutions  (a  self‑accreditation 
system under the so‑called Paris Principles).

To this end, and taking these examples into account, 
Member  States  could  consider  establishing  an 
accreditation system for victim support services.

Benchmarking quality standards

Quality standards for victim support services would 
benefit  from  clear  indicators  and  benchmarks.  FRA 
research covered formally adopted key performance 
indicators on the quality of service EU Member States’ 
generic victim support services provide. Such indica‑
tors, when measured over time, would help assess the 
implementation and effect of the Victims’ Directive on 
victims and on their enjoyment of rights in practice.

FRA opinion

FRA  emphasises  the 
importance  of  defined 
and  generally  accepted  organisational  and 
performance standards for victim support delivery. 
FRA  findings  show  that  generic  support  services 
have adopted such standards in fewer than half of 
the Member States.

Article  28  of  the  Victims’  Directive  obliges 
Member  States  to  communicate  to  the  European 
Commission  available  data  on  how  victims  have 
accessed  the  rights  established  in  the  Victims’ 
Directive, beginning in November 2017 (two years 
after  the  transposition  deadline)  and  every 
three years thereafter. Such data should take into 
account  indicators  related  to  victim  support  and 
victims’  rights,  including  performance  indicators 
related  to  the  quality  of  service  provided  by 
generic  victim  support  services.  Indicators  about 
the service provision quality should also be directly 
collected from victims who use these services.

Victim support organisations and/or governments, 
as appropriate in the respective EU Member States, 
should  consider  developing  shared  indicators  on 
victim  support –  and  more  broadly  on  victims’ 
rights.  Data  for  such  indicators  could  in  part 
make use of the required collection of data under 
Article 28 of the Victims’ Directive.

16

Introduction

This report focuses on support services as a central ele‑
ment in achieving justice for victims, examining the 
close relationship between the provision of victim sup‑
port and victims’ fundamental rights. As such, it is part 
of FRA’s broader work on victims of crime, a core the‑
matic area of FRA’s work – as set out in its Multi‑annual 
framework 2013–2017,1 and reflected in its collection of 
data on criminal victimisation through four large‑scale 
surveys to date.2

Victims’ rights have increasingly been recognised in 
recent years in both policy and legislation, evolving 
steadily across the EU from the 1970s onward. Early 
initiatives to bring victims’ rights to the fore were led by 
the NGO sector and driven by a number of socio‑polit‑
ical movements that underlined the urgent need for 
governments to provide services for and recognise the 
rights of victims of crime. Among these, the women’s 
movement was the most notable. It campaigned to raise 
awareness of male violence against women and chil‑
dren, highlighting the structural and patriarchal nature 
of domestic abuse. Women’s groups established auton‑
omous women’s shelters to support women who were 
victims of sexual and physical violence and advocated 
the empowerment of victims. These early NGO initia‑
tives did not rely on government funds.

Recognition of the relevance of the ‘victim’ to the crimi‑
nal justice system and of the importance of guarantee‑
ing victims’ rights increased over the following decades. 
Dedicated support services for victims of crime were 
established and victims’ rights were guaranteed in 
national, regional and international legislation. Today, 
victims of crime have come to be regarded as persons 
worthy of specific protection, rights and support, which 
is reflected in a range of international soft and hard law 
instruments.

One important ‘soft’ development was the acknowl‑
edgement of the importance of victims’ surveys as 
a counterpoint to official criminal justice data. Victims’ 
surveys supplement crime statistics by shedding light 
on unreported crime, the so‑called ‘dark figure of crime’. 
Researchers highlighted that there was much to be 
learned through such surveys about the nature of crime, 
its impact on victims and the lack of confidence victims 
often felt with respect to law enforcement and criminal 
justice systems. As a result, more research focused on 
rebalancing justice, shifting the focus away from the 
perpetrator and bringing victims’ rights to the fore. This 
research sought to ensure that victims had a voice and 

would be treated with dignity and compassion through‑
out criminal proceedings.3 This report outlines FRA’s 
research findings on victim support services across the 
EU from a fundamental rights perspective. It provides 
an overview of the legal and actual situation of victim 
support provision in the EU Member States, as well as 
of its shortcomings and achievements.

The report presents concrete examples of different 
practices in the area of victims’ rights and support, 
based on an analysis of the current EU Member State 
situation. It gives an overview of current practices and 
gaps in Member States as well as at the EU level. It illus‑
trates different models of victim support, from which 
‘promising practices’ can be drawn and used as a plat‑
form to enhance support to victims of crime. The report 
examines, through a fundamental rights lens, support 
services that are available to all victims, regardless of 
crime type, which are termed general or ‘generic’ victim 
support services. It also outlines a number of specialist 
victim support services, noting that in eight Member 
States victim support services are only available to cer‑
tain categories of victims.

A key objective is to give an overview of how cur‑
rent victim support service provision across the 28 EU 
Member States compares in practice with the objec‑
tives and goals for victim support set out by the EU 
Victims’ Directive. The focus is on victim support ser‑
vices and not on all aspects of the Victims’ Directive. 
Thus Articles 8 and 9 of the Victims’ Directive, on sup‑
port services, are central to the report, although other 
provisions with a close relationship to support services 
are also considered.

This chapter gives a brief introduction to the develop‑
ment of early social and legislative initiatives related 
to victims’ rights and support at national, regional and 
international level (elaborated further throughout the 
report), before outlining the report’s scope, methodol‑
ogy and structure.

While  the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  have  used  their 
specific  ‘opt‑in’  clause  to  take  part  in  this  EU  legisla‑
tion,  Denmark  has  not.  Consequently,  the  2001  Council 
Framework Decision that the Victims’ Directive replaces 
remains applicable to Denmark even after the directive’s 
transposition  deadline  (16  November  2015)  has  passed 
for the other 27 Member States (Recitals 70 and 71 of the 
Victims’ Directive).

1 

2 

See: http://fra.europa.eu/en/about‑fra/what‑we‑do/
areas‑of‑work/multi‑annual‑framework‑2013‑2017.
FRA (2009); (2013a); (2013b); (2014).

3 

Crawford, A., and Goodey, J. (2000).

17

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Scope, methodology 
and structure

Scope

The report presents the research findings gathered 
within the framework of the FRA project on victim 
support in all 28 EU Member States carried out from 
2012 to 2014.

The overarching objective of the report, in line with 
Council Regulation No. 168/2007 establishing the FRA,4 
is  to  assist  the  European  Commission  and  Member 
States when they implement EU law with the provision 
of evidence‑based advice by providing country‑specific 
information and data on support services available to 
victims of crime in the EU, as well as other shortcom‑
ings and achievements of such services in practice. In 
doing so the report will:

•  outline the history and context of the development 
of responses to victims and, hence, victim support 
services across the EU (Introduction and Chapter 1);
•  stress  the  fundamental  rights  underpinning  the 

rights of victims of crime (Chapter 1);

•  outline different models and promising practices 
used to address victims’ needs and rights at Member 
State level (Chapters 2 – 5).

The research findings will thus help map the landscape 
of victim services throughout the EU, and provide evi‑
dence of the situation as of August 2013 (certain data 
are current as of April 2014),5 evidence that can be used 
when assessing the implementation of the Victims’ 
Directive. In view of Member States’ requirement to 
transpose the directive by 16 November 2015, they can 
use the report, alongside the European Commission’s 
Guidelines on the Victims’ Directive as a ‘guiding docu‑
ment’ when looking at how to improve victim support.

The bulk of the research – and thus, what is presented 
in this report – focuses on the existence and provision 
of generic victim support services (that is, victim sup‑
port services provided to all victims, regardless of crime 
type) at Member State level.

In addition to generic victim support services informa‑
tion, the research also collected information in each 
Member State on two other specialised areas of victim 
support, such as human trafficking or violence against 
women.  Chapter  4  deals  with  this  in  detail.  These 
areas selected at Member State level were seen as 

particularly relevant in identifying promising models 
of practice of potential interest to other Member States. 
Not specific to particular models of victim support, the 
promising practices presented should be transferable 
to other Member States looking for inspiration on how 
to improve their victim support structures in line with 
the Victims’ Directive. The report also looks briefly at 
the role played by EU‑level victim support umbrella 
organisations.

Methodology

FRA collected evidence on the situation of victims by 
carrying out comparative socio‑legal research and anal‑
ysis across the EU, examining the legal frameworks and 
support structures that exist in Member States. While 
the data presented are largely based on desk research, 
some primary research was conducted to obtain certain 
information not publicly available, or where verifica‑
tion or clarification was needed.6 FRA also carried out 
a mapping exercise of 14 EU‑level umbrella organisa‑
tions relating to generic or specific victim support. To 
complement the analysis, senior‑level representatives 
from these organisations were directly contacted and 
asked to complete an electronic questionnaire focusing 
on their perceptions of achievements and shortcom‑
ings in the implementation of victims’ rights. Several 
of these experts were also interviewed orally.

FRA brings a fundamental rights perspective to the 
work on victims of crime. The agency is in a position 
to provide an independent and objective assessment of 
victims’ rights in practice. FRA’s approach to research 
includes an assessment not only of formal legislation 
but also of the situation on the ground – in this case the 
actual outreach and capacity of victim support services 
in EU Member States.

Data were collected through desk research carried out 
by the FRA’s multidisciplinary research network, Franet. 
This network is composed of contractors in each EU 
Member State who, upon request, provide relevant data 
to the FRA on fundamental rights issues to facilitate the 
agency’s comparative analyses.7

Based on a set of detailed questions by FRA on victim 
support services in each Member State, Franet con‑
tractors gathered publicly available information in each 
EU Member State, drew on available literature on the 
subject, and made a small number of data requests to 
public authorities and victim support organisations. It 
was outside the scope of this research to collect primary 
data through surveys (beyond the limited number of 

4 
5 

See Council Regulation (EC) No. 168/2007, Art. 2–4.
For example, the online tables are current as of April 2014 
and are updated regularly, as soon as FRA is made aware of 
a change in a Member State.

6 

7 

For example, requests for information to governments, 
victim support organisations or other authorities such 
as the police.
See: http://fra.europa.eu/en/research/franet.

18

interviews conducted in relation to the role of EU‑level 
umbrella organisations).

Research  was  conducted  from  January  2012  to 
August 2013. Additional fieldwork research on the spe‑
cific situation of victims of hate crime was carried out 
from August 2013 to February 2014. For the research 
on victims of hate crime, a separate report is foreseen.

The  information  reported  in  the  online  tables 
accompanying this report (http://fra.europa.eu/en/
publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/compara‑
tive‑data/victims‑support‑services) was verified with 
Member State governments as of April 2014, following 
a meeting with Member States held by the European 
Commission on the Victims’ Directive in March of the 
same year.

In parallel to this project, FRA is also researching a wide 
range of issues related to victims of crime, including 
studies of specific categories, such as violence against 
women, child victims, migrant victims and victims of 
hate crime. Some of these projects and findings (where 
available) are detailed in Chapter 4 of this report.

Structure

The findings are presented in five chapters focusing 
on two main themes. The Introduction and Chapters 1 
to 2 outline the historical and legal development of the 
notion of victims’ rights generally and victim support 
specifically. Chapters 3 to 5 present the substantive 
research findings related to the legal and structural 
framework within which victim support is provided, 
organised, coordinated and evaluated at national and 
EU level. FRA analysis of these findings points to sub‑
stantive achievements and shortcomings in current 
victim support provision – whether related to legisla‑
tion, implementation or to the actual outcome on the 
ground. The chapters therefore include FRA opinions to 
assist in addressing shortcomings and to guide future 
developments through a fundamental rights‑based 
approach. In other words, they look at victims as per‑
sons whose rights have been violated by a criminal 
offence and who are entitled to see that justice is done 
and, to that end, also actively participate in criminal 
proceedings.

Following  an  introduction  to  the  project,  Chapter  1 
includes a detailed analysis of the directive, arguing 
that its more authoritative wording and the emphasis it 
places on the importance of support services represent 
a significant step forward for victims from the previ‑
ous Framework Decision. The chapter also explores the 
role of victims in the national legal frameworks of EU 
Member States. FRA research confirms that this role dif‑
fers across the EU with regard to the ability of victims to 
claim compensation or legal aid, their standing in court, 

and many other fundamental issues. Chapter 2 outlines 
the general principles underpinning the provision of 
support by victim support services in EU Member States.

Mirroring  the  conceptual  differences  discussed  in 
Chapters 1 and 2, Member States have implemented 
models of victim support whose structure and organ‑
isation differ. Chapter 3 deals with the practical and 
organisational aspects of victim support services at the 
national level. It outlines the concepts and requirements 
underlying these practical matters. It also discusses 
the research findings on the actual situation in the EU 
Member States in this regard. Amongst other issues, 
FRA research has identified differences between the 
Member States relating to the coordination of support 
services at the national and EU levels by both public 
and private actors, the independence and funding of 
support services and their geographical distribution. It 
found that Member States also differ in how they treat 
specific groups of victims which require special atten‑
tion under the Victims’ Directive. Chapter 4 provides 
some related examples and promising practices.

The final chapter concerns the quality of victim support 
services. It provides an overview of the standards in 
place to measure the performance and quality of sup‑
port services in the Member States. It also discusses 
possible indicators to assess the ability of victims to 
effectively access justice based on the requirements 
of the Victims’ Directive.

At the end of each chapter, FRA opinions are inserted, 
which  are  gathered  together  at  the  beginning  of 
the report.

The  report  should  be  read  in  parallel  with  a  set  of 
up‑to‑date comparative tables outlining key aspects of 
victim support services in the EU Member States, which 
are based on the research findings. These are available 
at http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/
data‑and‑maps. Annex 4 includes a full list of the topics 
covered in the online tables.

Development of victims’ 
rights – origins of victim 
support at Member State level

Victim support structures first developed in the older 
EU  Member  States  (such  as  France,  Germany,  the 
 Netherlands and the United Kingdom), with newer 
Member States such as the Czech Republic, Latvia and 
Slovakia only establishing such structures in the late 
1990s (although some older EU Member States such as 
Denmark also only began to develop them in the late 
1990s). For an overview of when EU Member States set 
up victim support services, see Figure 1.

Introduction

19

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

In many countries (both within and outside the EU), 
victim support began with NGOs or private initiatives 
by the police, parole officers, lawyers or journalists. In 
the United Kingdom, for example, support for victims 
of crime originated with the 1973 establishment of the 
organisation Victim Support in Bristol. Increased support 
for victims of crime was driven in part by a rising crime 
rate in England and Wales in the 1980s. Victim Support 
was set up following interagency discussions between 
the probation service, the police and the magistracy, 
and was run and serviced by volunteers drawn from the 
local community. The original organisation was set up 
by a group of probation service professionals who saw 
that whilst there was support (especially in court) for 
offenders and defendants, no similar support service 
existed for victims of crime. Over the following two dec‑
ades, Victim Support grew as a federation to cover all 
communities in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. 
Separate charities were set up in Scotland, the Channel 
Islands and the Isle of Man. Non‑state actors (includ‑
ing a journalist, lawyers, legal scholars, police and the 
Federal Criminal Police Office)8 also founded the first 
German generic victim support organisation in 1976, the 
White Ring (Weisser Ring). Like Victim Support in the 
United Kingdom, it was based on volunteer work. The 
White Ring was established in Austria in 1978, also on 
the initiative of non‑state actors, and the first women’s 
shelter opened in Vienna that same year.

Early initiatives were often linked to specific categories 
of victims and socio‑political developments – for exam‑
ple, victims of domestic violence or child victims (as in 
Austria, Finland, Germany and the United Kingdom – 
England and Wales). Violence against women was one 
of the women’s movement’s main targets, and growing 
international attention to violence against women led 
to strengthened victim support in many Member States 
for this category of victims.9

In other countries, such as Portugal, developments at 
national level were largely influenced by the European 
victim support movement in the 1980s, culminating in 
the creation of the Portuguese Association for Victim 
Support (APAV)10 in 1990. In Spain too, the victim sup‑
port system had its roots in what was taking place at 
the Council of Europe, which in recent legislation had 
emphasized the need to strengthen the position of 

8 

9 

10 

See: www.weisser‑ring.de/internet/weisser‑ring/chronik/
index.html.
See: FRA (2014), p. 7: “It is only since the 1990s that 
violence against women has emerged as a fundamental 
rights concern that warrants legal and political recognition 
at the highest level, and as an area where State Parties, 
as those with a duty to protect, have an obligation to 
safeguard victims.”.
See: http://apav.pt/apav_v2/index.php/en/.

victims in criminal procedures.11 By the time the first 
legislation specifically on victim support was adopted 
in 1995,12 social scientists in Spain had been commenting 
for some time on the lack of special attention or support 
for victims of crime. Without such support, the criminal 
justice system could cause ‘secondary victimisation’ 
of victims. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Act13 
acknowledged these concerns.

Some Member States were directly influenced by exist‑
ing models of victim support in neighbouring countries. 
In Finland in 1991, the ‘violence division’ of a parliamen‑
tary advisory council, the Council for Gender Equality, 
suggested establishing victim support services, empha‑
sising the need for a ‘victim‑centred’ approach focusing 
on the victim’s human rights. The division organised 
an event to present the Swedish victim support model 
to officials and associations.14 A chief driver here was 
the growing international attention to violence against 
women, embodied in the Convention on the Elimination 
of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). 
Up until that point, many countries had considered vio‑
lence against women a ‘family matter’. Thus the cata‑
lyst for developing victim support in Finland was, in 
large part, concern about domestic violence and vio‑
lence against women.

The Swedish model of association‑based victim sup‑
port was also an important forerunner of the Danish 
victim support system, developed in the late 1990s. The 
first general victim support measures in Denmark were 
established only in 1998 by the National Commission 
of the Danish Police in accordance with circular 10462 
from the Ministry of Justice on victim support issued on 
25 June 1998.15 Denmark also passed an act strength‑
ening the legal position of victims of crime.16 But well 
before, from the 1970s on, grass roots organisations 
had been providing support to various categories of 

11 

12 

13 
14 

The Explanatory Memorandum of Act 35/1995, of 
11 December, on Aid and Assistance to Victims of Violent 
Crimes and Against Sexual Freedom explicitly mentions the 
1983 Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent 
Crime and Recommendation R(85)11 of the Committee of 
Ministers on the Position of the Victim in the Framework 
of Criminal Law and Procedure as the legal benchmarks for 
national legislation on victims support services.
Spain, Act 35/1995, of 11 December, on Aid and Assistance 
to Victims of Violent Crimes and Against Sexual Freedom, 
12 December 1995.
Ibid. 
Finland, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2013), www.
tane.fi/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=332637&name
=DLFE‑5601.pdf.

15  Denmark, Circular no. 10462 of 8 July 1998 from the Ministry 
of Justice, on the establishment of a network of local, 
voluntary victim support, www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/
R0710.aspx?id=586.

16  Denmark, Act no. 349 of 13 May 1997 strengthening the 

legal position of victims of crime, etc.

20

Introduction

Figure 1:  Year of origin of generic victim support services

1970s

 1973 United Kingdom
 1976 Germany
 1978 Austria

1980s

 1980 Sweden
 1984 The Netherlands
 1985 Belgium, Ireland
 1986 France
 1989 Hungary

1990s/
2000s

 1990 Portugal
 1991 Czech Republic
 1994 Estonia, Finland, Malta
 1995 Spain
 1998 Denmark
 1999 Luxembourg, Slovakia
 2008 Croatia
 2009 Poland

Notes: 

Year of origin of initial victim support organisation (generic – not limited to certain victims; NGO as well as government 
initiatives). Those Member States that do not have generic victim support systems in place (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovenia) have not been included.

Bold typeface denotes state run or initiated at year of origin.

Source: 

FRA, 2014

victims.17 Unlike most other western countries, Den‑
mark had no strong victims’ movement, and the private 
organisations operating before 1998 were not powerful 
lobby organisations, as was the case, for example, in 
the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.18

•  the  interaction  between  state  and  civil  society 

organisations;

•  the culture of social work and volunteerism (see 

 Section 3.4); and

•  the political status of victims.

All EU Member States offer services to certain catego‑
ries of victims – typically child victims, human traffick‑
ing victims and domestic violence victims (for more 
information on specialised services, see Chapter 4). 
Eight EU Member States do not, however, currently pro‑
vide generic victim support services (Bulgaria, Cyprus, 
Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovenia).

The nature of victim support service structures and vic‑
tims’ access to criminal justice systems varies widely. 
This variation is often linked to the differing legal tra‑
ditions and varied perceptions across the EU of the 
basic relations between victims and the criminal jus‑
tice system and between states and the NGO sector. 
Differences relate, for example, to:

•  the legal means available to victims;
•  the ability of criminal courts to compensate and pro‑

vide redress to victims;

•  the role offered to victims in proceedings;
•  the ability of police officers, public prosecution ser‑
vices and court staff to interact with victims sensi‑
tively and respectfully;

17 

Including the Joan‑Sisters ( Joan‑Søstrene) established in 
1975 working for the rights of female victims of violence; 
Victim Aid Denmark (Landsforeningen Hjælp Voldsofre) 
established in 1980 to promote the interests of and 
support victims of violence and the National Organisation 
of Women’s Shelters in Denmark (Landsorganistionen af 
Kvindekrisecentre, LOKK) established in 1995. 
18  Grothe Nielsen, BGN ‘Victim‑related Reactions and 

Schemes’ in: Grothe Nielsen, BGN (2005).

Historical differences can also result in differing institu‑
tional settings of victim support services across Member 
States. The absence of victim support services in some 
European countries during the Soviet period, for exam‑
ple, may explain the slower realisation of the needs and 
rights of victims of crime. Another example would be 
Italy, where the state provided for those victimised in 
the line of duty or under obligation, namely with respect 
to victims of terrorism and victims of organised crime 
(mafia).19 Italy makes support services available for spe‑
cific groups of victims of crime based on geographical 
areas or crime categories.

For the different aspects and organisational structures 
of victim support at Member State level, see Chapter 3.

19 

Since 2005 (annex A n. 23 and 27) the support service 
for the victims of terrorism, mass murder, organised 
crime (mafia) and victims in accomplishment of a duty 
or an obligation is unified under the responsibility of an 
Inter‑ministerial Committee. Many of the associations 
working in this sector are private.

21

 
Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Research and progress in the area of victims of crime and access to legal aid 
in selected EU Member States

Plans are underway in Latvia to establish a support structure for victims of crime and amend national legisla‑
tion in line with the Victims’ Directive. In that regard, the not‑for‑profit organisation the ‘Centre for Public Policy 
(PROVIDUS)’ has published several reports concerning victims’ rights and support in Latvia.

One of the reports, on legal aid, was carried out as part of a European Commission‑funded project called ‘Im‑
proving Protection of Victims’ Rights: Access to Legal Aid’. It aimed as a first step to analyse the legal framework 
and practices on access to legal aid for victims of crime, including international standards, the work of the Inter‑
national Criminal Court, and five countries under study – Bulgaria, Italy, Latvia, Poland and Spain. Another goal 
of the project is to identify common criteria for legal aid to victims to be applied in light of the harmonization of 
EU legislation (in particular, the Victims’ Directive).

Project partners also held workshops for practitioners such as judges, prosecutors, lawyers, Ministry of Justice 
officials and NGO representatives. The workshops were based on the ‘Training session for practitioners’ hand‑
book, organised by the leading project partner – the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (Poland). The hand‑
book (Training session on improving protection of victims’ rights: access to legal aid. The practice facilitation 
handbook) consists of three training modules and is designed as a hands‑on resource for those who train prac‑
titioners dealing with victims of crimes (such as judges, prosecutors, police officers and NGO representatives).

The  project  will  also  develop  information  tools  about  victims’  rights  targeting  specific  categories  of  citizens 
that typically have less access to this kind of information (for example, citizens of rural areas), as well as train‑
ing tools for practitioners dealing with victims of crimes. The final activity of the project was an International 
Conference held for participating countries in June 2014 to discuss the European Legal Aid System and legal aid 
system in EU Member States. The conference brought together victims’ rights experts, scholars, victim support 
professionals, judges, prosecutors, legal advisors and students.

See further: http://victimsrights.eu/;

Improving Protection of Victims’ Rights: Access to Legal Aid. Research paper on the present legal framework and best practices, http://victimsrights.
eu/general‑report/;

Training session on improving protection of victims’ rights: access to legal aid. The practice facilitation handbook, http://victimsrights.eu/
the‑practice‑facilitation‑handbook/;

‘Improving Protection of Victims’ Rights: Access to Legal Aid. Research paper on legal framework and best practices. Country report Bulgaria’, http://
victimsrights.eu/national‑report‑on‑legal‑aid‑for‑victims‑of‑crime/;

‘Improving Protection of Victims’ Rights: Access to Legal Aid. Research paper on legal framework and best practices. Country report Poland (Polish 
version)’, http://victimsrights.eu/report‑poland/;

Victim’s rights to legal aid in the criminal proceedings in Latvia: www.providus.lv/upload_file/Publikacijas/Kriminalt/Report_Latvia.pdf; about the 
project www.providus.lv/public/27946.html;

Development of compensation mechanisms in Latvia and other EU countries: www.providus.lv/upload_file/Projekti/Kriminalitesibas/kopsavilkums_
PROVIDUS_eng.pdf; about the project there: www.providus.lv/public/27851.html;

Research Provision of the Needs of Crime Victims: Support to Prevention of Victimisation in Latvia (if you need information about the needs of vic‑
tims, this will likely be right for you) www.providus.lv/upload_file/Projekti/Kriminalitesibas/Victim%20support/ANG_105_finish_doc.pdf; about the 
project: www.providus.lv/public/27850.html.

Development of victims’ 
rights – national, European 
and international instruments

Older EU Member States began to recognise the rights 
of victims in national legislation in the 1970s and 1980s. 
The newer Member States started to embed victims’ 
rights in their legislation from the 1990s onwards (see 
Figure 2).

At the international level, the UN Declaration of Basic 
Principles of Justice and Support for Victims of Crime 
and Abuse of Power was universally adopted in 1985. 
It recognised victims as persons who had the right to 

receive justice, restitution, and compensation from the 
state and to a voice in criminal proceedings.

At the regional European level, the most important 
development  and  forerunner  of  the  Victims’  Direc‑
tive was Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 
15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal pro‑
ceedings.20 EU Member States were required to adapt 
their legislation in line with the Framework Decision 
by 2006. It was widely acknowledged, including by the 
European Commission, however, that this legislation 
was not well implemented. Since the entry into force 

20  Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA.

22

Figure 2:  Year of first national legislation referring to the rights and/or support and protection of victims of 

crime in EU Member States

Introduction

1970s/
1980s

 Austria
 Belgium
 Finland
 France
 Germany
 Greece
 Ireland
 Luxembourg
 Netherlands
 Portugal
 Sweden

Source: 

FRA, 2014

1990s

 Cyprus
 Czech Republic
 Denmark
 Estonia
 Italy
 Poland
 Slovenia
 Spain

2000s

 Bulgaria
 Croatia
 Hungary
 Latvia
 Lithuania
 Malta
 Romania
 Slovakia
 United
     Kingdom

of the Victims’ Directive, therefore, the focus has been 
on effective implementation.21

Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing mini‑
mum standards on the rights, support and protection 
of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework 
Decision 2001/220/JHA (Victims’ Directive),22 represents 
the most important legislative development for victims’ 
rights at the EU level to date. It sets out several objec‑
tives and goals to ensure the availability of effective 
and accessible victim support services throughout EU 
Member States.

The minimum rules on support services laid down in the 
Victims’ Directive reflect the international and European 
standards in place, in particular the following ‘hard’ and 
‘soft’ law instruments:

Hard law

•  Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 

17 July 199823

•  UN  Convention  against  Transnational  Organized 
Crime (2000, CTOC, entry into force 2003) and the 
Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking 
in Persons, Especially Women and Children (2000, 
entry into force 2003)24 [the EU became party to both 
the convention on 21 May 2004 and to the protocol 
on 6 September 2006]

See: European Commission (2004); (2009); (2011).

21 
22  Directive 2012/29/EU.
23 

See: http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/romefra.htm, in 
particular Art. 43 and 68.

24  See: www.unodc.org/unodc/treaties/CTOC/.

•  UN Convention (draft, proposed in 2005) on Jus‑
tice and Support for Victims of Crime and Abuse of 
Power25

•  Council of Europe, Convention on preventing and 
combating violence against women and domestic 
violence (2011, entry into force 2014 – the ‘Istan‑
bul Convention’) [at the end of March 2014, 17 EU 
Member States have signed and an additional four 
are parties; the EU can become party according to 
Article 75 of the convention]26

•  EU  legislation:  Trafficking  Directive  (2011/36/EU, 
5 April 2011),27 Article 11 (1); Directive on combat‑
ing sexual abuse of children (2011/92/EU, 13 Decem‑
ber 2011),28 Article 19 (1)

Soft law

•  UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice and Sup‑
port for victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, UN A/
RES/40/34, 29 November 198529 (endorsed and sup‑
ported by a plan of action by the UN Economic and 
Social Council)30

25 

See: www.justice.gov.za/VC/docs/international/2006_
Draft%20UN%20Convention%20Victims.pdf; this draft 
appears not to have received sufficient support by states – 
on the origin and status of the draft, see: United Nations 
Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2001), p. 5.

26  Council of Europe, Convention on preventing and combating 
violence against women and domestic violence, CETS 
No. 210, 2011. On the Istanbul Convention and the status 
in relation to the EU Member States, see http://fra.europa.
eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/
int‑obligations/coe.
See: http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri
=OJ:L:2011:101:0001:0011:EN:PDF.

27 

28  See: http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/legal‑content/EN/TXT/PDF/?

uri=CELEX:32011L0093&rid=42.

29  See: www.un.org/documents/ga/res/40/a40r034.htm. 
30  UN, ECOSOC (1989); (1998), see the latter at: www.un.org/

documents/ecosoc/res/1998/eres1998‑21.htm.

23

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

•  UN Committee against Torture, General comment 

•  that particular attention be given to child victims 

No. 3, CAT/C/GC/3, 13 December 201231

(paragraph 48 (b));

•  that victims shall receive legal advice in relation to 

compensation claims for victims (c);

•  that victims are “promptly informed by the police 
and other frontline responders (i.e. health, social and 
child welfare providers) of their right to information, 
their entitlement to legal aid, assistance and protec‑
tion and how to access such rights” (d);

•  that the “views and concerns of victims are pre‑
sented and considered at appropriate stages of the 
criminal justice process where their personal inter‑
ests are affected or where the interests of justice so 
require” (e);

•  that  “[v]ictim  services  agencies  and  non‑gov‑
ernmental organizations can provide legal aid to 
victims” (f); and

•  that there generally is a system of “close coopera‑
tion and appropriate referral systems between legal 
aid providers and other professionals (i.e. health, 
social and child welfare providers) to obtain a com‑
prehensive understanding of the victim, as well as 
an assessment of his or her legal, psychological, 
social, emotional, physical and cognitive situation 
and needs” (g).

It is in this context of international – global and Euro‑
pean – standards that the specific developments in the 
EU shall be viewed. The two overlapping European sys‑
tems, that of the Council of Europe with its European 
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and that of the EU 
with its Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union (Charter), have also significantly helped in devel‑
oping victims’ rights. Chapter 1 deals with this in detail.

•  Council of Europe Recommendation (85) 11 on the 
position of the victim in the framework of criminal 
law and procedure32

•  Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recom‑
mendation REC(2006)8 on assistance to crime vic‑
tims, 14 June 200633

The global and European standards listed also high‑
light the developments from the UN declaration in 1985 
through to the 2006 Council of Europe Committee of 
Ministers’ Recommendations, the 2012 UN guidelines 
on legal aid and the 2012 EU Victims’ Directive. These 
‘emerging standards’ emphasise not only assistance but 
also insist that specialised entities provide this assis‑
tance. These entities should furthermore ensure coor‑
dination among relevant bodies, including referrals, as 
well as a number of more detailed aspects, such as 
the confidentiality and data protection of the victims.

The Council of Europe Recommendation on assistance 
to crime victims (Article 5.6), for example, stresses that 
“[s]tates should take steps to ensure that the work of 
services offering assistance to victims is co‑ordinated 
[including] a comprehensive range of services [that are] 
available and accessible”. The same article also requires 
that “standards of good practice for services offering 
help to victims are prepared and maintained”. These 
standards of good practice are particularly interesting 
and should help to ensure that support services across 
the 28 EU Member States are operational, effective and 
clearly prioritise victims’ needs.34

At the global level, the United Nations Principles and 
Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice 
Systems, the instrument adopted by the UN General 
Assembly in December 2012, specifies (Principle 4 as 
well as Guideline 7, paragraph 48) that “states should 
take adequate measures […] to ensure that [… a]ppro‑
priate advice, assistance, care, facilities and support are 
provided to victims of crime, throughout the criminal 
justice process, in a manner that prevents repeat vic‑
timization and secondary victimization”.35 The guide‑
lines further insist:

31 

32 

33 

See in particular para. 12–15, 40; http://tbinternet.ohchr.
org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symb
olno=CAT%2fC%2fGC%2f3&Lang=en. See also Council of 
Europe, Committee of Ministers (1985), in particular Art. 2, 
stating that “[t]he police should inform the victim about 
the possibilities of obtaining assistance, practical and legal 
advice […]”.
See: www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/victims/
reference%20documents%20coe_EN.asp. 
See: www.coe.int/t/dlapil/codexter/Source/
CM_Recommendation_2006_8_EN.pdf.
Ibid.

34 
35  UN, General Assembly (2012).

24

1 

Victims’ rights in European 
and national law

From a legislative perspective, safeguards to  protect 
victims’  rights  appear  across  various  domains  and 
levels, ranging from EU primary law to legally non‑bind‑
ing acts at the national level. Together these sources 
form a respectable body of legislative and other meas‑
ures that aim at providing victims with their funda‑
mental right of access to justice. As this chapter will 
show, however, the interpretation of how precisely 
justice should be made accessible to victims varies by 
Member State, due in part to divergent historical con‑
cepts of the victim’s role in criminal procedures. These 
differences then translate into different approaches to 
victim support.

Against  this  background,  joint  EU‑level  action  has 
striven to set common minimum standards for the 
protection of victims’ rights. The Victims’ Directive 
goes a step further, progressing towards a more com‑
prehensive victim‑centred and, hence, rights‑centred 
response to victims at the EU level. This chapter, look‑
ing at victim’s rights as fundamental rights, examines 
the key developments introduced by the Victims’ Direc‑
tive. It offers examples of the EU Member States’ differ‑
ent ‘starting positions’ vis‑à‑vis these new obligations 
based on their level of implementation of the Frame‑
work Decision.

1�1�  Victim support and 
fundamental rights
Victim support is indispensable to ensuring the effec‑
tiveness of victims’ fundamental rights in general and 
victims’ access to criminal justice in particular. This is 
in line with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the EU. Crime is a particularly severe viola‑
tion of fundamental rights and consequently, criminal 
law and criminal justice endeavour to protect the most 
significant aspects of individuals’ fundamental rights. 

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law sup‑
ports this approach. In two landmark decisions, both 
concerned with incidents of sexual violence, the ECtHR 
said that when essential aspects of human rights are at 
stake, effective deterrence is indispensable and can be 
achieved only by criminal law provisions.36 However, the 
punishment criminal law prescribes will – at least in the 
long run – only be credible if it is backed by effective law 
enforcement machinery and if state authorities demon‑
strate their resolve to carry out the law’s provisions.37 
In parallel, and this is the focus of this report, victims 
should be afforded effective victim support.

This right of victims to have access to justice must not be 
only theoretical but also effective.38 In a 2011 judgment, 
the ECtHR emphasised that “the object and purpose of 
the Convention [for the Protection of Human Rights and 
Fundamental Freedoms, ECHR] as an instrument for the 
protection of individual human beings requires that its 
provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its 
safeguards practical and effective”.39

However, FRA research (notably the findings from FRA’s 
four large‑scale surveys to date surveying minority 
and immigrant groups in the EU (2009); LGBT persons 
(2013); Jewish people (2013) and victims of violence 
against women (2014)) has consistently shown that 
victims of crime are reluctant to come forward and 

36 

37 

38 

39 

ECtHR, X and Y v. The Netherlands, No. 8978/80, 
26 March 1985, para. 27; M.C. v. Bulgaria, No. 39272/98, 
4 December 2003, para. 150; recently Valiulienė v. Lithuania, 
No. 33234/07, 26 March 2013, para. 75.
ECtHR, Osman v. UK, No. 23452/94, 28 October 1998, 
para. 115; Menson v. UK, No. 47916/99, 6 May 2003 (Dec.); 
A v. Croatia, No. 55164/08, 14 October 2010, para. 78. 
ECtHR, El‑Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia [GC], No. 39630/09, 13 December 2012, 
para. 255.
ECtHR, Al‑Skeini and Others v. The United Kingdom [GC], 
No. 55721/07, 7 July 2011, para. 162. 

25

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

report to the police or are prevented by various fac‑
tors from doing so.

•  While sizeable proportions of members of minority 
and immigrant groups in the EU perceive themselves 
to be the victims of racially motivated criminal vic‑
timisation, most did not report the crimes of which 
they were victims to any organisation, institution or 
body. One of the most commonly cited reasons for 
not reporting was a lack of confidence in the police’s 
ability to do anything about them.40

•  FRA’s antisemitism survey reveals a similar picture. 
The majority of victims of antisemitic harassment, 
physical violence or threats, or vandalism of personal 
property did not report the most serious incident 
that they had experienced in the five years preced‑
ing the survey to the police or to any other organi‑
sation.41 Nearly half of the respondents who did not 
report the most serious incident to the police said 
that nothing would change if they did so. One in five 
respondents (20 %) also mentioned that they do not 
trust the police.42

•  FRA’s LGBT survey found that just one in five (22 %) 
of the most serious incidents of violence which had 
happened to respondents because they were LGBT 
in the same time period were brought to the police’s 
attention.43

•  According to the EU‑wide FRA survey of violence 
against women, two in three victims of partner vio‑
lence and three in four victims of non‑partner vio‑
lence did not report the most serious incident to any 
of the common services and institutions, including 
the police.44 Again the survey shows that signifi‑
cantly fewer victims are satisfied with the assistance 
they received from the police than with the services 
of other organisations.45

Given the widespread difficulties that victims experi‑
ence in coming forward and reporting to the police, 
effective  access  to  justice  requires  new  measures. 
These  should  address  the  individual,  providing  for 
instance information, assistance and counselling. They 
should also tackle institutional issues, setting up the 
training of professionals, safeguards against institu‑
tional forms of discrimination, or procedures which are 
designed to respond in an appropriate manner to the 
rights and needs of victims. Ultimately this relates to 
the overall public climate. A perception that the climate 
is unfriendly can keep victims from seeking assistance, 
since they do not expect recognition or sympathy.

40  FRA (2012), p. 14. 
FRA (2013b), p. 48.
41 
Ibid., pp. 60–61.
42 
43 
FRA (2013a), p. 24.
44  FRA (2014), p. 60. 
Ibid., p. 63.
45 

26

Victims have a right to be offered support in access‑
ing justice, but their effective access to justice will in 
practice often be premised on the availability of victim 
support services. Effective support services are thus 
a crucial means of making victims’ rights to access jus‑
tice a reality. As is the case with many fundamental 
rights which oblige EU Member States to take action and 
to provide services, the obligation to provide appropriate 
support services does not prescribe how Member States 
implement those services. What they are required to 
invest to meet their obligations under Article 47 of the 
Charter will to some extent depend on what is practi‑
cally feasible in the given circumstances. States are – at 
a minimum – under an obligation to ensure progressive 
realisation of victims’ effective access to criminal jus‑
tice, which includes progressive improvement of support 
services provided to victims of crime.

Closer analysis makes it possible to distinguish certain 
particular aspects of the right of victims to access jus‑
tice. These various aspects demonstrate the wide range 
of victims’ rights under the Charter. Some of these 
aspects can be traced to both the Charter and the ECHR. 
Article 52 (3) of the Charter for instance ensures that 
the Charter has at least the meaning and scope of the 
corresponding ECHR guarantees. Additional aspects of 
a victim’s right to access justice relate only to Article 47 
of the Charter, which exceeds the rights under the ECHR.

The ECtHR’s case law rests on two pillars: firstly, on 
what the court refers to as the procedural limbs of cer‑
tain rights (including Articles 2, 3, 4 and 8 of the ECHR), 
and secondly on the right to an effective remedy under 
Article 13 of the ECHR. The first pillar, the procedural 
aspect of substantive articles, emphasises the task of 
criminal law provisions and their forceful implementa‑
tion, to dissuade potential perpetrators from violating 
human rights. The second pillar highlights the right of 
victims to have the violation of their rights taken seri‑
ously and be redressed.

1�1�1�  Definitions in criminal law 
and procedural guarantees

For an investigation to be effective in practice the state 
must first have enacted criminal law provisions that 
comprehensively penalise practices contrary to the 
article in question.46 Such provisions must capture the 
substance of the human rights violations suffered by 
the victim. To capture the rights violations suffered by 
victims of long‑lasting domestic violence, for example, 
that law must criminalise more than the single acts of 
violence. It must also reflect the psychological impact 
of such a relationship, including the feelings of fear, 

46  ECtHR, M.C. v. Bulgaria, No. 39272/98, 4 December 2003, 

para. 150, 153 and 166; ECtHR, Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], 
No. 22978/05, 1 June 2010, para. 117.

helplessness and vilification suffered in the long‑term.47 
Or, in the case of violent acts committed with a dis‑
criminatory motive, criminal law must not just cover 
the incidents of violence, it must sufficiently reflect the 
discrimination dimension.48

Once they become aware of an incident, the authorities 
must act of their own volition; they cannot leave it to 
the victim or the victim’s relatives to initiate proceed‑
ings. The right of the victim to have access to justice is 
not predicated on his or her active contribution, such 
as reporting to the police or supporting investigations 
or prosecution.49

A person who can arguably claim to have been sub‑
jected to violent victimisation is entitled to “a thorough 
and effective investigation capable of leading to the 
identification and punishment of those responsible”.50 
The authorities must have taken all reasonable steps 
available to them to secure the evidence concerning the 
offence, including, among others, eyewitness testimony 
and forensic evidence. Any deficiency in the investiga‑
tion that undermines its ability to establish the cause of 
injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will 
risk falling foul of this standard.51 Investigations must 
also be carried out independently of any persons impli‑
cated in the events; victims must be involved in the 
procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard their 
legitimate interests.52

A number of additional aspects can be drawn from the 
ECtHR’s case law:

•  Limitations to time bars and amnesties – In cer‑
tain cases concerning rights violations carried out 
by State agents, the ECtHR has stressed that crim‑
inal  proceedings  and  sentencing  should  not  be 
time‑barred and that the granting of an amnesty or 
pardon should not be permissible.53

•  Effective access to the proceedings – The notion of 
an effective remedy entails effective access of the 

47  ECtHR, Valiulienė v. Lithuania, No. 33234/07, 26 March 2013, 
para. 69–70; Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova, No. 3564/11, 
28 May 2013, para. 54.

48  ECtHR, Nachova v. Bulgaria [GC], No. 43577/98, 6 July 2005, 

para. 160.

49  ECtHR, Cadiroğlu v. Turkey, No. 15762/10, 3 September 2013, 

50 

51 

52 

53 

para. 30.
ECtHR, Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], No. 22978/05, 1 June 
2010, para. 116 and 117; ECtHR, El‑Masri v. The Former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], No. 39630/09, 
13 December 2012, para. 255.
ECtHR, Kummer v. the Czech Republic, No. 32133/11, 
25 July 2013, para. 81.
ECtHR, Al‑Skeini and Others v. The United Kingdom [GC], 
No. 55721/07, 7 July 2011, para. 167; Giuliani and Gaggio 
v. Italy [GC], No. 23458/02, 24 March 2011, para. 302 to 
306; Khamzatov and Others v. Russia, No. 31682/07, 
28 February 2012, para. 141; Kummer v. the Czech Republic, 
No. 32133/11, 25 July 2013, para. 83.
ECtHR, Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, No. 32446/96, 
2 November 2004, para. 55.

Victims’ rights in European and national law

victim to the investigations as well as to later phases 
of the proceedings.54

•  Legal  remedies  against  a  decision  of  the  public 
prosecutor not to prosecute or to discontinue pro‑
ceedings – Victims must have available to them an 
effective legal remedy against a decision of the 
public prosecutor to discontinue proceedings.55
•  Promptness and reasonable expedition – The ECtHR 
considers this to be implicit in the context and while 
accepting that there may be obstacles or difficul‑
ties  which  prevent  progress  in  an  investigation, 
a prompt response by the authorities may “gener‑
ally be regarded as essential in maintaining public 
confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and 
in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tol‑
erance of unlawful acts”.56

•  No manifest disproportion between the gravity of 
the act and the punishment imposed – The imposed 
sanction is “vital in ensuring that the deterrent effect 
[… and the ECHR] is intended to guarantee rights 
that are not theoretical or illusory, but practical and 
effective”.57

•  Right  to  the  payment  of  compensation,  where 
appropriate – It must be possible for victims to seek 
and obtain compensation for damage sustained58 
within a reasonable timeframe.59 As concerns state 
compensation, Advocate General Lenz held in the 
Cowan case what could be seen as the appropriate 
general approach to the rights of victims:60

“In enacting legislation for the compensation of victims of 
crime it takes a position analogous to that of a guarantor 
with regard to compensation for harm which could not 
otherwise be redressed, harm arising from the infringement 
of rights which it was the State’s duty to protect but which it 
was not able to guarantee.”60

•  Non‑recurrence – The victim’s right to non‑recur‑
ring (repeat) victimisation and the duty of state 

55 

56 

54  ECtHR, El‑Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia [GC], No. 39630/09, 13 December 2012, 
para. 255.
ECtHR, Eremiasova and Pechova v. the Czech Republic, 
No. 23944/04, 16 February 2012, paras. 96–100.
ECtHR, Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, No. 32446/96, 
2 November 2004, para. 54; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], 
No. 22978/05, 1 June 2010, para. 121; McCaughey and 
Others v. the United Kingdom, No. 43098/09, 16 July 2013, 
paras. 130 to 140; Collette and Michael Hemsworth v. 
the United Kingdom, No. 58559/09, 16 July 2013, para. 
69; Kummer v. the Czech Republic, No. 32133/11, 25 
July 2013, para. 81; Cadiroğlu v. Turkey, No. 15762/10, 
3 September 2013, paras. 31–36.
ECtHR, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, No. 7888/03, 
20 December 2007, para. 61; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], 
No. 22978/05, 1 June 2010, paras. 121 and 123.
ECtHR, Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], No. 22978/05, 1 June 2010, 
para. 116; ECtHR, El‑Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic 
of Macedonia [GC], No. 39630/09, 13 December 2012, 
para. 255.
ECtHR, Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], No. 22978/05, 1 June 2010, 
para. 127.

58 

59 

57 

60  Opinion of Advocate General Carl Otto Lenz, Cowan v. Trésor 

public, 186/87, 2 February 1989.

27

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

authorities to assess the risk of repeat victimisa‑
tion relate to several of the substantive provisions 
of the Charter, including most particularly the right 
to the protection of human dignity (Article 1), the 
right to life (Article 2) and the right to the integrity 
of the person (Article 3). If there is a particular risk of 
repeat victimisation, instituting criminal proceedings 
does not suffice as a protection measure. The ECtHR 
will assume an obligation to apply additional protec‑
tive measures if it is established that “the authori‑
ties knew or ought to have known at the time of the 
existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of 
an identified individual or individuals from the crimi‑
nal acts of a third party and that they failed to take 
measures within the scope of their powers which, 
judged reasonably, might have been expected to 
avoid that risk”.61 Article 22 of the Victims’ Directive 
recalls that victims of crime have a right to a thor‑
ough assessment of their risk of repeat victimisa‑
tion, in particular in cases of relational violence62 or 
organised crime.

•  Private life – Victims also enjoy the right under Arti‑
cle 7 of the Charter – corresponding to Article 8 of 
the ECHR – to be spared unreasonable stress that 
can be experienced as an additional element of vic‑
timisation or traumatisation. In particular, such strain 
can result from confrontation with the offender. In 
this respect the ECtHR has found that in cases of 
sexual violence criminal proceedings “are often con‑
ceived of as an ordeal by the victim, in particular 
when the latter is unwillingly confronted with the 
defendant”.63

•  Data protection –  To  meet  the  rights  of  victims 
to be supported and protected, the cooperation 
of support services, such as the police and other 
institutions, is crucial. Nevertheless, referrals and 
communications among these institutions must be 
carefully designed not to interfere with victims’ 
rights to the protection of their personal data under 
Article 8 of the Charter.

1�1�2�  Additional rights of victims under 

Article 47 of the Charter

The procedural rights of defendants are protected under 
Article 6 (fair trial) of the ECHR and those of victims 
under Article 13 (effective remedy). Victims of crime 
cannot claim fair trial rights under Article 6 of the ECHR 
unless they join criminal proceedings to enforce civil law 
claims within the framework of the criminal procedure.64 

61 

62 

ECtHR, Osman v. UK, No. 23452/94, 28 October 1998, 
para. 116.
ECtHR, Eremia v. The Republic of Moldova, No. 3564/11, 
28 May 2013, para. 52.
ECtHR, B. v. Finland, No. 17122/02, 24 April 2007, para. 43. 

63 
64  ECtHR, Perez v. France, No. 47287/99, 12 February 2004, 

paras. 57 to 72; Novak v. Slovenia, No. 5420/07, 
25 April 2013.

28

But even in such cases victims owe their rights under 
Article 6 to their civil law claims – not because they suf‑
fered victimisation in terms of criminal law provisions. In 
the ECHR human rights system, fair trial rights and the 
right to an effective remedy are distinct and unrelated.

The Charter does not maintain the ECHR’s distinction 
between defendants and victims (Article 47). Under 
the Charter, victims of crime not only enjoy the right to 
an effective remedy, which covers the wide range of 
rights of victims under Article 13 of the ECHR, but also 
fair trial rights (Article 6 (1)), namely:

•  the right to a fair and public hearing conducted by 
an independent tribunal within a reasonable time;

•  the right to be advised and represented;
•  the right to legal aid, available to victims who lack 
sufficient resources in so far as such legal aid is nec‑
essary to ensure victims’ effective access to justice.

The Victims’ Directive takes up important aspects of 
these fair trial rights, such as the right to be heard (Arti‑
cle 10) and the right to legal aid (Article 13). In addition, 
Recital 66 of the Victims’ Directive explicitly refers to 
the rights of victims under the Charter and highlights 
victims’ “right to a fair trial”.

1�2�  Victims in the criminal 
justice system: 
a diversity of concepts 
and legal frameworks
The conceptualisation of the victim in the normative 
(legal and cultural) framework, and the role the victim 
is seen as having in the criminal procedure depends 
strongly on the historical development of the legal 
framework in each individual Member State, and in turn 
influences the conceptualisation of victim support ser‑
vices. The diverse approaches to victims’ rights reflect 
different understandings of the concept of ‘victim’ itself 
(see Figure 3). This variety largely remains even though 
EU legislation for victims of crime has been in place 
since 2001.

EU Member States exhibit three distinct basic models:

1.  Victims as witnesses
2.  Addressing damage done to victims and awarding 

compensation

3.  Victims as rights holders

In reality, these abstract models often overlap. They 
should therefore be seen as points of departure from 
which  the  individual  national  systems  deviate  to 
a lesser or greater degree. These models are based on 
legislation; practice may be much better or worse. The 

Victims’ rights in European and national law

classification is nevertheless useful for understanding 
the underlying reasons for the existing differences in 
the rights and practical position of victims in various 
EU Member States.

1�2�1�  Victims as witnesses

In the first model found in some EU Member States 
(such as Ireland and the United Kingdom), the victim is 
seen not as a party to the proceedings but essentially 
as a witness. The prosecution formally represents the 
interest of the state rather than of the victim, whose 
role is to provide information that might lead to the 
case’s resolution. The rules of criminal procedure then 
focus on the legal standing of witnesses, rather than 
dealing with victims per se, and national legislation 
sometimes does not define the term ‘victim’.65 Victims 
are not expected to take an active part in the proceed‑
ings unless the court summons them, placing victims in 
differing positions depending on whether or not they 
are summoned. As victims who are not party to the 
proceedings do not have the right to be heard, only 
those victims acting at the same time as witnesses 
have the opportunity to give evidence. They may even 
be under a legal requirement to testify. Only those vic‑
tims acting as witnesses are entitled to some forms of 
legal aid, such as the reimbursement of costs related 
to their presence at the trial. Private party prosecution 
may be possible under certain conditions, but the public 
prosecutor can subsequently take over and may then 
decide to discontinue prosecution.

Within this basic model, victims have varying scope to 
express the impact of the crime, or the harm and suf‑
fering caused. In Ireland and the United Kingdom vic‑
tims have the right to make a ‘victim impact statement’ 
or a ‘personal statement’.66 These statements enable 
the court to take the victim’s subjective assessment of 
harm into account during sentencing, but they typically 
cannot contribute to the conviction of the offender. In 
such a model, there is also often a strong focus on the 
risk that the victim – as a witness – might suffer sec‑
ondary victimisation during criminal proceedings. The 
victim/witness therefore needs to be protected within 
or against these proceedings. Victim support is tailored 
towards helping victims cope with their suffering, and 
providing protection from further harm, access to infor‑
mation on the progress of the case and to confidential 
services. Under this concept, victims can be classified 
by the severity of harm they have suffered. Victim sup‑
port may then primarily address those victims falling 
into specific categories.

65 

In Greece, the Criminal Procedure Code rarely uses the word 
‘victim’, referring instead to either a ‘witness’, an ‘injured 
party’ or a ‘litigant’.

66  See: www.dppireland.ie/victims_and_witnesses/

making‑a‑victim‑impact‑statement/ and www.cps.gov.uk/
legal/v_to_z/victim_personal_statements/.

Strong focus on the victim as a source of testimony is 
clearly present in the criminal legislation of those EU 
Member States based on common law such as Cyprus, 
Ireland and the United Kingdom. To some extent it is 
also the case in other countries such as Greece. Other 
frameworks where victim support focuses primarily 
on protecting victims from harm rather than on ena‑
bling them to take an active part in proceedings, such 
as those of Denmark or the Netherlands, could also be 
seen as falling into this category.

1�2�2�  Addressing damage done 

to victims and awarding 
compensation

The second approach emphasises the damage done to 
victims and their right to seek compensation directly 
through criminal proceedings. While this allows the 
victim to perform an active and influential role in pro‑
ceedings, this status is premised on the fact that the 
offence caused the victim some form of physical or 
moral damage. Under this system, the criminal proce‑
dure is merged with the civil for the element of compen‑
sation, and the role of the victim in criminal proceedings 
remains significantly similar to a civil party.

The French partie civile, created in the framework of 
the Napoleonic reforms, offers victims the opportunity 
to institute civil proceedings for damages directly in 
a criminal court. They can themselves become a party 
to the case to obtain compensation in a simpler and 
cheaper manner than in separate civil law proceed‑
ings. Including the civil proceedings in the criminal 
means that victims avoid separate proceedings. Such 
combined proceedings also allow for simpler evidence 
gathering. Furthermore, the victim can have the matter 
investigated directly by the judge in case the prosecu‑
tor decides not to pursue the proceedings. Legal aid is 
available to victims who constitute themselves a partie 
civile. These strong participation rights show that the 
partie civile combines the compensation concept with 
a rights concept that focuses on empowering the victim.

The influence of this compensation‑oriented approach 
to victims and victim support can be identified in the 
criminal law framework of numerous other EU Member 
States where some form of private, auxiliary (alongside 
the public prosecutor) or subsidiary (instead of the public 
prosecutor) prosecution is possible. Subsidiary prosecu‑
tion – where the prosecutor decides to step aside and 
the victim is allowed to step in – presents a particularly 
strong acknowledgment of the victim’s legitimate inter‑
est in the prosecution and conviction of the offender. 
In some EU Member States, such as Belgium, Hungary, 
Poland and Sweden, private prosecution is available. 
It is mostly for minor offences and might be subject to 
further conditions, such as the prior refusal of the pros‑
ecution to act. In others, such as Poland, various forms 

29

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

of prosecution – private, auxiliary and subsidiary – are 
available. In the Czech Republic, subsidiary prosecu‑
tion is not possible but an adhesive claim for damages 
can be made within criminal proceedings. Finally, vic‑
tims’ right to compensation also form the underlying 
rationale of some of the earlier EU legislation, notably 
Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating to compensation 
of crime victims.67 The right to obtain compensation in 
the course of criminal proceedings, albeit not absolute, 
is enshrined both in the Framework Decision and the 
Victims’ Directive.68

Victims’ rights to compensation during 
criminal proceedings

Under  both  the  ECtHR  and  the  Charter,  victims  should 
have  the  right  to  seek  and  obtain  compensation  within 
a reasonable time limit. According to FRA evidence, the 
implementation  of  these  requirements  differs  across 
EU  Member  States.  The  online  table  provides  an  over‑
view  of  victims’  rights  concerning  compensation  during 
criminal proceedings.

Source: FRA, 2014, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/
data‑and‑maps/comparative‑data/victims‑support‑services/compensation

1�2�3�  Victims as rights holders

The third and final concept of victim support perceives 
the victim as a person whose rights have been vio‑
lated by the criminal offence. The victim is therefore 
entitled to see that justice is done and, to that end, to 
actively participate in criminal proceedings. In practice, 
the rights of the victim represent another layer com‑
bining the two previous concepts – witness/harm and 
damage/compensation – and adding a strong focus on 
empowering the victim. The point of departure is – in 
the words used by Article 8 (3) of the Victims’ Direc‑
tive  –  “the  criminal  offence  committed  against  the 
victim”. The acknowledgement of the victim as a party 
to the proceedings flows directly from this point; it is not 
premised on an additional element such as the damage 
caused by the offence.

Various national systems offer victims different forms 
of legal standing to achieve this goal, such as that of 
a party to the proceedings, private party prosecutor, 
accessory and/or auxiliary prosecutor. Such systems 
consequently emphasise holders’ ability to claim their 
rights. The German Nebenkläger (subsidiary prosecu‑
tor) model is perhaps the clearest example of how the 
concept  combines  the  three  approaches.  Originally 
reserved for victims of minor offences, the principle has 
been reformed and gradually extended, and currently 

67  Council Directive 2004/80/EC.
68  Compare Art. 9 of the Framework Decision and Art. 16 of 

covers the majority of serious criminal offences. The 
victim acting as Nebenkläger is entitled to legal rep‑
resentation both before and during the proceedings, 
may examine the case dossier including the defendant’s 
statement, suggest factual investigations, ask questions 
of witnesses, make closing statements, and be present 
throughout the trial. He or she is even entitled to file 
an independent appeal against the judgment. Austria 
provides another example of this more complex under‑
standing of the victim’s position and hence of victim 
support services. 

The Victims’ Directive attempts to reconcile the various 
concepts. It creates both common minimum standards 
and endorses the victims’ different roles in the individ‑
ual EU Member States’ criminal justice systems.

To ensure victims’ access to criminal justice, the Neben‑
kläger‑model would arguably be the most reliable of the 
three models, as it does not premise a victim’s standing 
as party to the proceedings on any additional element 
such as harm or damage caused by the offence. The 
victim becomes party to the proceedings because, by 
committing the crime, the offender violated the victim’s 
criminal statutory rights. The French partie civile system 
goes a long way towards acknowledging the victim 
and providing the basis of the victim’s access to justice.

Figure 3 presents an overview of the three theoretical 
concepts and how they overlap in some of the national 
systems of victim support.69

1�3�  The Victims’ Directive

The Victims’ Directive represents the main pillar of the 
Victims package, a set of European Commission legisla‑
tive proposals that aim at reinforcing existing national 
and EU measures on victims’ rights. It responds to the 
European Council’s call for an integrated and co‑ordi‑
nated approach to victims contained in the Stockholm 
Programme  and  in  the  Budapest  Roadmap,  which 
concentrate specifically on strengthening the rights 
and protection of victims.70 See Figure 4 for an over‑
view of the status of the elements of the package and 
the Roadmap.

The Victims’ Directive replaces the Framework Deci‑
sion and complements other EU legislation relating to 
victims’ rights, namely the Council Directive relating 
to compensation of crime victims and the directives 

69  For detailed information on legal standing before 

civil, criminal and administrative courts in selected 
EU Member States, see: European Parliament, Directorate 
General for Internal Policies (2012), www.europarl.
europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2012/462478/
IPOL‑JURI_ET(2012)462478_EN.pdf.

the Victims’ Directive, respectively.

70  Council of the European Union (2011).

30

Figure 3:  Three main approaches to dealing with victims of crime, number of EU Member States by approach

Victims’ rights in European and national law

Rights

Rights-approach  

Victims have rights to participate in proceedings
and an accusatorial function (Nebenkläger)

Damage

Partie civile

Victims can pursue civil law
claims in criminal proceedings

Witness

Common law approach 

Victims are seen mainly
as witnesses

10

10

15

15

3

3

Note:  

EU Member States by predominant approach as assessed by FRA national research contractors; for details, see the online 
table: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/comparative‑data/victims‑support‑services/
approaches.

Source: 

FRA, 2014

Promising practice

Studying the Framework Decision’s implementation

The  European  Commission,  NGOs  and  academia  have  all  examined  and  criticised  from  various  angles  the 
shortcomings in EU Member States’ implementation of the Framework Decision. In this respect, the 2009 Project 
Victims in Europe, developed by the Portuguese victim support organization APAV (Associação Portuguesa de 
Apoio à Vítima) and the International Victimology Institute Tilburg on behalf of Victim Support Europe, stands out 
for providing a comprehensive study of the situation across the EU, dealing with both legal and practical issues

Source: www.apav.pt/proj/pages/infovictims.html; and Apoio à Vìtima, International Victimology Institute Tilburg (2009), Project Victims in 
Europe. Implementation of the EU Framework Decision on the standing of victims in the criminal proceedings in the Member States of the 
European Union, Lisbon, www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/a5109807‑64bf‑446a‑ad22‑c57f850ea7c5_apvicineurope.pdf

From  the  conceptual  viewpoint  outlined  above,  the  Victims’  Directive  can  be  read  as  combining  a  clear 
acknowledgement  of  victims’  rights  with  a  strong  emphasis  on  the  harm  suffered  by  victims  as  well  as  on  the 
various vulnerabilities and needs of at least certain victims. In comparison to the Framework Decision, it creates new 
or strengthens existing obligations for EU Member States with respect to victims of crime in most areas. However, 
while certainly aiming at coordinating the approach to victims across EU Member States, the Victims’ Directive does 
not attempt to unify the position of the victim within the national frameworks of criminal procedure. Recital 20 of 
the Victims’ Directive emphasises that its provisions should be interpreted and implemented depending on the role 
of the victim in the national criminal justice system, including the victim’s legal status as a party to the proceedings. 
References to the role of the victim in the respective criminal justice systems then systematically appear throughout 
the individual provisions of the Victims’ Directive. The importance of this ‘waiver’ vis‑à‑vis the otherwise ambitious 
spirit of the Victims’ Directive cannot be overstated.

31

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Figure 4:  EU instruments related to victims of crime, especially support services

B
DG Justice 
guidance 
document to 
the Victims’ 
Directive

Ref 
Ares(2013)376
3804
19 December 
2013

C
Mutual 
recognition of 
protection 
measures

Regulation 
606/2013
12 June 2013

Applicable 
from
11 January 
2015

EPO
European 
Protection 
Order

Directive 
2011/99/EU

Transposition 
deadline 
11 January 
2015

D
Review of 
Compensation 
Directive 
(2004/80/EC) 
with a view to 
possible 
revision and 
simpliﬁcations 
as well as 
additional 
proposals

E
Recommenda-
tions on 
practical 
measures and 
best practices 
on speciﬁc 
needs of 
victims 
(children)

Compensation 
to crime 
victims

Directive 
2004/80/EC
29 April 2004

Transposition 
deadline
1 January 2006

p
a
m
d
a
o
r

t
s
e
p
a
d
u
B

A
Victims’ 
Directive

Directive 
2012/29/EU
25 October 
2012

Transposition 
deadline 
16 November 
2015

Standing of 
victims in 
criminal 
proceedings

Framework 
decision
15 March 2001

Implementa-
tion deadline
22 March 
2002/2004/
2006
(Applicable to 
DK also after 
transposition 
deadline of 
Victims’ 
Directive)

Past transposition  deadline

Recommendations

Victims’ package

IE not taking part

Adopted

To be proposed

DK not taking part

Note: 

The labelling A–E is that of the Roadmap.

Source: 

FRA, 2014

on trafficking in human beings71 and on sexual abuse 
of children,72 as the latter also contains provisions on 
victim support. EU Member States must implement 
the Victims’ Directive in their national legislation by 
16 November 2015. (Denmark is not participating, so 
after the transposition deadline of 16 November 2015 
the Framework Decision will remain in effect there.) 
Besides the Victims’ Directive, the Victims’ package 
includes Regulation (EU) 606/2013 on mutual recogni‑
tion of protection measures in civil matters, which in 
turn complements Directive 2011/99/EU on the Euro‑
pean  Protection  Order.  The  Budapest  Roadmap,  as 
shown in Figure 4, envisages other priority actions, 
including a further review of the legal framework on 
compensation of victims of crime.

Promising practice

Facilitating the implementation of 
victims’ rights under EU law: the 
European Commission’s guidance 
document

To facilitate the effective and timely transposition 
and implementation of the EU Victims’ Directive, 
the  European  Commission  prepared  a  guidance 
document to assist EU Member States in arriving 
at  a  common  understanding  of  its  provisions.73 
Quotations  from  this  document  in  respect  of 
selected  provisions  of  the  Victims’  Directive  are 
provided in the following textboxes.

See: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/files/victims/
guidance_victims_rights_directive_en.pdf

71  Directive 2011/36/EU.
72  Directive 2011/92/EU.

73 

European Commission (2013).

32

 
Victims’ rights in European and national law

1�3�1�  Chapter 1 – general provisions

Chapter 1 of the Victims’ Directive covers the objec‑
tives and definitions. In the definitions (Article 2), the 
Victims’ Directive significantly extends the scope of 
victim protection in comparison to the Framework Deci‑
sion by broadening the concept of the victim and also 
including family members, in the broad sense, of the 
primary victim.

To Article 2:

“In  transposing  and  implementing  the  Directive,  Mem‑
ber  States  should  use  inclusive  definitions  of  ‘family 
members’  when  it  comes  to  the  victim’s  partners.  Such 
definitions should include spouses, as well as unmarried 
partners, regardless of whether the partners are in a reg‑
istered  civil  partnership  under  its  national  laws.  Thus, 
Article  2  para  1(b)  should  apply  in  all  Member  States, 
regardless  of  the  national  legislation  on  the  recognition 
of  unmarried  couples,  same‑sex  couples  and  same‑sex 
marriages.”

Source: European Commission, DG Justice (2013)

Comprehensive legislation in anticipation 
of new obligations

Two  European  Commission  reports,  issued  in  2004  and 
2009,  both  assessed  EU  Member  States’  implementa‑
tion  of  the  Framework  Decision  as  unsatisfactory.  This 
prompted some EU Member States to address the identi‑
fied shortcomings by amending existing or enacting new 
legislation.  The  2009  report,  for  instance,  criticised  the 
Czech Republic for the absence, in particular, of: free ac‑
cess of victims to advice other than legal advice and legal 
aid;  legislative  provisions  preventing  contact  between 
the victim and the accused; a legal basis for state support 
to  victim  support  services  in  the  reception,  accompani‑
ment and support of victims. To remedy these and other 
outstanding  issues,  the  Czech  Republic  adopted  a  new 
act  in  2013,  dealing  with  the  rights  of  victims  of  crime 
in  a  comprehensive  manner,  including  amendments  of 
other relevant legislation. Given its adoption date, the act 
could also take into account additional future obligations 
stemming  from  the  Victims’  Directive,  such  as  extend‑
ing the term ‘victim’ also to family members of deceased 
victims or adopting the Victims’ Directive’s list of particu‑
larly vulnerable victims.

Sources: European Commission (2004); (2009); Czech Republic, Law on 
Victims of Crime, 2013

1�3�2�  Chapter 2 – provision of 
information and support

Chapter 2 of the Victims’ Directive is dedicated to 
the provision of information and support. It covers 
a  wide  range  of  issues  including  the  actual  provi‑
sions on victim support services. As regards access 

to information, the Victims’ Directive newly empha‑
sises the right to understand and be understood, in 
the sense that all communication with victims must 
be carried out in a way that the victims understand 
(Article 3). This right, although quoted in the recitals, 
was not articulated in the main body of the Frame‑
work Decision, which only referred to Member States’ 
obligation to ensure that victims have access “to infor‑
mation of relevance for the protection of their inter‑
ests […] as far as possible in languages commonly 
understood”. Furthermore, victims who do not speak 
or understand the language of the proceedings are to 
be granted, in accordance with their role in the relevant 
criminal justice system in criminal proceedings, inter‑
pretation and translation (Article 7). Although further 
purpose‑based criteria apply, the service should be 
provided free of charge.

The Victims’ Directive (Article 4) also goes beyond the 
rights granted in the Framework Decision on first‑con‑
tact information with the competent authorities. Vic‑
tims are no longer to be merely informed of the type 
of services or organisations to which they can turn. 
Instead, via the provision of Article 8 (2), they are to 
be directly referred to the appropriate victim support 
services at the initial stage. They should, in other words, 
be asked if they want to be placed in contact with a sup‑
port service. Among other improvements, the Victims’ 
Directive refers to the broader concept of “competent 
authority” rather than making this right conditional on 
contact with law enforcement authorities. It also stip‑
ulates that information should be provided “without 
unnecessary delay”.

To Article 4:

“The  2009  implementation  report  clearly  demonstrates 
that  Member  States  do  not  provide  victims  with  suffi‑
cient information, and finds inconsistencies in practices. 
Article 4 establishes a ‘right for victims to receive infor‑
mation’. The rationale behind this provision requires the 
criminal justice authorities to provide extensive informa‑
tion proactively ex officio, rather than the onus being on 
victims to seek out such information for themselves. Vic‑
tims must be granted ‘effective access to information’.”

Source: European Commission (2013), DG Justice Guidance document on the 
Victims’ Directive

The Victims’ Directive also stipulates what informa‑
tion about the case should be made available to the 
victim. This information includes the nature of the crimi‑
nal charges, the time and place of the trial, any deci‑
sion to end the investigation or not to prosecute, as 
well as the final judgment. The reasons for these deci‑
sions will also be made clear. The duty of the state to 
provide this information naturally bolsters the victims’ 
ability to take an active part in the proceedings, where 
possible under national law, and exercise their rights. 

33

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Providing reasons for such decisions helps enable vic‑
tims to further assert their rights. The prosecutor’s rea‑
soning behind a decision not to prosecute, for example, 
is crucial for a victim’s deliberations on whether to chal‑
lenge the decision.

Referrals at request only

Pursuant to Decree Law No. 11/2009 on stalking, the po‑
lice,  local  health  services  and  public  institutions  in  Italy 
shall put the victim in contact with support services if the 
victim expressly requests that they do so. This falls short 
of  the  requirement  stipulated  in  Article  4  (1)  to  “ensure 
that  victims  are  offered”  such  information.  In  general, 
efforts  to  adopt  comprehensive  victims’  legislation  in 
response to the Framework Decision have met with dif‑
ficulties, as is shown by the Italian parliament’s repeated 
but so far unsuccessful attempts to pass an act establish‑
ing  a  framework  for  assistance,  support  and  protection 
of victims.

Source: Parlamento Italiano, Decree Law No. 11/2009, www.camera.it/
parlam/leggi/decreti/09011d.htm; Senato Italiano, Draft Bill establishing 
a framework for victims’ assistance, support and protection presented be‑
fore the Parliament in 2003, 2006, and 2008, never approved (www.senato.
it/leg/16/BGT/Schede/Ddliter/29712.htm)

This chapter also deals with the right to access victim 
support services and the forms of support provided by 
them, which are of particular interest given this report’s 
focus. Table 1 (see also Annex 3) provides an overview 
of how the Victims’ Directive provides more detail and 
higher standards than the Framework Decision with 
respect to victim support services.

The overall purpose of the provisions contained in these 
articles is to ensure that victims, including their family 
members where applicable, have access to information 
and free, confidential support services depending on 
their needs and the harm suffered. In comparison with 
the Framework Decision, the language of the Victims’ 
Directive is manifestly stronger. EU Member States are 
no longer asked to promote the involvement of victim 
support  services  (or  “systems”)  but  are  obliged  to 
ensure that victims have access to these services “acting 
in the interests of the victims before, during and for an 
appropriate time after criminal proceedings”. The link 
between referrals to victim support services and the 
first contact with the competent authorities has already 
been mentioned. Equally important is the fact that the 
Victims’ Directive expressly prescribes that access to 
victim support services must be granted regardless of 
whether or not the victim decides to make a formal com‑
plaint and press charges, although it is generally under‑
stood that the competent authorities should encourage 
reporting (see Recital 63 of the Victims’ Directive). FRA 
findings show that in all 28 Member States access to 
support is not dependent on a complaint having been 
submitted for at least some types of crime or for certain 
support services. (For up‑to‑date information on this, 

see the online table, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publica‑
tions‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/comparative‑data/
victims‑support‑services/complaint).

The formal endorsement of NGOs as providers of victim 
support services, whether professional and/or volun‑
tary, is of course important in putting them formally on 
a par with state‑provided services.

To Article 8:

“Member States are invited to consider: …

28.  If  the  Member  State  decides  to  operate  victim  sup‑
port services through the private sector or through NGOs, 
the  State  should  evaluate  the  allocation  of  sustainable 
financial  or  other  required  resources  to  these  organisa‑
tions, unless the organisation chooses to function without 
government funding and remain independent.”

Source: European Commission (2013)

Unlike the Framework Decision, the Victims’  Directive 
differentiates between general and specialist victim 
support services (Article 8) and specifies the mini‑
mum level of services that Member States must pro‑
vide (Article 9). From the victim support viewpoint 
the specification of minimum standards is of funda‑
mental importance. The Framework Decision obliged 
EU Member States to “encourage action” by victim 
support services in the field of providing victims with 
information, accompanying them and assisting them. 
Now, victim support services are to provide much more 
clearly defined services relevant to the rights of vic‑
tims. This includes advice, for example, on accessing 
national compensation schemes and on other financial 
and practical issues arising from crime, emotional and 
psychological support. It also covers advice relating to 
the risk and prevention of secondary and repeat vic‑
timisation, of intimidation and of retaliation.

The need to extend the concept of ‘victim’

To comply with its obligations under the Framework Decision 
after becoming an EU Member State, Hungary adopted a Vic‑
tim Support Act in 2005. The act and implementing practice 
therefore generally fulfil the requirements of the Framework 
Decision.  However,  legislation  covering  criminal  procedure 
which determines the position of the victim still uses a nar‑
row concept of ‘aggrieved party’ which focuses only on the 
most direct victims of crime. Hungary will therefore need to 
make further changes to comply with the Victims’ Directive’s 
new requirements, such as ensuring that family members of 
the victim are also included in the definition.

Source: Hungary, Act 135 of 2005 on Support and State Compensation for 
Victims of Crime

Specialist support services provide important support to 
victims at special risk of repeat or secondary victimisation 

34

Victims’ rights in European and national law

Table 1: 

Summary overview – the Framework Decision compared to the Victims’ Directive

Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, 
15 March 2001

Directive 2012/29/EU, 25 October 2012

Number of recitals

Number of articles

Main article on victim 
support services

Title of main article

Paragraph 1
(emphasis added)

12

19

13

Specialist services and victim 
support organisations

Each Member State shall, in the 
context of proceedings, promote 
the involvement of victim support 
systems responsible for organising 
the initial reception of victims and 
for victim support and assistance 
thereafter, whether through the 
provision of specially trained 
personnel within its public services 
or through recognition and funding 
of victim support organisations.

Subsequent 
paragraphs

The Framework Decision includes 
in a second and last paragraph 
four aspects where a “Member State 
shall encourage action” related to 
providing victims with information, 
assisting with immediate needs, 
accompanying victims during criminal 
proceedings, and assisting after trial.

72

32

8

Right to access victim support services

Member States shall ensure that victims, 
in accordance with their needs, have 
access to confidential victim support 
services, free of charge, acting in the 
interests of the victims before, during 
and for an appropriate time after criminal 
proceedings. Family members shall 
have access to victim support services in 
accordance with their needs and the degree 
of harm suffered as a result of the criminal 
offence committed against the victim.

The Victims’ Directive includes an additional 
four paragraphs with details on: referrals 
by authorities to victim support services; 
free and confidential victim support services 
including for family members of victims; 
support services that can be set up as public 
entities or by NGOs, as a professional or 
a volunteer; and the fact that provision 
of support shall not be dependent on 
a victim making a formal complaint.
Moreover, the Victims’ Directive contains 
a full Article (9) on victim support 
services, specifying minimum standards 
for what support services must include.

Note: 

Annex 3 provides a table with the full text of the two instruments.

Source: 

FRA, 2014

or other forms of perpetrator harm. Article 9 contains an 
open‑ended list which includes victims of sexual vio‑
lence, victims of gender‑based violence and victims of 
violence in close relationships. In sum, the groups listed 
serve to recognise the vulnerable situation of women as 
victims. Such services are therefore additionally obliged 
to provide interim accommodation to victims as well as 
targeted and integrated support, including trauma sup‑
port and counselling, unless this role is filled by others.

To Article 9:

“The list of minimum services to be provided is fairly self‑ex‑
planatory, but the expression ‘targeted and integrated sup‑
port’ for victims with specific needs in paragraph 3(b) may 
require some clarification. An ‘integrated’ approach when 
providing victim support should take into account the rela‑
tionship between victims, perpetrators, children and their 
wider  social  environment  to  avoid  the  risk  of  assessing 
their needs in isolation or without acknowledging their so‑
cial reality. Thus, when providing targeted, integrated sup‑
port, it is important to ensure that the needs of victims are 
assessed in the light of all relevant circumstances to allow 
professionals to take properly informed, appropriate deci‑
sions. This approach is in line with requirements under the 
Council of Europe Istanbul Convention.”

Source: European Commission (2013)

35

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

1�3�3�  Chapter 3 – participation in 
criminal proceedings

Chapter 3 of the Victims’ Directive contains provi‑
sions on victim participation in criminal proceed‑
ings. The main tangible development vis‑à‑vis the 
Framework Decision lies in Article 11, which grants 
the victim rights in the event of a decision not to 
prosecute. Under procedural rules determined by 
national law, all EU Member States are obliged to pro‑
vide victims with the possibility to challenge a public 
prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute, and to inform 
victims of this right. This right, however, is condi‑
tioned upon the victim’s role in criminal proceedings 
(see Section 1.2). Its application will therefore vary 
across national legal systems, and victims with no 
formal standing during the criminal proceedings will 
not be able to enjoy it.

To Article 11:

“Which decisions can be reviewed? In practice, the deci‑
sion not to prosecute may be based on technical and legal 
reasons,  as  well  as  on  the  principle  of  opportunity,  e.g. 
the lack of public interest, the nature and seriousness of 
the offence, the evidence available, etc.”

Source: European Commission (2013), Chapter 4 – Specific protection needs

1�3�4�  Chapter 4 – victims with 

specific needs

Chapter 4 of the Victims’ Directive, which deals with 
the protection of victims and recognition of victims 
with specific protection needs, brings about further 
important changes. Issues covered within a single 
article of the Framework Decision now span seven. 
Besides protecting the safety and privacy of victims, 
the Victims’ Directive newly requires that their dig‑
nity also be protected. To avoid contact between the 
victim and the offender, some formerly non‑compul‑
sory obligations, ensuring for instance the existence 
of separate waiting areas for victims, have been made 
mandatory. In the area of privacy protection, the Vic‑
tims’ Directive recognises the role of the media and 
obliges EU Member States to encourage it to take 
self‑regulatory measures. Protection of child victims, 
formerly scattered across different provisions, has 
been concentrated under the provision of a single 
article and further reinforced.

36

To Article 22:

“Children  are  always  presumed  to  have  specific  protec‑
tion needs and are therefore only subject to the second 
part  of  the  assessment  (paragraph  4).  The  assessment 
for  children  would  thus  consist  of  determining  which  of 
the protection measures listed in Articles 23 and 24 would 
need to be put in place for each individual child. Children’s 
houses or child protection centres with an integrated and 
multidisciplinary approach are particularly well placed to 
conduct such individual assessments.”

Source: European Commission (2013)

Most importantly, EU Member States are obliged to 
ensure timely and individual assessment of their spe‑
cific  protection  needs  and  to  grant  them  appropri‑
ate protection (Articles 22 and 23). This case‑by‑case 
assessment should identify victims who are vulner‑
able to secondary or repeat victimisation or intimida‑
tion during criminal proceedings. These victims can then 
benefit from a spectrum of special measures during 
criminal investigations, including being interviewed in 
special premises and by specifically trained profession‑
als and, for victims of sexual violence such as gen‑
der‑based violence or violence in close relationships, 
by persons of the same sex as the victim. Similarly, 
during the court proceedings special measures – such 
as the exclusion of the public or participation of the 
victim through the use of appropriate communication 
technologies – should be made available.

Limited availability of protective measures

France introduced new protective measures into the Civil 
Code in 2010 for victims of domestic violence. When de‑
ciding whether to issue a protection order in such cases, 
the judge can summon the victim and the accused sepa‑
rately to prevent mutual contact. As these measures are 
not available to all victims who could be considered ‘vul‑
nerable’ under the Victims’ Directive, however, they may 
not be sufficient to meet its requirements.

Source: France, Parliament, Act No. 2010‑760 on Violence Against Women, 
Violence Between Spouses, and the Effects of These Types of Violence on 
Children, 9 July 2010

1�3�5�  Chapter 5 – other provisions

Chapter  5  of  the  Victims’  Directive  transforms  the 
former call on EU Member States to provide training 
for personnel involved with victims into an obligation. 
The Victims’ Directive recognises the limits placed upon 
this obligation by judicial independence and the inde‑
pendence of other legal professions. It requires, how‑
ever, that any officials likely to come into contact with 
victims receive an appropriate level of both general 

Victims’ rights in European and national law

Figure 5:  Structure and content of the Victims’ Directive

72 recitals

Chapter 1
General provisions

Art. 1 – Objectives

Art. 2 – Deﬁnitions

Chapter 2
Provision of information
and support 

Chapter 3
Participation in criminal
proceedings 

Chapter 4
Protection and
speciﬁc needs 

Art. 3 – Right to understand and to be understood

Art. 4 – Right to information from ﬁrst contact 

Art. 5 – Right of victims when making complaints

Art. 6 – Right to receive information about their case

Art. 7 – Right to interpretation and translation

Art. 8 – Right to access victim support services

Art. 9 – Support from victim support services

Art. 10 – Right to be heard

Art. 11 – Rights if decision not to prosecute

Art. 12 – Rights to safeguards in restorative justice

Art. 13 – Right to legal aid

Art. 14 – Right to reimbursement of expenses

Art. 15 – Right to return of property

Art. 16 – Right to decision on compensation (offender) 

Art. 17 – Rights of victims resident in other Member States 

Art. 18 – Right to protection

Art. 19 – Right to avoid contact (victim with offender)

Art. 20 – Right to protection during criminal investigations

Art. 21 – Protection of privacy

Art. 22 – Individual assessment (speciﬁc needs)

Art. 23 – Protection for speciﬁc needs during investing

Art. 24 – Protection of child victims during criminal proceedings

Chapter 5
Other provisions 

Art. 25 – Training of practitioners

Art. 26 – Cooperation and coordination of services

Art. 27 – Transposition (16 November 2015) 

Art. 28 – Provision of data and statistics (16 November 2017)

Art. 29 – Report (Commission by 16 November 2017)

Art. 30 – Replacement of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA

Art. 31 – Entry into force (15 November 2012)

Art. 32 – Addressees (to Member States)

Chapter 6
Final provisions 

Source: FRA, 2014

37

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

and specialist training. It could be seen as setting the 
threshold for such ‘officials’ quite low, encompassing 
police officers and court staff in particular. As discussed 
in Section 2.5, this leads to an increased demand for 
specialised training that often only victim support ser‑
vices can provide, bolstering their role within the victim 
support system and enabling them to have a more pro‑
found impact on its development.

To Article 25:

“Training  is  absolutely  essential  for  making  the  victims’ 
rights  in  the  Directive  real  and  effective  for  victims  in 
Europe.  Member  States  should  do  their  utmost  to  ensure 
that all practitioners in contact with victims receive proper 
training. A number of Articles in this Directive presuppose 
that training is available, notably the provisions on support 
and  restorative  justice  services  (training  being  a  require‑
ment for accreditation). Member States’ obligations in the 
area  of  training  include  developing  awareness  of  victims’ 
needs,  in  a  professional  and  non‑discriminatory  manner. 
The notion ‘victims’ needs’ is covered notably by provisions 
of Article 8 and 9 on general and specialist victim support 
services and Chapter 4 on the protection of victims and the 
recognition of victims with specific protection needs.”

Source: European Commission (2013)

Conclusions

Victims of crime have a right to access justice and to 
benefit from fair trial rights under the Charter’s Arti‑
cle 47, but the different levels of victim involvement in 
criminal proceedings across Member States significantly 
affect victims’ enjoyment of these rights in practice. 
Three basic approaches to victim involvement can be 
distinguished across EU Member States:

1)  victim as witness to be protected from harm;
2)  addressing damage done to the victim and awarding 

compensation; or

3)  victim as rights holders.

The first two models emphasise a particular victim role 
in criminal proceedings. The third perceives the victim 
more comprehensively, as it perceives the offence – in 
the terms of Recital 9 of the Victims’ Directive – as “a 
wrong against society as well as a violation of the indi‑
vidual rights of victims”.

The Victims’ Directive surpasses the standards set out in 
the Framework Decision in a number of ways. It introduces 
new rights for victims of crime and, perhaps even more 
significantly, transforms a number of formerly optional 
provisions into obligations, converting potential benefits 
for victims into true victims’ rights. Furthermore, it places 
victim support services at the forefront of the system and 
clearly recognises the central role they play in enabling 

victims to enjoy their rights. By setting up minimum stand‑
ards for their activities while obliging the state to ensure 
their availability, it has the potential to reshape the victim 
support system across the EU to benefit victims.

The Victims’ Directive does not, however, provide an 
instrument to harmonise the divergent approaches to 
the victim’s role in the various EU Member States’ crimi‑
nal justice systems and, consequently, to the provision 
of victim support services. While the directive undoubt‑
edly sets the overall bar higher than the Framework 
Decision, the need to accommodate these structural 
differences inevitably creates space for divergence in 
the quality of victim support services and thus poten‑
tially also in the equal enjoyment of victims’ rights. The 
issue of equality of victims’ rights is further explored 
in the following chapters, notably in Chapter 5, which 
deals with quality standards and indicators.

Guaranteeing the right of victims 
to access support services and 
to effective remedy

The Victims’ Directive acknowledges the existence of 
different criminal justice systems across EU Member 
States and the varying roles attributed to victims within 
these systems. Nonetheless, its implementation must 
not fall short of the standards guaranteed by Article 47 
of the Charter of the EU and the case law of the Euro‑
pean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) relevant to fair 
trial and the right to a remedy. This includes the right 
of effective access to court proceedings – facilitated by 
good victim support services – the right to challenge 
a prosecutor’s decision and the right to legal aid.

Victims’ effective access to justice depends in large part 
on the availability of targeted victim support services. 
The need to provide victims with a set of services that 
can enable them to enjoy their rights is underlined by 
FRA research on the reporting of people’s experiences 
of crime. Results on, for example, experiences of hate 
crime in the EU‑MIDIS survey and on reporting pat‑
terns in the violence against women survey, show that 
improvements are necessary to encourage reporting.

FRA opinion

EU  Member  States  must  ensure  the  effective 
provision  of  and  access  to  support  services  in 
order  to  comply  with  the  Victims’  Directive  and 
to  meet  their  obligations  under  Article  47  of 
the  Charter.  When  implementing  the  Victims’ 
Directive,  EU  Member  States  should  take  into 
account Article 47 and relevant ECtHR case‑law to 
assess the rights of victims to actively participate 
in  criminal  proceedings,  such  as  the  right  to  be 
heard and the right to provide evidence.

38

Victims’ rights in European and national law

According to the directive, EU Member States should 
also promote general and specialist training for judges 
and prosecutors on victims’ rights and needs. FRA find‑
ings show that not all Member States have yet imple‑
mented these measures.

FRA opinion

EU Member States must ensure they comply with 
the Victims’ Directive’s new obligations on training 
police officers and court staff, providing individual 
assessments  of  victims  and  ensuring  separate 
waiting areas for victims in new court premises. 
EU  Member  States  should  make  available  the 
additional  resources  needed  to  implement  such 
measures by the transposition deadline.

Interpreting ‘victim’ inclusively

As  the  Victims’  Directive  sets  higher  standards  in 
a number of areas than the Council Framework Deci‑
sion 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of 
victims in criminal proceedings (OJ L 82/1), definitions 
of the relevant concepts in national law, or their inter‑
pretation, should reflect this development in an appro‑
priate manner. FRA findings suggest that the legislation 
of some EU Member States might require amendments 
in this regard to be brought in line with the Victims’ 
Directive. Several Member States, for example, define 
the term ‘victim’ narrowly in their legislation, exclud‑
ing ‘indirect’ victims such as family members. Some 
Member States fail to define the term at all.

FRA opinion

The  Victims’  Directive  requires  that  a  victim’s 
family  members  are  included  in  the  definition 
of  victim  (in  relation  to  victims  whose  death  is 
a direct cause of a criminal offence) so that they 
also  have  access  to  victim  support  services  in 
accordance  with  their  needs  and  the  degree  of 
harm suffered as a result of the criminal offence 
committed  against  the  victim.  The  term  ‘family 
members’,  as  well  as  other  key  terms,  such  as 
‘particularly  vulnerable’,  should  therefore  be 
broadly  interpreted  so  as  not  to  unnecessarily 
restrict the list of potential rights holders.

Allocating sufficient resources

Certain new obligations, as well as non‑compulsory 
provisions of the Framework Decision that the Victims’ 
Directive makes obligatory, will require EU Member 
States to invest further in personnel, equipment or facil‑
ities. This includes ensuring that victims’ waiting areas 
at court are separate from those of the accused, at the 
very least in any new court premises (Article 10 (3) Vic‑
tims’ Directive). Member States must also acquire the 
technology needed for video‑links and video record‑
ings, provide obligatory training for front‑line practition‑
ers such as police officers and court staff (Article 25 (1) 
Victims’ Directive) and ensure that victims are indi‑
vidually assessed to identify their specific protection 
needs (Article 22 (1) Victims’ Directive). FRA findings 
show that some Member States have yet to implement 
these measures. Fewer than half the Member States, 
for example, currently provide separate waiting areas 
for victims.

39

2 

Aspects of victim 
support

The Victims’ Directive sets the stage for a broad under‑
standing of victim support which goes beyond the func‑
tions provided for in Articles 8 and 9. It encompasses 
a number of rights that the state is to guarantee, yet 
are designed to involve further victim support system 
actors. Indeed, the right to legal aid, referral of vic‑
tims among various relevant subjects, or rights at trial 
to protect the victim against secondary victimisation, 
contribute to a comprehensive and functional system 
of victim support. Nonetheless, this system cannot 
fully function without the involvement of a number of 
non‑state actors.

This chapter looks at some of these broader aspects 
of victim support enshrined in the Victims’ Directive 
and at the degree to which these rights are currently 
reflected  in  the  national  legislation  of  EU  Member 
States. As pointed out in the Introduction, victim sup‑
port is premised in part on the legal availability of vic‑
tims’ rights. The victim support provided in particular 
during court proceedings depends on the role attributed 
to victims and on their legal standing in those proceed‑
ings. The more rights a victim enjoys to act as a party 
to criminal proceedings, the more important it is that 
a support service advises and encourages victims to 
perform that role in their best interest.

Provisions relating to victim support at the Member 
State level are typically found in national legislation gov‑
erning criminal procedure, which commonly provides 
the definition of a victim and further defines the role of 
the victim during the proceedings. Other legal sources 
include acts that deal specifically with compensation 
(such as the German Opferentschädigungsgesetz74) or 

legal aid (such as in Bulgaria75 or Spain76). Particularly 
more recently, such legislation may also reflect EU‑level 
legislative developments and look at victim rights more 
comprehensively (such as in the Czech Republic77 or 
Romania78).

In addition, the findings of this report reveal the impor‑
tance of ‘soft law’ instruments and practices, which 
provide victims with rights and services beyond those 
granted by applicable legislation in some EU Member 
States. In France, for example, victims’ rights provided 
for in the legislation are supported by circulars encour‑
aging courts to adopt specific practices when dealing 
with persons in situations of vulnerability, who also 
are victims.79

Legislation, of course, represents only part of the overall 
mosaic of victim support in EU Member States and does 
not in itself, without appropriate application, guarantee 
the rights of victims. This chapter, while focusing pri‑
marily on the position of victims laid down in national 
law, therefore also provides a number of examples of 
legally non‑binding instruments and policies that suc‑
cessfully complement or, in some national frameworks, 
even substitute legislation.

75  Bulgaria, Legal Aid Act, 1 January 2006, www.lex.bg/bg/

laws/ldoc/2135511185.

76  Spain, Act 1/1996 on Free Legal Aid, amended by Royal 
Decree‑Law 3/2013 of February 22 modifying the fees 
applied in the field of the administration of justice and the 
system of free legal aid, 10 January 1996, www.boe.es/
diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE‑A‑2013‑2029.

77  Czech Republic, Law on Victims of Crime, No. 45/2013 Coll, 

30 January 2013.

78  Romania, Law No. 211/2004 on Measures to Ensure the 

74  Germany, Act on Compensation to Victims of Violent Crime, 

79 

BGBl. I S. 1, 7 January 1985, www.gesetze‑im‑internet.de/
englisch_oeg/englisch_oeg.html.

Protection of Crime Victims, 27 May 2004.
For example, see a circular on judicial proceedings relating 
to sexual offenses at: France, Ministry of Justice (2005), 
www.justice.gouv.fr/bulletin‑officiel/98‑04‑dacg‑c.pdf.

41

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

2�1�  Access to legal aid

Access to legal aid, notably access to legal aid free of 
charge, represents an area of rights that is closely linked 
to the role of the victim in the system of criminal pro‑
cedure. It includes legal advice and legal representa‑
tion in court (Article 13 of the Victims’ Directive). More 
generally, it also covers interpretation and translation 
expenses (Article 7), and possible reimbursement of 
other expenses (Article 14). The Victims’ Directive does 
not oblige EU Member States to reimburse legal fees, 
as if there are any they can be covered by legal aid. 
Article 47 (3) of the Charter stipulates that “[l]egal aid 
shall be made available to those who lack sufficient 

resources insofar as such aid is necessary to ensure 
effective access to justice”.80

In practice, free legal aid is generally available to vic‑
tims in nearly all (26) EU Member States. In most cases 
however victims are subject to an economic means test 
from which only certain categories of victims should be 
exempt (typically minors, victims of domestic violence 
or sexual offenses). FRA’s 2015 forthcoming report on 
child‑friendly justice focusing on professionals’ per‑
spectives on children’s participation in civil and crimi‑
nal judicial proceedings in 10 EU Member States suggest 
that legal aid for child victims is rather restricted in 
some Member States. In some it is available only to 

Table 2:   Legal aid for victims and witnesses in 10 EU Member States

EU Member 
State

Victim

Witness

Right to legal 
representation

Right to 
legal aid

Type of 
legal aid

Right to legal 
representation

Right to 
legal aid

Type of 
legal aid

✓

✓b

✓

✓

✓d

✓

✓

✓

BG

DE

EE

ES

FI

FR

HR

PL

RO

UK E&W

UK NI

UK Scotland

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Means 
test

Free

Means 
test

c

Free

e

Means 
test

g

✓

✓b

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓f

✓a

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Merit 
based

Means 
test

c

Free

Free

✓

Notes: 

a) Every witness (child or adult) has the right to request a legal consultation with a lawyer if he/she thinks that his/her 
testimony could put him/her in danger; b) During the examination; c) Different rules across communities; d) During the 
investigation and at the trial; e) Legal consultation is free of charge by principle. Representation at judicial proceedings is 
means tested; f) Only if this is necessary to protect his or her interests; g) Free in cases of attempted murder, crimes of 
violence, sexual crimes. For other crimes, free legal aid is means tested.

Source: 

Data from FRA’s 2015 forthcoming report on child‑friendly justice focusing on professionals’ perspectives on children’s 
participation in civil and criminal judicial proceedings in 10 EU Member States

80  EU (2010), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 

Union, OJ 2010 C 83, p. 401. 

42

those who are financially eligible. In others, such as 
Croatia and Finland, it is free of charge without condi‑
tions. The analysis, which covers 10 EU Member States, 
shows that child victims are subject to a means‑test in 
Bulgaria, Estonia, France,81 Poland and Romania.82 In 
Germany, legal aid is subject to a merit test, meaning 
that only children who are perceived to be in need of 
protection can access legal aid free of charge during 
questioning.83

Some EU Member States also explicitly exclude the pro‑
vision of free legal advice to victims other than their 
own or EU nationals, and legal residents. In Ireland, the 
Legal Aid Board is primarily responsible for providing 
legal aid in civil cases. Free legal advice is only available 
to victims of certain offences, including sexual offences 
and trafficking in human beings. In the United Kingdom, 
free legal advice beyond that provided by the police and 
the Crown Prosecution Service is not granted, although 
additional legal aid is specifically available to victims of 
domestic violence and abuse. In practice, however, all 
victims in the United Kingdom have access to the services 
of Victim Support, an organisation funded largely from 
public resources (see Section 2.1). Victim Support advises 
victims on what they can expect in court and through‑
out the criminal justice process. The situation is similar 
regarding free legal representation at court, for which 
24 EU Member States conduct a means test but almost 
all allow for exceptions for some categories of victims 
(see Table 3). Ireland and the United Kingdom again rep‑
resent a specific case, as the victim is not a party to the 
criminal proceedings and is therefore not expected to be 
in need of separate representation or financing, as the 
state prosecutor represents the case.8485

UN standards on legal aid, including victim 
support

The  United  Nations  Principles  and  Guidelines  on  Access 
to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems, adopted in 2012, 
introduced a broad definition of the term ‘legal aid’, call‑
ing upon all states to also provide legal advice, assistance 
and  representation–  among  other  categories–  “for  vic‑
tims and witnesses in the criminal justice process that is 
provided at no cost for those without sufficient means or 
when the interests of justice so require”.85

Source: UN, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2013)

81 

82 

In France, the means test is waived if the child victim is 
seeking only advice, not representation, from a lawyer.
In Romania, the means test is waived if the child is a victim 
of a crime against his/her sexual integrity, neglect, cruel 
treatment or trafficking.
For child witnesses.

83 
84  The Irish Legal Advice Board provides legal representation 

only to victims of certain sexual offences in cases where 
their sexual history is to be examined during trial.

85  UN, UNDOC (2013), Recital 8; see also Guideline 7, on “Legal 

aid for victims” and Guideline 9 (para. 52 (c), on “Female 
victims of violence”.

Aspects of victim support

USEFUL TOOLS FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

Reporting  crimes  by  mobile  phone:  useful  apps  for 
 victims of crime

Guardia civil (GDT), Spain

This app, developed by the Cybercrime unit of the Span‑
ish  Civil  Guard  (Guardia  Civil),  offers  two  different  ser‑
vices:  one  is  to  inform  its  users  of  current  fraud  and 
crimes being committed online, the other allows citizens 
to anonymously report potential criminal acts. The app 
also offers locations of the closest Civil Guard stations.

The tool is available at: https://market.android.com/details?id=es.
guardiacivil.gdt (Android); http://itunes.apple.com/es/app/gdt/
id441712875?mt=8&ls=1 (iOS)

Federal District Prosecutor Office (Procuradoría General 
de Justicia del Distrito Federal), Mexico

This tool allows for anonymous reporting of crimes and 
the loss of national identification papers or passports. It 
also  provides  useful  information  on  criminal  justice  is‑
sues, such as Prosecutors’ Offices contact information.

The tool is available at: www.pgjdf. 
gob.mx/index.php/servicios/en‑
linea/aplicacionpgjcdmx; https://
play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tr3sco.pgjdf (Android); 
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/pgjcdmx/id830812886?ls=1&mt=8 (iOS); 
http://appworld.blackberry.com/webstore/content/31955/ (Blackberry)

In about half of the EU Member States, exemption from 
court fees and exemption from or reimbursement of 
interpretation or translation costs is either automatic 
(as there are no fees applicable), or is granted to victims 
without any further requirements. In the remaining EU 

43

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Table 3:  Availability of legal aid to crime victims

Free legal advice

Free legal representation

s
e
i
r
o
g
e
t
a
c
n
a
t
r
e
c

i

s
m

i
t
c
i
v
f
o

r
e
h
t
o
o
t

j

t
c
e
b
u
S

a
i
r
e
t
i
r
c

t
h
g
i
r

l

a
t
n
e
m
a
d
n
u
f
a

o
t
e
b
a

l

l
i

a
v
A

s
a
s
m

i
t
c
i
v

l
l

a

d
e
t
n
a
r
g
t
o
N

l

o
t
y
n
o
e
b
a

l

l
i

a
v
A

s
e
i
r
o
g
e
t
a
c
n
a
t
r
e
c

i

s
m

i
t
c
i
v
f
o

t
s
e
t

s
n
a
e
m
c
i
m
o
n
o
c
e

n
a
s
a
h
c
u
s

,
a
i
r
e
t
i
r
c

r
e
h
t
o
o
t

j

t
c
e
b
u
S

d
e
t
n
a
r
g
t
o
N

l

o
t
y
n
o
e
b
a

l

l
i

a
v
A

t
h
g
i
r

l

a
t
n
e
m
a
d
n
u
f
a

o
t
e
b
a

l

l
i

a
v
A

s
a
s
m

i
t
c
i
v

l
l

a

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

1

0

22

24

✓

✓

2

TOTAL

7

19

19

Upon fulfilling criteria in both areas (specific category of victim as well as a means test).

Some solely upon victim category (e.g. victims of serious crime, minors, nationals), others upon fulfilling criteria in both areas.

Source: FRA, 2014

44

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member States the situation depends on the victim’s 
formal role in the proceedings, such as whether the 
victim is summoned as a witness or acts as a subsidi‑
ary prosecutor. Only in Bulgaria (for interpretation and 
translation) and Cyprus (for interpretation and trans‑
lation and court fees) can no exemptions be granted 
(see Table 3).

The role that victim support services have in providing 
legal aid also varies based on the legal framework and 
historical development in the EU Member State in ques‑
tion. Austria is the only Member State which fully trans‑
ferred responsibility to state‑contracted victim support 
services. In 12 EU Member States legal aid is provided 
exclusively by public authorities. In the remaining cases, 
the responsibility is shared. Some, for example, distin‑
guish between legal advice provided by victim sup‑
port services and legal representation that can only be 
provided by state‑sanctioned legal practitioners. Croa‑
tia, Hungary and Spain (see Table 4), for example, use 
a decentralised approach, where municipalities, NGOs 
or educational institutions provide legal aid.

Based on the legal framework and historical develop‑
ment, the role of victim support services varies in EU 
Member States in providing legal aid, including formal 
legal aid as well as more general legal assistance to 
crime  victims.  Austria  is  the  only  EU  Member  State 
where the responsibility is transferred to victim sup‑
port services that are contracted by the state, whereas 
in 14 EU Member States public authorities fulfil this role. 
In the remaining EU Member States, the responsibility is 
shared according to various models, such as distinguish‑
ing between legal advice that is provided by victim sup‑
port services and legal representation that can only be 
provided by legal practitioners sanctioned by the state. 
In some Member States, victims’ entitlement to legal 
aid may be restricted to certain categories of victims, 
offence types or subject to economic means testing. This 
information is not reflected in Table 4, providing an over‑
view of legal aid provision models in EU Member States.

2�2�  Decision not to prosecute

The right of victims to review a decision of the public 
prosecutor  not  to  prosecute  or  to  discontinue  the 
proceedings, enshrined in Article 11 of the Victims’ 
Directive, was touched upon in the Introduction. To 
effectively apply this right, the victim must act inde‑
pendently of the prosecution and might therefore be 
in need of legal advice provided from other sources. 
Should victims respond to a decision to discontinue the 
case by assuming the position of a subsidiary prosecu‑
tor, if this option is available to them under national 
law, they might require further legal aid and possibly 
also other services to protect their rights and interests 
during the criminal proceedings.

Aspects of victim support

Table 4:  Provider of legal aid, by EU Member State

i

i

r
e
d
v
o
r
p
n
a
m
s
a
e
t
a
t
S

d
a

i

l

a
g
e

l

f
o

m

i
t
c
i
v
d
n
a
e
t
a
t
s
h
t
o
B

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

t
r
o
p
p
u
s

n

i

l

e
o
r
a
e
v
a
h

d
a

i

l

a
g
e

l

f
o
r
e
d
v
o
r
p

i

t
r
o
p
p
u
s
m

i
t
c
i
V

i

n
a
m
s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

✓

d
a

i

l

a
g
e

l

i

i

g
n
d
v
o
r
p

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

14

1

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

13

FRA, 2014; see also: http://fra.europa.eu/en/
publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/
comparative‑data/victims‑support‑services/legal‑aid

45

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

TOTAL

Source:  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

As discussed above, this right largely depends on the 
formal role of the victim in the proceedings and is as 
such governed by the general rules of criminal proce‑
dure. As with other rights, however, soft law instru‑
ments and practice play an important role in some EU 
Member States. In the United Kingdom, for example, 
the Victims’ Right to Review Scheme of the Crown Pro‑
tection Service responds to the requirements of Arti‑
cle 10 of the Victims’ Directive as well as recent case 

law.86 It allows victims to seek a review of decisions 
not to charge, to discontinue, or otherwise to termi‑
nate proceedings.

Overall, victims in 23 EU Member States currently have 
the right to request a review when the prosecution 
decides not to bring charges or to discontinue a case, 
either by a court or a superior body within the pros‑
ecution  system.  In  14  Member  States  victims  have 

Figure 6:  Right to an effective legal remedy against a decision by the public prosecutor not to prosecute or 

to discontinue proceedings

Right to ﬁle for a review
and right to institute
private prosecution

Right to ﬁle for a review 

Right to institute
private prosecution

No implementation

Source: 

FRA, 2014

46

86  Notably to the 2011 Court of Appeal judgment in R v. 

Christopher Killick [2011] EWCA Crim 1608. See also the 
Crown Protection Service website at: www.cps.gov.uk/
victims_witnesses/victims_right_to_review/.

the  option  to  institute  some  form  of  private  pros‑
ecution in such a case (Figure 6 – for updated infor‑
mation and details, see the online table, http://fra.
europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑
maps/comparative‑data/victims‑support‑services/
prosecution).

Victims  must  be  offered  an  effective  legal  remedy 
against a decision by the public prosecutor not to pros‑
ecute, or to discontinue proceedings. This right is pro‑
tected both by the ECtHR and the Charter. How this right 
is implemented differs across the EU Member States. In 
some Member States victims may file for a review of 
the decision, in others victims have the right to institute 
a private prosecution if the prosecutor decides to drop 
the charges. Figure 6 shows that some Member States 
offer victims both options.

2�3�  Rights at trial to prevent 
repeat and secondary 
victimisation

The Victims’ Directive and to some degree also the 
Framework Decision (see Section 1.3) contain a set of 
procedural rights and safeguards that are to be available 
to victims to protect them from further harm. Ranging 
from the right to be accompanied by support persons of 
their choice during trial (Article 20 of the Victims’ Direc‑
tive) to the right of vulnerable victims to testify in court 
in a protected manner (Article 23 of the Victims’ Direc‑
tive), these rights are of fundamental importance in 
empowering victims to play a role in criminal proceed‑
ings without exposing them to further victimisation.

Findings from this research show that the national legis‑
lative frameworks of individual EU Member States grant 
these rights to varying degrees (see Table 5 – for updated 
information and details, see the online table, http://fra.
europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑
maps/comparative‑data/victims‑support‑services/
trial‑rights).

For example, 24 EU Member States provide vulnerable 
victims with the right to be questioned and to testify 
in court in a protected manner, such as by employing 
screens or video links to separate the victim from the 
accused (see Chapter 4 for more detailed information on 
support services available to specific groups of victims).

In Italy, victims of certain offences (sexual offences, 
human trafficking, slavery and persecutory acts) can 
request  the  judicial  hearing  to  take  place  without 
the presence of the public, and for victims who are 
minors this measure takes place automatically. Simi‑
larly, in France, a hearing can take place without the 
public in cases of rape or torture. Finland, Poland and 

Aspects of victim support

Germany mandate video recording of all pre‑trial inter‑
views with children up to a certain age, and videos 
commonly replace child testimony before the court in 
Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Spain and the United King‑
dom (England and Wales).87

On  the  other  hand,  only  14  EU  Member  States  cur‑
rently provide separate waiting areas for victims at 
court,  obligatory  under  the  Victims’  Directive.  Fur‑
ther legislative and policy developments are therefore 
needed across the EU to ensure full compliance with 
the directive.

Personal  support  to  victims  during  trial  represents 
another element of support. In 16 EU Member States, 
the victim may be accompanied during the trial by 
support persons such as family members and also by 
representatives of victim support services. In eight EU 
Member States, special units or services are available to 
provide support directly during trial, ranging from a case 
coordinator in the Netherlands88 to a state‑guaranteed 
access to witness‑support services at all district and 
appeal courts in Sweden. In France, the government 
is supporting the setting‑up of a network of NGO‑run 
Offices for Victim Support (Bureau d’Aide aux Victimes) 
within the court system. These offices should gradually 
assume the victim support responsibilities that the state 
currently provides.89

The definition of ‘victim’ is dependent on the national 
legal system. The role played by victims in criminal pro‑
ceedings therefore differs across the EU Member States. 
This in turn leads to differences between the rights 
guaranteed to victims during criminal proceedings, of 
which Table 5 provides an overview.

87  See FRA’s 2015 forthcoming report on child‑friendly justice 
focusing on professionals’ perspectives on children’s 
participation in civil and criminal judicial proceedings in 
10 EU Member States.

88  The Netherlands, Public Prosecution Service (2010), p. 2, 

www.om.nl/onderwerpen/huiselijk‑geweld/@155130/
aanwijzing/.

89  France (2012), www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidT
exte=JORFTEXT000025822780&dateTexte=&categorieLien
=id; France, Ministry of Justice (2013), www.textes.justice.
gouv.fr/art_pix/JUST1301453C.pdf.

47

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Table 5:  Victims’ rights at trial

Rights guaranteed to victims during criminal proceedings, by EU Member State

EU 
Member 
State 

d
r
a
e
h
e
b
o
t

t
h
g
R

i

p
a
m
w
e
v
‑

i

l

y
p
p
u
s
o
t

t
h
g
R

i

‑
e
c
n
e
d
v
e

i

p
a
m
w
e
v

i

l

e
b
a
r
e
n
u
v
r
o
f

l

t
h
g
R

i

r
e
n
n
a
m
d
e
t
c
e
t
o
r
p
a

n

i

t
r
u
o
c
n

i

y
f
i
t
s
e
t

e
b
o
t

s
m

i
t
c
i
v

&
d
e
n
o
i
t
s
e
u
q

g
n
i
t
i
a
w
e
t
a
r
a
p
e
S

s
m

i
t
c
i
v
r
o
f
a
e
r
a

t
r
u
o
c

t
a

i

t
a
d
e
n
a
p
m
o
c
c
a

t
r
o
p
p
u
s
y
b

l

a
i
r
t

e
b
o
t

t
h
g
R

i

s
n
o
s
r
e
p

d
n
a
s
s
e
c
c
a
o
t

t
h
g
R

i

s
d
r
o
c
e
r

l

a
i
r
t
y
p
o
c

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

Total

Note: 

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

(✓)

(✓)

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

22

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

22

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

(✓)

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

(✓)

✓

✓

✓

(✓)

✓

✓

✓

24

✓

✓

✓

(✓)

✓

✓

✓

(✓)

✓

(✓)

✓

✓

✓

✓

14

✓

✓

(✓)

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

(✓)

✓

(✓)

✓

(✓)

✓

✓

✓

17

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

(✓)

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

23

A tick in brackets shows that a Member State only partly covers the indicated aspect. For example, in Romania, the right for 
vulnerable victims to be questioned and testify in court in a protected manner is met in cases of victims of human trafficking. 
The absence of a tick signifies that the aspect is not provided for; for example there is no right for victims to access and copy 
trial records.

Source:  

FRA, 2014; see also: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/comparative‑data/
victims‑support‑services/trial‑rights

48

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FRA ACTIVITY

Protecting children from 
inappropriate questioning

FRA research shows that professionals value pro‑
cedural  safeguards  adapted  to  children’s  needs, 
such  as  physical  adaptation  of  the  hearing  envi‑
ronment, use of video‑recordings and video‑links 
and  controlled  contact  with  other  parties.  They 
consider  that  such  tools  and  safeguards  have 
a  positive  effect  on  children’s  wellbeing  and  on 
their participation in proceedings.

In  Germany,  respondents  particularly  notice  the 
positive  changes  due  to  the  criminal  law  reform 
which introduced several exceptional safeguards 
aimed  at  protecting  child  witnesses  in  criminal 
proceedings. Currently, only judges – and not the 
prosecutor or the defence lawyer – may question 
children  in  court  during  the  main  trial  and  they 
cannot  put  minors  under  oath.  If  and  when  chil‑
dren are questioned, the defendant and the gen‑
eral public may be excluded from the court room. 
Until 2009 these safeguards were only meant to 
protect children and youths under the age of 16; 
now they cover those up to 18 years of age, which 
is welcomed by the professionals interviewed.

Source: Data from FRA’s 2015 forthcoming report on child‑friendly 
justice focusing on professionals’ perspectives on children’s par‑
ticipation in civil and criminal judicial proceedings in 10 EU Member 
States

2�4�  Provision of information

Information is a vital component of victims’ rights at 
all stages of the proceedings, a fact that is recognised 
both by Article 6 of the Framework Decision and by 
Chapter 2 of the Victims’ Directive. Besides access to 
information on the progress of their case (Article 6 of 
the Victims’ Directive), the majority of victims may be 
in need of information on their rights within the crimi‑
nal proceedings as such, and on the available means to 
exercise those rights (Article 4 of the Victims’ Directive). 
Lack of information not only represents a serious obsta‑
cle to the enjoyment of victims’ rights, but research 
on victim satisfaction with support services has also 
repeatedly identified the lack of information as a prime 
source of dissatisfaction with criminal proceedings, and 
one which discourages them from actively participat‑
ing.90 Measures aimed at raising victims’ awareness of 
their rights are therefore equally important as access 
to information specific to an individual case.

90  See for example: Sims, L., Myhill, A. (2001); Wemmers, J. 

(1999).

Aspects of victim support

Awareness‑raising to encourage reporting

Portugal’s generic victim support pro‑
vider  APAV  has  published  a  brochure 
on the importance of reporting a crime. 
It describes the different phases of criminal proceedings 
and informs victims of their rights. This brochure is also 
available for Austria and the Czech Republic.

Source: Infovictims, www.infovictims.com/com/index.html

When compared to other victims’ rights, provision of 
information relies considerably on practical policies, 
internal guidelines and soft law instruments. An exam‑
ple is the Victims Charter in Ireland, which not only 
describes the various state and NGO‑run victim ser‑
vices but also contains advice on how to proceed in case 
of dissatisfaction with these services.91 The establish‑
ment of such charters or codes represents a promising 
strategy for providing victims with clear information 
on various stages of the proceedings and their rights 
during these stages. As of 2013, eight EU Member States 
had established or were in the process of establish‑
ing such a charter or code. Two of these documents, 
in Spain and the United Kingdom,92 are legally binding 
upon state authorities.93 The Code of Practice for Vic‑
tims of Crime in the United Kingdom (more precisely in 
England and Wales)94 in particular goes beyond being 
a  purely  informative  and  awareness‑raising  tool.  It 
also supports other rights, including granting the vic‑
tims the opportunity to make a personal statement on 
the impact of the offence on them, which is taken into 
account in sentencing.95 In 2015, the UK Government 
plans to enshrine victims’ rights in law as part of a major 
set of reforms announced by the Justice Secretary in 

91 

Text available at: www.victimsofcrimeoffice.ie/en/vco/
Pages/WP10000006.

92  Some of these documents actually predate national 

legislation that regulates the rights of victims. The United 
Kingdom government introduced the original Victims’ 
Charter, the predecessor of the existing (2006) Code of 
Practice for Victims of Crime, in 1990. This 1990 charter 
also predates the adoption of the Criminal Justice and 
Public Order Act of 1994 which criminalised intimidation of 
victims, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act of 1999 
which introduced special measures at court to facilitate the 
testimony of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, or the 
Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act of 2008 which 
gave statutory nature to the power of the judge to grant 
anonymity to witnesses whose safety is severely at risk.
Ireland is preparing a new legally binding code of 
practice, although there seems to be some scepticism 
as to the benefits of this approach compared to the 
existing Victims Charter. For further information, 
see: www.independent.ie/world‑news/europe/
guide‑planned‑to‑help‑crime‑victims‑29161919.html. 
94  Text available at: www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/

93 

victims_code_2013.pdf.

95  The criminal procedure in the common law systems of 
Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom, retains 
some of its specific features in this area. It does not provide 
for some information rights available to victims in other 
countries, for example the right to access and make copies 
of the case file. The same applies to Denmark and Slovenia.

49

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

September 2014. The new law will guarantee key enti‑
tlements for victims, previously set out in the Victims 
Code; including: the right to make a personal statement 
and ask to have it read aloud in court; automatic referral 
to support organisations; information about individual 
cases at each and every stage; and an assessment of 
victims’ needs at the earliest opportunity. A new Vic‑
tims’ Information Service (including an online portal 
and a new helpline) is also to be established by March 
2015, and plans to pay compensation to victims up front 
will be developed.96 The proposal includes details on 
various other tools and services for crime victims to be 
developed between 2014 and 2018; including a ‘Track‑
MyCrime’ tool, that will allow the victim to track the 
progress of their case online, all the way through the 
criminal justice system.97

USEFUL TOOLS FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

Supporting victims of crime through apps

This  Swedish  app  (Brottsofferap‑
pen)  provides  victims  of  crime  with 
information.  By  providing  details  on 
the location of the user and type of 
crime,  the  tool  locates  the  closest 
police  station  and  support  services. 
It also provides a checklist on how to 
report the crime and claim damages.

The  basic  concept  for  the  app  was 
conceived  to  provide  only  targeted 
and  relevant  information –  in  other 
words  information  specific  to  the 
crime and location. Information was 
collected  from  all  relevant  authori‑
ties  and  organisations.  Updates  will 
have  to  be  requested.  The  app  cost 
approximately  €10,000  to  develop, 
covering  both  the  technical  aspects 
and  data  collection.  The  actual  de‑
velopment took four weeks. Further 
features  will  be  added,  including 
checklists and ‘alert’ functions, with 
which the location of the user can be 
sent to selected persons. In develop‑
ing  the  tool,  the  organisation  drew 
mainly  on  the  extensive  in‑house 
experience of those working with is‑
sues related to victims of crime.

Source: http://brottsof‑
ferappen.org/

This less formal approach seems conducive to the rights 
of the victim, as evidence shows that information is 
regularly provided to victims even in those EU Member 
States where there is no legal obligation for the public 

authorities to do so. While the police are legally obliged 
to provide information on available victim support ser‑
vices in only 15 EU Member States, in practice victims 
receive this information in 21 EU Member States (see 
Section 2.6 for specific information on referrals). Ireland, 
Malta and Slovenia are among those Member States 
where this type of information is routinely provided to 
victims although the police are under no obligation to 
do so, or are only instructed to do so by a non‑binding 
document (such as the Victims Charter in Ireland). In 
some of the remaining EU Member States, including 
Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal and Spain, the obliga‑
tion to provide information on available victim support 
services is not universal and applies only to victims of 
specified offences, such as domestic violence. Cyprus 
and Latvia alone appear not to provide this type of 
information.98 The provision of information concerning 
compensation and information on the rights and role of 
victims in criminal proceedings shows similar patterns.

As regards information on the case itself, victims are 
informed about the place and time of the trial and of the 
nature of the charges in all EU Member States, although 
in Greece, Ireland, Malta and Poland this is not regulated 
by law. Similarly, victims are notified of the decision to 
discontinue the case in 27 EU Member States, although 
it is obligatory in only 23 of them (for updated informa‑
tion and details, see the online table at: http://fra.europa.
eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/
comparative‑data/victims‑support‑services/information).

Equally crucial to the provision of information is that 
victims actually understand the information provided; 
to that end, information in different languages can be 
an effective way of reaching more victims in increas‑
ingly diverse societies (see Sections 4.2.1 and 5.2 for 
examples of promising practices in this regard).

Ensuring that victims, especially certain categories of vic‑
tims considered particularly vulnerable, such as children, 
actually understand information concerning complex 
criminal proceedings is also important. It is considered 
good practice in Estonia, for example, for professionals 
to meet with the child a day or two before a hearing 
to introduce him or her to the building, rooms and col‑
leagues working in the police department. The profes‑
sionals aim not only to ensure that the child understands 
the proceedings and their role, but also to prepare the 
child emotionally for the hearing and create as relaxed 
and trustful an environment for him/her as possible (for 
more on this, see FRA’s 2015 forthcoming report on child‑
friendly justice focusing on professionals’ perspectives 
on children’s participation in civil and criminal judicial 
proceedings in 10 EU Member States). Austria offers 

96  www.gov.uk/government/news/

a‑bold‑new‑vision‑for‑the‑treatment‑of‑victims www.bbc.
com/news/uk‑29193548.

97  United Kingdom, Ministry of Justice (2014).

98  The information supplied is based on the FRA project 

on victims of crime, which involved fieldwork and desk 
research.

50

Aspects of victim support

a children’s book called ‘Milli goes to court’ (Milli ist beim 
Gericht) to help prepare children for court hearings.99

Explaining the Victims’ Directive in an accessible 
manner

USEFUL TOOLS FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

The European e‑Justice Portal: special pages for victims 
of crime

The European e‑Justice Portal is conceived as an electron‑
ic one‑stop‑shop in the area of justice, striving to make 
the lives of people in the EU easier by providing informa‑
tion  on  justice  systems  and  improving  access  to  justice 
throughout the EU in all 24 official EU languages.

The portal includes special pages for crime victims, pro‑
viding information about the rights of victims – including 
rights  during  the  investigation  and  during  criminal  pro‑
ceedings – and providing links to help and support avail‑
able  in  each  Member  State.  Information  is  presented  in 
the form of national factsheets.

See: https://e‑justice.europa.eu/content_victims_of_crime‑65‑en.do

Non‑state  actors  play  a  fundamental  role  in  raising 
awareness  about  victims’  rights  and  communicating  in‑
formation to victims in an easily accessible manner. This 
is particularly important to inform victims of new legisla‑
tive or policy developments.

The brief yet comprehensive guide to the Victims’ Direc‑
tive,  Know  Your  Rights  on  the  Victims’  Directive,  pub‑
lished by the Justicia European Rights Network, serves as 
a good example of such an awareness‑raising project.100

See: www.eujusticia.net/victimsrights

2�5�  Training of criminal 

justice practitioners 100

Providing relevant training is another crucial element to 
ensure that victims’ rights are guaranteed and translate 
into the provision of appropriate victim support. Those 
officials likely to come into contact with victims, such 
as police officers and court staff, and those providing 
victim support and restorative justice services, should 
receive such training. To be effective, training needs to 
cover both the need for a sensitive approach to victims, 
especially regarding particularly vulnerable groups such 
as child victims, and specialised knowledge, again with 
an emphasis on certain groups of victims. Article 25 
should therefore be understood as one of the corner‑
stones of the Victims’ Directive intimately linked to the 
provisions of Articles 8 and 9.

Due to their ‘frontline’ position in encountering vic‑
tims, police officers represent a key target group for 
such training. All EU Member States respond to this 

99  See: www.prozessbegleitung.co.at/publi_milli.htm. 

100  McDonald, M., Justicia European Rights Network (2012).

51

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

by providing some training to police authorities. The 
approach is, however, seldom systematic, as courses 
are  either  not  compulsory  or  only  focus  on  spe‑
cific groups of victims, often responding to specific 
needs identified within the given EU Member State. 
Portugal and Spain provide training on gender vio‑
lence, while Austria’s police officers’ curriculum only 
includes training on dealing with victims of domestic 
violence. Hungary and the Netherlands do not offer 
courses dedicated specifically to victim support but, if 
requested, victim support officers hold training ses‑
sions for police officers. Ensuring compulsory general 
as well as specialist training for officials who are likely 
to come into contact with victims, such as police offic‑
ers and court staff, will require increased efforts in 
a number of EU Member States.

While the primary responsibility for ensuring training, 
particularly under the Victims’ Directive, lies with the 
state,  training  organised  and  provided  by  non‑state 
actors is widespread. Among many examples, the train‑
ing manual focusing on the rights of cross‑border victims, 
developed within the project CABVIS – Capacity building 
for EU crime victim support and promoted by Victim Sup‑
port Europe, stands out as a good example of a practical 
project in the area of training (see  Section 5.1, p. 89).101

USEFUL TOOLS FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

Online dynamic court visualisation

The Crime Victim Compensation and Support Au‑
thority in Sweden developed a web‑based court 
introduction  (Rättegångsskolan  på  webben)  to 
explain  in  an  accessible  manner  what  happens 
before, during and after court proceedings to per‑
sons who are required to appear at court, including 
victims, witnesses or perpetrators. It has received 
international awards for best educational media.

Source: www.rattegangsskolan.se

101  See: http://victimsupporteurope.eu/activeapp/wp‑content/

files_mf/1382968310TrainingManual.pdf.

52

2�6�  Referral

Closely linked to the training of practitioners and provi‑
sion of information to victims is the ability of practition‑
ers to refer victims to relevant organisations providing 
appropriate services. All actors who come into contact 
with victims need to ensure that victims are able to 
make use of those support services best tailored to 
their current and evolving needs.

Promising practice

Linking victim support work to police 
stations

In  some  EU  Member  States,  victim  support 
organisations  operate  either  directly  at  police 
stations  or  in  their  immediate  vicinity,  which 
makes  referral  easier.  One  such  example  is  the 
close cooperation between the police and Victim 
Support Sweden (Swedish Association for Victim 
Riksförbund, 
Support, 
BOJ).  Belgium,  Estonia,  Finland,  France  and  the 
Netherlands use similar models.

Brottsofferjourernas 

Source: The information supplied is based on the FRA project 
on victims of crime, which involved fieldwork and 
desk research

2�6�1�  Referral from the police to victim 

support

According to Article 4 (1) (a) of the Victims’ Directive, vic‑
tims in the course of their first contact with a competent 
authority are entitled to receive information on the type of 
support they can obtain and from whom, including, where 
relevant, information concerning specialist support ser‑
vices. Under Article 8 (2) of the Victims’ Directive, Member 
States shall facilitate the referral of victims to victim sup‑
port services by the competent authority that received the 
complaint as well as by other relevant entities.

A well‑functioning police referral mechanism to victim 
support services is a cornerstone of any effective support 
system. FRA findings gathered in the framework of this 
project can be grouped into three models (for details by 
EU Member State, see the online tables, http://fra.europa.
eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/
comparative‑data/victims‑support‑services).

First model

Usually, the police inform the victim of available support 
services and leave it up to the victim to contact the ser‑
vice. While this model respects the autonomous decision 
of victims to seek support or not, it is less appropriate 
when the victim is distressed and therefore not fully 
capable of grasping all the information offered or of 
calmly considering what action to take. Some victims are 

Aspects of victim support

attempting to restore a basic feeling of control and secu‑
rity. They should not be burdened with the need to take 
difficult decisions for which they are not well prepared.

Second model

Bearing this in mind, a second model requires police 
to ask the victim to consent to the passing on of their 
contact data and some basic information on the offence 
to a support service. This enables the service to, in due 
course, get in contact with the victim and offer support 
and advice proactively.

Third model

The third model goes yet further, entitling the police to 
inform a relevant victim support service without the 
victim’s consent. This model is appropriate only when 
victimisation is so severe that one can assume that the 
victim is not in a position to judge whether to consult 
a support service, such as in the context of trafficking 
or of domestic violence. Such a model requires a robust 
legal basis.

2�6�2�  Referral from generic to 

specialised victim support

Ideally, the police know which support service is best 
placed to help the victim. The individual assessment of 
the victim’s needs, provided by Article 22 of the Victims’ 
Directive, should equip the police to refer the victim to 
a specialised support service, whenever appropriate.

This FRA research shows, however, that in practice generic 
support services must often assess the situation and the 
needs of victims themselves and then decide whether to 
refer the victim to a specialised support service.

This referral from generic to specialised support service is 
premised on a spirit of cooperation in the best interest of 
victims among the various support service providers and 
on the basis of a clear understanding of which service is in 
the best position to support a certain category of victims.

2�6�3�  Referral from victim support 
to ‘witness support’ for the 
trial phase

In Member States where organisations acting under the 
court’s auspices or a prosecution service (JUDEVI/France) 
perform victim support during the trial, the victim will 
need to be transferred from a support service to this 
specialised service.

It is clearly advantageous if victim support services are 
also allowed to act during the trial phase. This means 
that the victim is not required to establish a new rela‑
tionship of trust with a different support person. Ensur‑
ing that a single contact person is available for victims, 
especially particularly vulnerable categories of victims 
such as children, would help protect victims’ safety and 
well‑being. Avoiding multiple hearings and improving 
coordination among the various trial phase actors could 
also reduce the length of proceedings, which can be 
a barrier to victims’ effective access to justice.

2�6�4�  Cross-border referral

According to Article 4 (1) (g) of the Victims’ Directive, 
victims resident in another Member State than the one 
where their victimisation occurred are entitled to be 
informed, during their first contact with a relevant author‑
ity, about any special measures protecting their specific 
interests. Where the victim is about to leave the coun‑
try where the offence was committed, these measures 
should include information about victim support services 
available to victims in their Member State of residence.

FRA ACTIVITY

Victim support for children – one contact person

FRA interviews with professionals working with children involved in both civil and criminal justice procedures 
found that many support the idea of having one specific, trained professional act as the child’s main contact 
person. This professional would accompany him or her throughout the proceedings to ensure consistent provi‑
sion of information and continuous support and protection. The child thus avoids the confusion of contact with 
too many professionals involved at different stages of the proceedings.

Quite a few interviewees addressed the issue of professional quality, however, which is not automatically en‑
sured and often not properly monitored. They also mentioned potential bias from and/or dependence on one 
particular  person.  This  suggests  that  an  additional  person,  preferably  from  a  different  professional  field, 
should also be made responsible for ensuring that the child is adequately informed, supported and protected.

The interviews with children FRA is conducting in 2014 will shed light on how the assessments of best practices 
for children by professionals match with children’s wishes and needs.

See: FRA’s 2015 forthcoming report on child‑friendly justice focusing on professionals’ perspectives on children’s participation in civil and criminal 
judicial proceedings in 10 EU Member States

53

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Promising practice

Providing tourists with victim support

The generic victim support provider in Portugal (APAV) sought to improve the 
information and support given to persons who are victims of crime in a Member 
State other than their state of residence (see picture). The project, carried out in 
cooperation with the Public Security Police, the Commission for the Protection 
of  Victims  of  Crime,  the  Irish  Tourist  Assistance  (Ireland)  and  the  General 
Directorate of Community Sanctions and Juvenile Justice (Spain), aimed to design 
prevention tools, to promote the exchange of knowledge and best practices on 
the  support  of  tourist  victims,  to  mitigate  the  impact  of  victimisation  and  to 
build a platform of knowledge and cooperation between countries at European 
level. As a second component, APAV carried out training for foreign embassies 
to allow them to better meet the specific needs of tourist victims of crime, as 
they are often the preferred contact point. Under this project, APAV published 
a report and a booklet, available in English, Portuguese and Spanish.

See: http://helptouristvictims.org/

Conclusions

As  elaborated  upon  in  Chapter  1,  the  variety  of 
approaches  to  the  role  of  the  victim  influence  the 
entire victim support system’s philosophy. It is there‑
fore hardly surprising that EU Member States currently 
comply to varying degrees with the objectives and 
goals for victim support set out under the Victims’ 
Directive. In EU Member States where the victim is seen 
primarily as a witness, including common law countries, 
the approach to legal standing has a direct impact on 
the legal regulation governing the provision of victim 
support services, but not necessarily on the quality and 
availability of these services. Moreover, in areas such 
as the provision of information or training of practition‑
ers, binding legislation seems less important to guaran‑
tee victims’ rights in practice, as other instruments and 
actors come in play. Indeed, some of the most promising 
practices do not originate from the national legislation 
but rather from the activities of various non‑state actors 
such as NGOs providing victim support. While this trend 
is certainly encouraging, it also underlines the core role 
of the state in ensuring the quality and availability of 
a diverse base of victim support services.

Because of the many links between victim support and 
the status of the victim in criminal proceedings, the pro‑
cedural codes shaping the role and status of the victim 
in criminal proceedings directly affect the conceptuali‑
sation and functions of victim support. For example, the 
importance of the provisions and organisational meas‑
ures allowing the victim to be accompanied in court 
depend on the role that the victim is allowed to perform 
there. Similarly, the right to challenge the decision of 
the prosecutor to discontinue the proceedings can only 
be used to its full potential if accompanied by measures 
that empower the victims, enabling them to effectively 
pursue their rights. Finally, ensuring that effective refer‑
ral mechanisms are in place to guide victims through 

the support service system should be at the heart of 
victim support service. It is positive that this informa‑
tion is provided to victims even in those EU Member 
States where no legal basis for referrals currently exists.

Making legal aid available

Although available to most victims in the majority of EU 
Member States, FRA findings show that obtaining legal 
aid is often conditioned on, for example, an economic 
means test (to determine those who are financially eli‑
gible for free legal assistance) or on legal residence. 
While these conditions might be justifiable, they can 
present  difficult  bureaucratic  hurdles,  particularly 
where legal aid is required quickly to guarantee the 
victim’s rights. Some global standards also recommend 
a more restrictive use of means testing. The 2012 United 
Nations Guidelines and Principles on Access to Legal Aid 
in Criminal Justice Systems stipulates, for instance, that 
children are always to be exempted from such testing.

FRA opinion

Legal  aid  guaranteed  under  Article  13  of  the 
Victims’ Directive should be available to victims 
who are party to criminal proceedings in the same 
way  as  it  is  currently  available  to  defendants. 
Bureaucratic hurdles, such as lengthy proceedings 
or economic means testing, should be identified 
and removed. Means testing may not always be 
in compliance with UN guidelines.

Ensuring effective training systems

Introducing an effective system of practitioner train‑
ing, as Article 25 of the Victims’ Directive requires, is 
a long‑term objective. FRA findings show that some EU 
Member States emphasise training for specific groups 

54

Aspects of victim support

Tackling underreporting of victims

FRA research – including four large‑scale surveys con‑
cerning the victimisation of minorities, of LGBT persons, 
antisemitic offences and violence against women – con‑
sistently shows that many victims do not report crimes 
to  the  police.  The  Council  Conclusions  of  6  Decem‑
ber 2013 on combating hate crime in the EU and the 
Council Conclusions of 5 June 2014 on preventing and 
combatting all forms of violence against women and 
girls underscore these findings. Victims may, however, 
approach other persons or organisations. Findings from 
FRA’s survey on violence against women show that 
victims of domestic violence are more likely to con‑
tact doctors and healthcare institutions than any other 
professional organisation or NGO. Therefore, these pro‑
fessionals could play a key role in identifying and pro‑
viding initial support to victims. Yet evidence also shows 
that doctors and other clinical professionals are rarely 
trained for an effective response to domestic violence. 
Hence initiatives to train and inform healthcare profes‑
sionals could be considered promising practices, espe‑
cially given that 87 % of the 42,000 women surveyed 
in the FRA study on violence against women said that 
they would welcome further questions from doctors if 
they showed signs of abuse.

FRA opinion

As a means of encouraging victims to report crimes 
and of facilitating such reporting, EU Member States 
should  make  sure  that  information  about  victim 
support  services  and  victims’  rights  is  accessible 
and  made  available  to  victims  by  all  authorities 
and  public  services  that  victims  contact,  including 
medical  service  providers,  and  that  the  staff  of 
these organisations are trained to deal with victims 
in an informed and sympathetic manner.

of victims. Others make training available but not com‑
pulsory for officials who are likely to come into contact 
with victims, such as police officers and court staff. EU 
Member States are therefore encouraged to increase 
their training capacity and raise awareness among crim‑
inal justice practitioners of the needs of specific groups 
of victims. They are encouraged to involve NGO victim 
support services where practicable.

FRA opinion

Law  reforms  should  aim  at  better  inclusion  of 
the victim in the criminal justice system. Victims 
should  be  enabled  to  play  a  more  significant 
role  in  criminal  proceedings,  as  set  out  in 
Chapter  3  of  the  Victims’  Directive.  Criminal 
justice  practitioners  can  support  this  process, 
guiding  victims  through  proceedings,  helping 
them  to  understand  the  legislation  and  fully 
recognise its practical implications. This process 
is  greatly  aided  by  training  of  criminal  justice 
practitioners.

Providing information - including 
referrals to support services

The timely provision of accurate information on victims’ 
rights that Chapter 2 of the Victims’ Directive requires 
is key to empowering victims to use their rights and 
also points them to the most appropriate support ser‑
vices. Examples of good practice highlighted in this 
report show that close cooperation between compe‑
tent authorities and victim support organisations can 
facilitate referrals.

FRA opinion

EU Member States should introduce measures that 
ensure that victims, at all stages of the process, 
have access to information about their rights and 
available support services, as well as to relevant 
information  about  the  case.  EU  Member  States 
should  particularly  consider  putting  in  place  an 
effective referral system that would guide victims 
through the support service system.

55

3 

Victim support services 
in EU Member States

Chapter 2 considered victim support from a broad per‑
spective, examining a range of obligations that the 
Victims’ Directive places upon EU Member States to 
guarantee a comprehensive system of victim support. 
This chapter follows up by looking into details of core 
aspects of victim support services. Some specifics that 
govern the provision of victim support can be derived 
from Articles 8 and 9 of the Victims’ Directive. These 
principles serve as benchmarks, or at least as points of 
reference, when setting up victim support services or 
assessing the services a given EU Member State cur‑
rently offers.102 To provide an overall picture, the chapter 
also offers an overview of different models of victim 
support structures from both the external and the inter‑
nal perspective, focusing on the roles of the state and 
civil society and their interaction in furthering victims’ 
rights and support.

To date, vast differences prevail as regards the extent 
and the service capability of victim support services in 
Member States. As already noted, eight Member States 
have yet to establish a general support service. With 
a few exceptions, this chapter deals with countries with 
a generic victim support structure in place. Chapter 4 
will then look at existing support structures for specific 
groups of victims, also encompassing the situation in 
those eight Member States that presently only offer 
victim support services to specific categories of victims.

102  The CJEU is the sole institution entitled to authoritatively 
interpret EU law and consequently to decide whether 
Article 8 of the Victims’ Directive is to be read as an 
obligation of result or of means, in the latter case requiring 
governments to take, with due diligence, all reasonable 
steps available to them under the given circumstances, 
with a view to progressively and in due course establishing 
a comprehensive system of victim support services.

3�1�  Public or private 

provision of victim 
support

Public and private actors cooperate to provide victim sup‑
port services in the majority of Member States. Services 
are either state run, or it is the state that provides the 
principal and direct funding to NGOs, who then provide 
the services (see Table 6). The state played a leading 
role in setting up victim support structures in about half 
the countries with generic victim support structures (see 
 Figures 1 and 2), often in cooperation with the NGO sector.

The  following  section  takes  a  closer  look  at  the 
 development of differing generic victim support struc‑
tures in various EU Member States, dividing them into 
three broad classifications (see Table 6, also available 
online,  http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑ and‑ 
re so u rce s/ dat a ‑a n d‑ma ps/co m p a rati ve‑dat a/
victims‑ support‑services):

1.  structures that are state run and funded;
2.  those that are NGO run but rely strongly on public 

funding; and

3.  those that are NGO run and rely mainly on non‑state 

funding sources.

As part of the Victim Support Services project, FRA looked 
at what ‘model’ of support services for victims of crime 
exist in each EU Member State. The focus is on generic 
support services for victims of crime, which are services 
that seek to provide support for victims irrespective of the 
nature of the crime. It is possible to distinguish between 
three main models of generic victim support services in 
EU Member States. Distinctions are drawn between the 
(non‑) governmental nature and sources of funding of the 
main generic support provider. The table below illustrates 
the model prevalent in each Member State.

57

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Table 6:  Main models of victim support

1.  At least one national generic ‑ 

main provider/structure 
is state run and funded

2.  At least one national generic ‑ 
main provider/structure is 
non‑governmental but relies 
strongly on state funding

3.  At least one national generic ‑ 

main provider/structure 
is non‑governmental, but 
does not rely strongly 
on state funding

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

Total

Note: 

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

7

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

10

✓

✓

✓

3

The table refers to those EU Member States with at least one national generic VSS (from the research it appears there are 
no generic victim support services (i.e. aimed at all rather than specific categories of victims) in BG, CY, EL, IT, LT, LV, RO and SI). 
Orange‑shaded areas indicate that no generic victim support service exists.

Source:  

FRA, 2014; see also: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/comparative‑data/
victims‑support‑services/models

58

Victim support services in EU Member States

3�1�1�  At least one national generic 

service – main provider/structure 
is state run and funded (model 1)

Not many Member States have a system where the state 
alone organises and provides generic victim support.

Belgium, however, offers one such example. Almost all 
of the generic victim support services are state‑led. The 
largest victim support service is the Victim’s Reception 
Service within the Houses of Justice (Dienst Slachtof‑
feronthaal/Service d’accueil des victimes), which acts 
under the authority of the Ministry of Justice and is thus 
state funded. Aside from that, there are some non‑gov‑
ernmental support services which are also, at least in 
part, state funded. Belgium places considerable empha‑
sis on support services to victims of human traffick‑
ing. According to the National Forum for Victim Support 
Policy, which the Ministry of Justice established in 1994, 
victim support must be oriented around three pillars:

•  a first line of information provision by police and 

judicial authorities;

•  compensation for moral and physical damage; and
•  the elaboration of support measures for victims of 
specific crimes such as racism, human trafficking and 
physical or sexual violence.103

Victims of human trafficking receive support through 
three  main  organisations  in  Belgium:  Payoke,104 
Pag‑asa105 and Sürya.106 The Centre for Equal Opportuni‑
ties and Opposition to Racism coordinates their work.107 
The Centre can also file a complaint before the criminal 
courts in the name of victims.

In Hungary, the state is also essentially the sole general 
service provider. The metropolitan and county offices 
of the Victim Support Service provide information on 
a victim’s rights and obligations in criminal proceedings, 
on available services and assistance, on the location of 
state and non‑state service providers and on how to 
avoid re‑victimisation.

The state is also the main victim support service pro‑
vider in Estonia. Its Social Insurance Board (Sotsiaal‑
kindlustusamet)  coordinates  the  network  of  victim 
support services as well as referral mechanisms, coop‑
erating with social workers of local municipalities and 
local NGOs on a case‑by‑case basis. Non‑state services 
generally receive project‑based funding directly from 
the Ministry of Social Affairs108 or through the Council 

103  Belgium, National Forum for Victim Support Policy (1996), p. 12.
104  See: www.payoke.be/.
105  See: www.pag‑asa.be/content.aspx?l=002&lang=NL. 
106  See: www.arca‑asbl.org/?q=node/90.
107  See: www.diversiteit.be.
108  Estonia, Gambling Tax Act, §3.

of the Gambling Tax (Hasartmängumaksu nõukogu)109 in 
addition to some financial support from the local gov‑
ernment. Any such public funding is related to spe‑
cific activities of the organisations. The NGO Eluliin, for 
example, provides psychological crisis consultation in 
Tallinn and receives funding from the Tallinn city gov‑
ernment and also from a number of private persons.110 
Some organisations also receive funding through EU 
projects, such as the NGO Living for Tomorrow111 or the 
Estonian Women’s Shelters Union (Eesti Naiste Varju‑
paikade Liit).112

Croatia made victim and witness protection a priority in 
2007. With the assistance of the United Nations Develop‑
ment Programme (UNDP), it developed a comprehensive 
state victim and witness support system between 2007 
and 2011.113 Funded by the state budget, the public victim 
support service in Croatia is divided into two levels: an 
organisational unit within the Ministry of Justice, (the 
Independent Sector for Victim and Witness Support, 
established in 2012), and special departments at county 
courts for actual victim and witness support. Prior to 
the establishment of the public victim support service, 
victim and witness support services were first provided 
in war crimes trials by the War Crimes Trial Witness and 
Participant Support Section within the Directorate for 
International Legal Assistance, Cooperation and Human 
Rights of the Ministry of Justice. This body dealt with 
legal and physical protection, psychiatric assistance and 
assistance at the location, the preparation of the depar‑
ture and the organisation of travel for witnesses and 
other participants in the main hearings (investigative 
hearings) in war crimes trials held in courts within and 
outside Croatia.114 At that time, no systematic support 
was organised on a generic level, even though health‑
care and social welfare services, and some NGOs, pro‑
vided some assistance to victims. Many organisations 
were established in the early 1990s to provide humani‑
tarian assistance, psychological and social support, legal 
aid, and human rights protection to refugees, victims of 
war and members of minority groups.115

109  Päll, E. and Raag, T. (2012).
110  Eluliin, Psühholoogiline kriisinõustamise teenus.
111  Living for Tomorrow, History of Living for Tomorrow.
112  Estonian Women’s Shelters Union.
113  The system was developed within the framework of the 
UNDP project entitled ‘Assistance in the Development of 
a Witness and Victim Support System’.

114  Croatia, Government of the Republic of Croatia (2007), p. 47.
115  Such organisations include the Center for Peace, Legal Advice 

and Psychosocial Assistance (Centar za mir, pravne savjete 
i psihosocijalnu pomoć); the Centre for Peace, Non‑Violence, 
and Human Rights (Centar za mir, nenasilje i ljudska prava); 
the Civic Committee for Human Rights (Građanski odbor za 
ljudska prava); the Croatian Helsinki Committee (Hrvatski 
helsinški odborza ljudska prava); the Croatian Law Centre 
(Hrvatski pravni centar); the International Rehabilitation 
Council for Torture Victims – Zagreb (IRCT‑Zagreb) 
(Rehabilitacijski centar za stres i traumu (RCT)); the Serbian 
Democratic Forum (Srpski demokratski forum); the Society 
for Psychosocial Assistance (Društvo za psihološku pomoć).

59

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

3�1�2�  At least one national generic 

service – main provider/structure 
is non-governmental and 
relies strongly on state funding 
(model 2)

Support Act.117 The support system for victims that has 
developed over time is a mixed system, with various 
state administrations, associations and NGOs all offer‑
ing services. The funding of this mixed system, how‑
ever, falls primarily on the general state and regional 
governments’ budgets.

In the United Kingdom, Victim Support grew as a fed‑
eration to cover all communities in England, North‑
ern Ireland and Wales. Separate charities were set up 
in Scotland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, 
with other NGOs offering services to specific groups 
of victims (generally based on offence type rather 
than victim characteristics). The state’s principal role 
was seen as supporting victims notably through police 
services, court‑based services and probation. A similar 
situation prevailed in the rest of the United Kingdom. 
The year 2012 saw a significant change in the state’s 
role in providing victim support, however, with Police 
and Crime Commissioners now responsible for decid‑
ing and allocating the budget for most victim support 
services.

Although created under the scope of the Institute for 
Social  Reintegration  (Instituto  de  Reinserção  Social, 
IRS, Ministry of Justice), the Portuguese Association 
for Victim Support (Associação Portuguesa de Apoio 
à Vítima, APAV), emerged as a national non‑profit social 
solidarity association. It aimed at developing a national 
network of victim support offices, assisted by a volun‑
teers network and relying on cooperation with existing 
private and public bodies. Both the state and civil society 
were seen as playing a role in providing victim support 
services, with volunteers key to the provision of these 
services. Today, Portugal is an example of an NGO‑run 
victim support structure whose major source of funding 
is the state, but which relies on other, additional forms 
of funding. APAV, for example, also generates income by 
supplying training, counselling and consultancy services, 
and through donations and social/company sponsoring, 
annual contributions paid by members and co‑funding 
from  national  and  EU  projects.  Other  victim  support 
services operated by public providers also draw funds 
from lotteries run by the Lisbon Santa Casa da Miser‑
icórdia charity institution, which the various Ministries 
distribute.116

In Spain, although earlier initiatives were taken at the 
regional level to create generic victim support services 
(e.g. April 1985 in the autonomous community of Valen‑
cia), it was the state that took the initiative to create the 
first generic victim support service at national level. It 
set up the Victim Support Offices (Oficinas de Asistencia 
a las Víctimas) within the framework of the 1995 Victim 

USEFUL TOOLS FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

Court Guide (domstolsguiden), Sweden

This  app  pro‑
vides  details 
on courtroom 
interiors  and 
the  roles  of 
respec‑
the 
actors 
tive 
during 
trial 
proceedings. 
The  app  also 
films 
has 
showing  how 
court  proce‑
dure  works.  It  includes  a  ‘court  locator’  with  details  on 
opening  hours,  how  to  get  there  and  how  to  contact 
the court.

See: www.domstol.se/Ladda‑ner‑‑bestall/Domstolsguiden/

Zaragoza City of Justice  

(Ciudad de la Justicia Zaragoza), Spain

This  app,  developed  by 
the 
regional  govern‑
ment of Aragon in Spain, 
is  aimed  at  the  general 
public  and  legal  practi‑
tioners. The app provides 
the  location  of  a  new 
court complex in the city 
and  a  schedule  of  hear‑
ings, and issues alerts to 
let  people  know  when 
court cases have finished.

The tool is available at: 
https://itunes.apple.com/es/
app/ciudad‑de‑la‑justicia/
id642741128?mt=8 (IOS); https//
play.google.com/store/apps/
details?id=es.ciudadjusti‑
ciazaragoza (Android)

In Luxembourg, the state provides financial support 
to  non‑profit  organisations  that  support  victims  of 
crime. Most organisations work under the umbrella of 
ministries. Such organisations (Richt Eraus, Women in 
Distress, National Association of Victims of Traffic Acci‑
dents) cooperate closely with ministries and are invited 
to engage with them and put forward suggestions. 

116  Portugal, Decree‑Law No. 56/2006 of 15 March 2006.

117  Spain, Act 35/1995 of 11 December 1995, on Aid and Assistance 
to Victims of Violent Crimes and Against Sexual Freedom.

60

These organisations work on developing and amend‑
ing legal acts, and some representatives from ministries 
are members of the council of victim support organi‑
sations. Such an exchange of information, work and 
colleagues should further a close interconnection of 
support services and ministries.

In France, the government took the lead in the 1980s 
to allocate resources to the support of victims, with 
the initial idea – which still defines the model today – 
that NGOs be created and fostered to shoulder this 
responsibility.118 To develop public policies and institu‑
tions that benefit victims, the government also built 
on independent reports commissioned over the years 
(Peyrefitte’s 1977 report on Responses to violence;119 
Milliez’s 1982 report on Victim support;120 Gortais’ 1991 
report on Psychological support to victims;121 Liene‑
mann’s 1999 report For a new public policy for victim 
support122). The role of victim support NGOs, and more 
general legal aid NGOs, was thus progressively consoli‑
dated, with important legal steps included in the laws 
of 1998123 and 2000124 and most recently the generali‑
sation of victim support offices in jurisdictions (Bureau 
d’aide aux victimes, BAV). These NGO‑run services are 
conceived as ‘one‑stop’ offices for victim information, 
guidance and support throughout the criminal pro‑
cedure. Since piloting 12 such offices in 2009, France 
opened another 50 between 2010 and 2012 and estab‑
lished a further 90 in 2013.

3�1�3�  At least one national generic 

service – main provider/structure 
is non-governmental and does 
not rely strongly on state funding 
(model 3)

Germany is a rare example of a Member State where 
the main generic service provider is a non‑state actor 
that relies mainly on funding sources other than the 
state.  Here,  the  role  of  the  state  varies  across  the 
16 federal states (Länder). In Berlin, Hamburg, Lower 
Saxony, Saxony, Mecklenburg‑Western Pomerania and 
Hesse independent victim support charities (Opfer‑
hilfe e.V) run local offices. Police authorities and the 
judiciary’s social services mainly provide governmental 

118  Avis du Conseil National des Villes (2013), Annex 1.
119  Peyferitte, A. (1977).
120  Milliez, P. (1982).
121  Gortais, J. (1991).
122  Lienemann, M. N., Magliano H. et al (1999).
123  France, Loi n° 98‑657 d’orientation relative à la lutte contre 
les exclusions, 29 July 1998, www.legifrance.gouv.fr/
affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000206894&dateText
e=&categorieLien=id.

124  France, Loi n° 2000‑516 renforçant la protection de la 

présomption d’innocence et les droits des victimes, 
15 June 2000, www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTex
te=JORFTEXT000000765204&fastPos=1&fastReqId=843632
059&categorieLien=id&oldAction=rechTexte.

Victim support services in EU Member States

support. Only one association – Weisser Ring – operates 
nation‑wide and encompasses all victims of crime. It is 
independent from the government, and receives fund‑
ing mainly through membership fees and foundations 
(49 %), allocations of fines by the courts and inher‑
itances and grants (50 %).125 Weisser Ring has sister 
organisations in Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary 
and Luxembourg, which were modelled on the German 
initiative.126127128

Fees and financial assistance

Services provided by the main support provider are free 
of charge for victims in all Member States. In most Mem‑
ber  States,  other  support  organisations  do  not  charge 
victims  for  support  either.  A  few  Member  States  may, 
however, charge some victims a fee for specific servic‑
es.  In  Germany,  women’s  shelters  in  some  regions  re‑
quire payment for accommodation, although most other 
services,  such  as  counselling,  are  free  of  charge.  This 
is  also  the  case  for  all  women’s  shelters  in  Slovenia.126 
In  Ireland,  one  organisation  providing  specialised  sup‑
port  to  children,  families  and  groups  affected  by  child 
sexual abuse requires that victims taking advantage of 
its  clinical  service  pay  a  weekly  charge  of  €10–€60.127 
The Latvian crisis centre Skalbes also charges a fee for 
consultations.128

Where  services  are  provided  to  victims  free  of  charge, 
organisations  in  some  Member  States  may  receive  fi‑
nancial assistance by the state to cover the expenses in‑
curred. FRA research indicates that in 10 Member States, 
at least the largest organisation providing either generic 
or specialised victim support may be reimbursed by the 
state  for  the  provision  of  support.  In  the  remaining  18, 
organisations do not receive any specific reimbursement. 
However, the main service provider in 14 of these Mem‑
ber States is both state‑run and state‑funded, or an NGO 
which relies heavily on state funding. The largest organi‑
sations in these countries therefore receive more general 
operational  funding  from  the  state,  which  can  include 
payment for support services offered to victims free of 
charge. This is the case for example in Hungary, Ireland, 
Romania and the United Kingdom.

Source: The information supplied is based on the FRA project on victims of 
crime, which involved fieldwork and desk research

125  See: www.weisser‑ring.de/fileadmin/content/
Jahresberichte/Jahresbericht2010_11.pdf 

126  The information supplied is based on the FRA project 

on victims of crime, which involved fieldwork and desk 
research.
Ireland, Commission for the Support of Victims of Crime 
(2012).

127 

128  Latvia, Crisis Centre “Skalbes” (2012), for a price list in 

Latvian, see: www.skalbes.lv/konsultacijas.

61

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Promising practice

Victims of crime funds – contributions by convicted persons

In addition to other funding sources, several EU Member States generate money for victim support services 
through  a  ‘Victims  of  Crime  fund’  or  the  like,  whereby  persons  convicted  of  an  offence  pay  a  fine  to  help 
the funding of services for victims of crime; for example, in Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom.

A 2014 bill in Finland (which follows a public consultation forum to gather information and expert input) proposes 
that penalties be paid by persons and legal entities convicted of crimes, which should go towards victim support 
services. The press release includes the following:

•  some 85 % of costs are estimated to be covered by victims of crime;
•  for crimes where the most severe punishment is 6 months imprisonment, the fine is € 40;
•  for more severe crimes, € 80;
•  for legal entities, € 800;
•  the bulk of the revenues from this will come from more severe traffic violations;
•  total annual revenue is expected to be € 5,000,000 after administrative costs have been deducted, this will 

be used for support services for victims of crime;

•  the bill is planned to go to parliament in the second half of 2015 and to enter into force on 1 January 2016.

For more information on which Member States have introduced such systems, see: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/
data‑and‑maps/comparative‑data/victims‑support‑services/funds.

Source: http://oikeusministerio.fi/sv/index/aktuellt/tiedotteet/2014/09/lakiluonnoslausunnollerikosuhrimaksullaparannustauhrientukip‑
alveluihin.html

3�2�  Organisational aspects

When it comes to establishing or developing a system 
of  organisations  providing  victim  support,  Article  8 
of the Victims’ Directive makes it clear that Member 
States have more than one organisational model avail‑
able to them. Victim support services can be set up as 
public organisations or as NGOs, they may be organ‑
ised on a professional or voluntary basis, and specialist 
services can be provided in addition to, or as an inte‑
grated part of, general victim support services. Thus the 
Directive recognises the divergent traditions and situa‑
tions in Member States, which comprise public services 
( Belgium) and private organisations (the Netherlands), 
and range from services that are predominantly pro‑
vided by volunteers (Germany) through to services that 
function practically without volunteers (Estonia). They 
may be built on a fine‑tuned cooperation of independ‑
ent generic and specialised services (Austria) or rely on 
a comprehensive organisation with a complex internal 
structure (United Kingdom: England and Wales). Another 
difference relates to the time scale of victim support 
provision, which sometimes includes support of victims 
during court proceedings. In other cases, it differentiates 
between victim support before and after court proceed‑
ings and witness support during the trial phase.

What can be learned from the prevailing organisational 
diversity is that there are no definitive answers as to 
which solutions are preferable. Often there are strong 
arguments pointing in various directions. These argu‑
ments are not of a merely technical nature but involve 
complex  political  decisions.  A  government  could,  for 

example, set up and sustain a victim support service of 
high quality and thoroughly monitor its performance if the 
service is part of public administration. At the same time, 
a public entity could be criticised for not guaranteeing the 
principle expressed in Article 8 of the Victims’ Directive, 
that victim support services should act in a strictly con‑
fidential manner and in the interests of victims. Public 
administration may have conflicting ‘loyalties’ interfering 
with the interest of victims. Such potential partisanship 
could undermine victims’ confidence in a service.

To all parties involved, any organisational partisanship 
of a victim support service must be visible and cred‑
ible. Probation services seem, therefore, poorly placed 
to also perform the functions of victim support, even if 
organisational sub‑divisions are established and strictly 
separated. The staff would nevertheless be suspected 
of bearing the organisation’s general interests in mind. 
This can potentially impair victims’ as much as offend‑
ers’ trust in the determination of staff members to, 
at times, pay attention exclusively to their interests. 
Similar considerations militate in favour of separating 
victim support services from victim‑offender media‑
tion services. The Victims’ Directive clearly recognises 
the fact that restorative justice services can be, but 
are not necessarily, of benefit to the victim and hence 
require safeguards to prevent secondary and repeat 
victimisation (Recital 46, Article 12 of the Victims’ Direc‑
tive). The directive’s language conveys a rather critical 
assessment as to the harmony between victims’ best 
interests and the institution of restorative justice ser‑
vices. It highlights the need for distance between these 
two positions.

62

Victim support services in EU Member States

In addition, private support services have effectively 
promoted the interests of victims of crime in public 
and legislative discussions in many Member States. 
Some support services perform important functions of 
public advocacy, including vis‑à‑vis governments. These 
NGOs can voice the concerns of victims so authenti‑
cally because they support victims on a daily basis. 
Many staff members even contribute on a voluntary 
basis. In some Member States, including Austria and 
Germany, private associations that are – organisation‑
ally and financially – independent of the government 
provide generic victim support. They have persistently 
advocated for the interests of victims in public. In the 
Netherlands  the  main  victim  support  organisation 
(Slachtofferhulp Nederland) has also played a signifi‑
cant role in an ongoing public debate about extending 
the rights of victims in proceedings or even introduc‑
ing a model similar to the German Nebenkläger. Hence 
there are some indications that for the advancement 
of  the  rights  of  victims,  the  existence  of  powerful 
and to a certain extent independent NGOs is of some 
significance.

A government’s choice to either set up a public organi‑
sation or foster private initiatives supporting civil soci‑
ety capacity‑building is not just an organisational and 
technical matter. It touches on political aspects, such 
as the value to the community of a layer of civil society 
organisations mediating the involvement of citizens in 
issues of public concern. In the end, the matter is tied 
to a basic understanding of how a democratic society 
should be constructed – whether it includes a public 
sphere that remains – in part – in the hands of civil soci‑
ety organisations that are supported and monitored but 
not controlled by the government.

Similar considerations apply to the question of involv‑
ing volunteers in victim support organisations (see Sec‑
tion 3.4 for an overview of the degree and modes of 
participation of volunteers in victim support organisa‑
tions across the EU). To date, all effective generic victim 
support organisations rely on very significant contribu‑
tions from volunteers, with the noteworthy exception 
of Estonia. Here, although legal provisions on public 
support services foresee the participation of volunteers 
(in the initial stages of establishing a generic support 
service from 2005 to 2006, 28 volunteers were trained, 
without, however, a sustainable effect), public services 
currently operate practically without them.

Not all Member States look back on the same unin‑
terrupted and strong traditions of charities, of private 
fund‑raising and of volunteerism. Where these tradi‑
tions are lacking, the government’s options to cata‑
lyse and encourage volunteerism are limited. At the 
same time, as noted in Section 3.4, private victim sup‑
port initiatives are seeing steady growth, with increas‑
ing numbers of volunteers active in victim support in 

some  Member  States  where  civil  society  activities 
were suppressed until the 1990s (in some cases due 
to communism).

While setting up a public service that does not rely on 
volunteers may, in certain circumstances, be the only 
short‑term option, it is important to leave room for and 
to encourage the contributions of private actors.

Irrespective of the model chosen, governments must 
ensure certain functions, including the coordination of 
existing services, incentives for the development of 
services that may be missing, the definition of stand‑
ards of victim support provision (see Chapter 5) and 
decisions concerning the funding of support services.

3�2�1�  Organisation of victim support at 

the governmental level

Victim support services typically relate to the portfolio 
of more than one ministry in EU Member States. FRA 
research shows that only five Member States make one 
sole ministry responsible (the ministries of justice in Ire‑
land, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden, and 
in Malta the ministry for home affairs). In an additional 
three Member States one ministry has a formal coordinat‑
ing role (Croatia, Estonia and Hungary). In the remaining 
Member States, the responsibility is divided thematically, 
so that different aspects of victim support services (such 
as funding and functions) or support for different groups 
(victims of domestic violence and of terrorism) fall under 
different ministries. The Ministry of Justice is involved in 
victim support provision in almost all Member States, 
with the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Labour/
Social Affairs also involved in the majority of countries 
(see Table 7; for updated information and details see 
the online table: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑
and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/comparative‑data/
victims‑support‑services/coordination).

Information is a vital component of victims’ rights at all 
stages of the proceedings, a fact that is recognised both 
by Article 6 of the Framework Decision on the standing 
of victims in criminal proceedings and by Chapter 2 of 
the Victims’ Directive. Besides access to information 
on the progress of their case, the majority of victims 
may be in need of information on their rights within 
the criminal proceedings as such, and on the availa‑
ble means to exert these rights. Table 7 provides an 
overview of the right to information in the EU Member 
States. It should be noted that reports show that infor‑
mation is regularly provided to victims even in those EU 
Member States where there is no legal obligation for the 
public authorities to do so. For example, while the police 
is legally obliged to provide information on available 
victim support services only in 15 EU Member States, 
in practice victims are provided with this information in 
21 EU Member States. Similarly, victims are notified of 

63

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Table 7:  Ministries responsible for victim support provision

Ministry of Justice Ministry of Health

Ministry of 
Labour/Social 
Affairs

Ministry of 
Interior/Home 
Affairs

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

TOTAL

26

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

12

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

17

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

19

Other

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

6

Source:  

FRA, 2014; see also: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/comparative‑data/
victims‑support‑services/coordination
decision to discontinue the case in 27 EU Member States 
although it is obligatory in only 23 EU Member States.

with the overall coordination of victim support services, 
in addition to serving as a hub for training and quality 
assurance.129

To improve coordination and efficiency, some Member 
States have established bodies or forums. For instance, 
in Croatia, an Independent Sector for Victim and Wit‑
ness Support (Samostalni sektor za podršku žrtvama 
i svjedocima) within the Ministry of Justice is charged 

129  Croatia, Ministry of Justice (2012), Regulation on the 

internal organisation of the Ministry of Justice, Art. 346, 
5 March 2012.

64

Victim support services in EU Member States

In Ireland, the Ministry of Justice houses an executive 
office (the Victims of Crime Office). The office is sup‑
ported by a Commission for the Support of Victims of 
Crime which is tasked with developing strategies and 
polices for victims of crime. It also serves as an umbrella 
organisation for victims of crime, including funding and 
coordination of bodies.130

In the Netherlands, a Unit of Prevention and Victim 
Policy (Afdeling Preventie en Slachtofferbeleid) within 
the Ministry of Justice has primary responsibility for 
victim support. Victim support is regularly discussed 
within the tripartite consultations between the public 
prosecutor service, the police and local authorities as 
well as in the Juridical District Council (Arrondissemen‑
taal Justitieel Beraad). In Sweden, an independent gov‑
ernment agency, the Crime Victim Compensation and 
Support Authority (Brottsoffermyndigheten), is respon‑
sible for promoting victims’ rights and ensuring their 
interests. It also acts as an information and knowledge 
hub for issues concerning victims of crime.131

Organisation of the funding of private 
sector providers

Ensuring  an  effective  victim  support  service  with  the 
 capacity  to  handle  all  requests  for  assistance  can  be 
costly. Data from 12 EU Member States on expenses for 
generic  support  services,  even  though  difficult  to  com‑
pare  given  widely  diverging  support  systems,  ways  of 
budgeting, and GDP‑levels, point to an average of some 
€ 3,000,000 per year (2012 or in some cases 2011 figures).

Source: FRA, 2014

3�2�2�  Umbrella organisations at the 

national level

While in most EU Member States private initiatives 
operating at a regional or grassroots level kick‑started 
the development of victim support services, the neces‑
sity to combine, harmonise and coordinate efforts led 
over time to the creation of national umbrella organi‑
sations. Some of these have become important actors.

In 2002 in the Netherlands, the 25 members of the 
National Organisation Victim Support merged into one 
national foundation called Victim Support Netherlands 
(VSN, Slachtofferhulp Nederland, SHN). The remit of 
VSN, the main organisation providing victim support 
in  the  Netherlands,  has  gradually  expanded.  It  has 

130  See: www.victimsofcrimeoffice.ie/en/vco/Pages/

WP09000166.

131  Sweden, Regulation (1994:426) on the Fund for Victim 
Compensation (1994); Regulation (2007:1171) with 
instructions for the Crime Victim Compensation and Support 
Authority (2007).

evolved into a professional organisation which plays 
an important advisory role in the development of leg‑
islative proposals.

In Sweden, Victim Support Sweden, founded in 1988, 
is the national umbrella organisation for victim support 
services, with more than 8,000 members. In addition 
to providing victim support services, the association 
focuses on training and developing co‑operation with 
other community institutions that deal with victims of 
crime. Another of its responsibilities is to raise general 
awareness and influence politicians and the public on 
matters concerning victims of crime.

In Germany, several victim support services are organ‑
ised under the auspices of the Working Group of Victim 
Support in Germany (Arbeitskreis der Opferhilfen, ado). 
Founded in 1988, the organisation coordinates and sup‑
ports 18 generic and specific support services by facili‑
tating information exchange and advocating for victims’ 
rights. It also encourages cooperation among existing 
services and the foundation of new ones. The main 
German generic support provider, Weisser Ring e.V., is 
not a member.

In France, the majority of accredited victim support 
NGOs are members of the National Institute for Vic‑
tims and Mediation (Inavem), which is publicly funded. 
The umbrella body has been described by the Court 
of Auditors as the cornerstone (“pierre angulaire”) of 
victim support policy.132

See  Section  3.5  for  information  on  European  level 
umbrella organisations.

3�2�3�  Organising responsibility and 
respecting the independence 
of NGOs

Given that in most Member States victim support pro‑
vision is shared between public and private actors, 
coordinating bodies can help manage the inclusion and 
contributions of private organisations. So far, only a lim‑
ited number of Member States have set up such a coor‑
dinating body. In 2011 in Austria, the Ministry of Justice 
tasked the Centre for Legal Competence, a state‑funded 
private organisation, to act as a management centre 
for victim support (Managementzentrum Opferhilfe, 
MZ.O). The MZ.O carries out a coordination and net‑
working function, supports the development of stand‑
ards and trains professionals. In France, the ministries 
for justice and of the interior are represented within 
the National Council on Victim Support (Conseil National 
d’Aide aux Victimes, CNAV). The Council, set up in 1999, 
is charged with coordinating government action with 

132  France, Cour des Comptes (2012), www.ccomptes.fr/

Publications/Publications/Rapport‑public‑annuel‑2012.

65

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

non‑governmental bodies to ensure and strengthen the 
rights of victims in criminal proceedings. The Ministry of 
Justice has chaired the council since 1999 (composition 
is set by a Decree of 21 September 2010). In Bulgaria, 
the Ministry of Justice established a National Council 
for Support and Financial Compensation of the Victims 
of Crimes.

Governments are required to respect the independence 
and diversity of NGOs working in victim support and to 
avoid discriminating against organisations on whatever 
ground. In this respect, FRA has noted with concern that 
the Hungarian government has publicly branded some 
of the well‑known support services as “left leaning”.133 
Caution, sensitivity and tact should characterise rela‑
tions between the government and NGOs to avoid the 
impression that government officials do not respect 
NGOs as equals or that these are not dealt with on 
a level playing field.

The responsibility of Member States under Articles 8 
and 9 of the Victims’ Directive to ensure that support 
services are of sufficiently high quality implies that the 
government must implement a system of quality con‑
trol. The necessity to assess whether victim support 
services meet defined standards has led to systems of 
accreditation or recognition in several Member States 
with regard to generic support services (e.g. in the 
Czech Republic and in France) or with regard to spe‑
cialised services (e.g. in Austria in the area of violence 
against women and in Belgium for NGOs supporting 
victims of trafficking).

In implementing the necessary quality management 
and  funding  measures,  governments  should  prefer 
not to be seen as overly controlling NGOs or interfer‑
ing with their independence. They should strive to be 
seen as acting on objective criteria. One way to achieve 
this transparency and to foster trust in the objectiv‑
ity of decisions is to include private organisations in 
decision‑making processes, for example by setting up 
a council or a commission that integrates the main public 
and private actors dealing with victims. Such a body 
may take or prepare decisions on quality standards, 
on funding as well as on the development of policies in 
areas relating to the rights of victims. One such exam‑
ple in recent years is the Irish Victims’ Rights Alliance, 
an umbrella association of victim support and human 
rights organisations. The Alliance provides a platform 
for victims’ rights NGOs in Ireland to engage with rel‑
evant interest groups, including the government, on 
the implementation of the Victims’ Directive. It aims 
at ensuring that the Directive is implemented within 

the proposed timeframe, covering all victims of crime 
and actually making a practical difference to them.134

3�3�  Regionalisation

Another aspect of the internal structure of victims sup‑
port services is the degree to which they are centralised 
or regionalised, from both an administrative and geo‑
graphical perspective. This can affect the availability 
and quality of services throughout different regions of 
a Member State, regardless of whether they are run by 
the state or by NGOs.

3�3�1�  Generic victim support

FRA research shows that generic support services in 
a large number of Member States are clearly regional‑
ised. This includes both state‑run generic services and 
those operated by NGOs as well as some Member States 
in which generic victim support is the responsibility of 
both the state and NGOs.

In Estonia, for example, victim support on the state 
level is explicitly based on the principle of regionalism.135 
The Social Insurance Board has victim support centres in 
all 15 counties and each local government provides its 
own services within their municipality.136 NGOs usually 
limit their activities to a particular region.

Several Member States have adopted a hybrid model of 
generic victim support, with some elements or services 
operated centrally and others delegated to regional 
actors. In Croatia, services are both centralised within 
the Ministry of Justice, and regionalised through ser‑
vices available at courts. In Hungary, the Justice Ser‑
vice’s Central Office exercises professional control over 
support services, while regional government offices 
handle the administration. In Member States where 
both the state and NGOs are responsible for provid‑
ing generic victim support, a distinction can also be 
drawn based on the nature of the service provider. In 
Sweden for example, victim support is clearly central‑
ised through the state‑run Crime Victim Compensation 
and Support Authority, yet regionalised through local 
non‑governmental shelters led by the Swedish Asso‑
ciation for Victim Support.

3�3�2�  Specialised victim support

Victim support services for specific groups of victims 
may be regionalised in Member States where generic 
services are centralised. This is the case in Greece, 

133  See the press release by Transparency International at: 

www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/transparency_
international_calls_for_an_immediate_end_to_
intimidation_.

134  http://victimsrightsalliance.com/about/.
135  See: Victim Support Act §4(1).
136  Päll, E. and Raag, T. (2012), see also: www.ensib.ee/

ohvriabi‑tootajate‑kontaktandmed‑4/. 

66

where some NGOs provide support to minors in cities 
other than Athens and Thessaloniki, where centralised 
generic  support  services  are  located.  The  opposite 
is  evident  in  Spain,  where  organisations  specialis‑
ing in specific groups of victims are not evenly dis‑
tributed, while generic services are available in most 
autonomous regions. Similarly, in Finland, women’s 
and children’s centres are not available in all regions, 
despite the strong regionalisation of generic services 
(see  Chapter 4).

3�4�  The role of volunteers in 
victim support provision

The  victim  support  system  in  the  vast  majority  of 
Member States relies to some extent on volunteers. 
FRA research findings show that volunteerism is on the 
rise across EU Member States, and that there is a higher 
provision of generic victim support services in those 
countries with a long‑standing culture of volunteering. 
Many Member States also have a strong tradition of 
social work which also links to victim support provision 
(for example, in the profile of those who volunteer for 
victim support organisations, as many volunteers have 
a professional background in social work).

The following section looks at the significance of the 
relationship between victim support and traditions of 
charity work or other forms of voluntary contributions 
in public matters, and how it has developed over the 
past few decades. It then examines the ratio between 
staff and volunteers working for victim support services 
in selected Member States.

3�4�1�  Development of volunteerism in 

EU Member States

The  development  of  social  work  as  a  profession 
began in most Member States in the second half of 
the 20th century, and many Member States also have 
a strong presence and history of volunteers working 
in the victim support sector (such as Germany and the 
United Kingdom).

In newer EU Member States such as the Czech Republic, 
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania, social work, as 
with volunteerism, is a relatively recent development, 
beginning in the late 1990s. Such Member States, where 
civil society activities were suppressed over decades 
of authoritarian rule, today show encouraging signs of 
increased citizen involvement in victim support. This 
applies, for example, to the steady increase in private 
victim support initiatives in Poland as well as to the 
voluntary involvement of private individuals, including 
students, in Croatia. These developments reflect the 
considerable number of specialised private initiatives 

Victim support services in EU Member States

in both countries concerned in particular with domestic 
violence and the trafficking of human beings.137138139

Promising practice

Encouraging volunteerism

In  Hungary,  volunteerism  in  the  field  of  victim 
support  is  a  relatively  new  phenomenon.  In  the 
framework of the ACT programme (TEtt Program 
az Áldozatokért és a Tettesekért),137 implemented 
within  the  national  development  plan  with  the 
support  of  the  European  Social  Fund,  one  key 
initiative  was  the  organisation  of  volunteer 
networks  to  assist  victims  of  crime.  The  ACT 
programme  has  recruited  200  volunteers  since 
February  2011,  including  two  in  each  sub‑region 
situated in the nine counties ACT covers. Based on 
the  Hungarian  National  Social  Inclusion  Strategy 
for  2012  to  2014,  additional  Roma  volunteers 
were recruited into the network.138 Victim support 
officers participate as mentors to volunteers and 
provide training.

Volunteerism  in  the  field  of  victim  support  is 
also  quite  recent  in  Croatia,  which  has  struck 
a balance between the paid professional work of 
civil servants and the unpaid work of volunteers. 
Recently  established  ‘witness  support  offices’ 
have  enlisted  the  help  of  a  network  of  more 
than  200  trained  volunteers,  many  of  them  law 
students. Support staff and volunteers do not give 
legal advice or carry out psychological counselling 
or  psychotherapy.  The  testimony  of  a  witness 
or  victim  is  kept  confidential.  Support  officers 
and  volunteers  can  refer  victims/witnesses  to 
organisations providing psychological counselling 
or psychotherapy.139

Source: ACT Programme Hungary, www.tamop.irm.gov.hu/; 
Hungarian National Social Inclusion Strategy, http://romagov.
kormany.hu/hungarian‑national‑ social‑ inclusion‑ strategy‑ 
deep‑poverty‑child‑poverty‑and‑the‑roma

Profiles of volunteers vary across Member States, but in 
many countries volunteers are students or have a pro‑
fessional background in law, psychology, social work or 
healthcare, and to a lesser extent, in politics, education, 
journalism or languages (Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech 
Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Malta and 
Portugal). Police, prosecutors and judges in Austria also 

137  See: www.tamop.irm.gov.hu/. 
138 

Information is available at: http://romagov.kormany.
hu/hungarian‑national‑social‑inclusion‑strategy‑deep‑
poverty‑child‑poverty‑and‑the‑roma.

139  Each office has a list of such organisations with contact 

information, divided by areas of activity, and victims are 
given information about the options. Volunteers in victim 
and witness support departments in county courts are 
tasked with waiting for victims at court and accompanying 
them to separate waiting rooms, providing answers to 
questions related to court proceedings and explaining what 
to expect in the courtroom. They can also accompany the 
witnesses and spend time with them in the courtroom.

67

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

work as volunteers for the main generic victim support 
organisation (Weisser Ring). This is part of their train‑
ing and could be considered a good practice in raising 
the awareness and sensitivity of practitioners about the 
rights and needs of victims of crime, helping also to pre‑
vent ‘secondary victimisation’ of victims during criminal 
proceedings. Victim support organisations in the Czech 
Republic, Denmark and Germany also have volunteers 
from the police, prosecution and judiciary.

It is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the gender, 
age or background profile of volunteers from the find‑
ings, but experience shared by the Ministry of Justice 
and Victim Support in the United Kingdom, for example, 
suggests that the diversity of volunteers has increased 
and the average age has fallen in recent years. The 
majority of volunteers working for victim support ser‑
vices in Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Malta also appear 
to be students. In contrast, many Austrian volunteers 
are retirees, while the majority of volunteers in Hun‑
gary are said to be over 40.

In Hungary, and perhaps many of the countries men‑
tioned above, it is perceived that the rate of volun‑
tary activity is closely related to a person’s educational 
attainment. Those with higher qualifications are more 
active than those without.140 In terms of gender, Ger‑
many and the United Kingdom both have a majority of 
female volunteers in the victim support sector.

Some  countries  (for  example  Cyprus)  attribute  an 
increase in the number of people volunteering in the 
field of victim support to the financial crisis and rising 
unemployment. Such voluntary jobs requiring profes‑
sional knowledge help young people gain experience 
and improve their opportunities for future employment.

In contrast, in Bulgaria, economic and societal factors 
could account for the lack of popularity of volunteer‑
ing. People may be unable to dedicate time to unpaid 
work; unpaid work may not be valued when applying 
for a job in the country; such initiatives may not offer 
promotion paths and the organisations may be largely 
unknown, meaning that the population at large does 
not value them. Prejudice also exists against certain 
human rights issues. Despite these factors, however, 
there is evidence that volunteerism in Bulgaria is grow‑
ing, especially among young people, as volunteers are 
typically students of law, journalism, languages, politics 
or psychology who spend a limited amount of time with 
a particular organisation and move on. Volunteering by 
older adults in Bulgaria is rare.

Policy on volunteering in Denmark

On 1 July 2013 the Ministry of Social Affairs and Integra‑
tion in Denmark published a renewed Charter for interac‑
tion between the voluntary sector and the public sector 
(samspil mellem den frivillige verden og det offentlige). 
The charter contains visions and principles of the interac‑
tion between the voluntary sector and the public sector 
and  focuses  on  trust  between  sectors,  reciprocity  and 
cooperation. According to the charter, almost half of the 
population in Denmark does some volunteer work.

Source: http://duf.dk/charter/

Victim Support UK

“Our volunteers are central to the work we do and contin‑
ue to outnumber paid employees by over four to one. We 
fundamentally believe that volunteers bring unique value 
through the help they give – often in ways that employees 
cannot. Volunteers are genuinely part of communities and 
are therefore very well placed to understand and engage 
with  local  people.  The  training  and  support  we  give  our 
volunteers, backed up by their commitment, undoubtedly 
delivers a professional and high quality service.”

Source: Victims Support UK (2011), Annual Report, p. 11: www.victimsupport.
org.uk/

Victim Support Netherlands

“Victim  Support  Netherlands  is  nothing  without  its  vol‑
unteers, and we want to offer victims the best service.” 
(Slachtofferhulp  Nederland  kan  niet  zonder  zijn  vrijwil‑
ligers, en we willen onze slachtoffers het beste bieden.)

Source: Victim Support Netherlands, www.slachtofferhulp.nl/

3�4�2�  Professionals and volunteers

The following section takes a closer look at the role 
and tasks of volunteers, examining the training they 
are provided and the ratio of paid staff to volunteers.

As discussed above, one prominent issue of the inter‑
nal organisation of victim support organisations is the 
deployment of volunteer work. Victim support organi‑
sations in most Member States are staffed with a com‑
bination of full‑ and part‑time paid staff and unpaid 
volunteers. As mentioned previously, volunteers are 
key to the functioning of victim support structures in 
many Member States. This section takes a brief look at 
the division of labour between professional staff and 
volunteers (many of whom are also professionals) and 
the tasks performed within some of the larger generic 
victim support organisations.

140  A 2011 Eurobarometer report on volunteering, although not 

focusing specifically on volunteering in the field of victim 
support, found that more educated respondents had a higher 
level of voluntary activity. European Parliament (2011).

As Table 8 shows, victim support services rely on the 
work of volunteers in Member States such as Aus‑
tria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, 

68

Victim support services in EU Member States

Table 8:  Overview of staff/volunteers working for main generic victim support organisations in selected 

EU Member States

EU Member 
State

Organisation name

Number of staff

Number of 
volunteers

AT

CZ* 

DE

DK*

FI*

FR* 

HR*

HU*

NL

PT*

SE

Weisser Ring

White Circle of Justice

Weisser Ring

Victim Support Denmark (VID)

Victim Support Finland (RIKU)

Network of victim support accredited by the 
judiciary (including INAVEM members)

County Court level departments providing 
witness and victim support

Victim Support Service (Áldozatsegítő Szolgálat)

Victim Support Netherlands (VSN)

The Portuguese Association for Victim Support (APAV)

Victim Support Sweden (The Swedish 
Association for Victim Support, BOJ)

UK* (England 
and Wales) 

Victim Support England & Wales

UK* (Scotland) Victim Support Scotland

UK*(Northern 
Ireland)

Victim Support Northern Ireland

16

46

87

1

28

1,400 (approx.)

13

48

400

40

7

1,200

300

225

3,100

200

300

650

200

200

1,300

300

1,350

6,500

130 (approx.)

1,000 

60

200

Note:  

The data are from May 2013 unless marked with an asterisk (*) in which case they are from August 2012. Volunteer numbers 
are approximate. The category ‘Staff’ includes both full‑ and part‑time staff.

Source: 

FRA, 2014

Germany,  Hungary,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom, where volunteer 
workers far outnumber staff. In 11 of the 12 Member 
States for which data are available, the ratio of staff to 
volunteers ranges from between three or four to one 
(Czech Republic, Hungary, Netherlands, United King‑
dom (England and Wales)) to 200 to one (Denmark 
and Sweden).

In contrast in France, two‑thirds of those working for 
NGOs providing victim support are paid staff. France 
has seen a trend towards a professionalisation of victim 
support in recent years,141 away from the beginnings of 
victim support in the 1980s, when the majority of those 
working for victim support NGOs were volunteers. The 
National Council of Cities claims that volunteerism has 
declined as increasing numbers of full‑time professional 
staff are employed (with cost implications for NGOs).

3�4�3�  Tasks of volunteers and time 

worked

Typical  volunteer  tasks  in  victim  support  include: 
answering helplines/victim counselling and providing 
information on who to approach for support (Austria, 
Cyprus, Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands); accom‑
panying victims during court proceedings, public rela‑
tions such as information desks, information events 
(Austria and Cyprus); answering questions in social 
media and internet discussion forums (Finland); filling 
out applications to insurance companies (Denmark) and 
providing practical information and support relating to 
the victim’s role and rights at trial (Croatia and Sweden). 
Volunteers typically work two to eight hours per week 
(Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Fin‑
land, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and 
the United Kingdom).

3�4�4� Selection and training

141  Also in the framework of conventions developed with 

the Ministry of Justice (and the judiciary in the field), the 
Ministry of Interior and other administrations funding the 
operations of NGOs (including for hotlines).

Procedures for selecting volunteers vary across EU 
Member States, as do training requirements and the 
provision of training and supervision. In most countries, 

69

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

volunteers working in the area of victim support receive 
some training, ranging from basic to quite comprehen‑
sive training programmes.

In Belgium, for example, volunteers are subject to a spe‑
cific selection method following strict criteria and train‑
ing. In Denmark, all volunteers must pass a basic course 
in structured crisis interviewing. After acquiring some 
experience, they must then pass an advanced course in 
victim counselling, legislation and practices relevant for 
victim support. In Finland, volunteers who work as sup‑
port persons undergo 40 hours of training when they 
first begin, followed by supplementary annual train‑
ing. Volunteers who give legal phone counselling must 
have a law degree in addition to some experience in 
criminal cases. Victim Support Netherlands (VSN) has 
its own training academy (Slachtofferhulp Academie) 
which trains professional volunteers, interns and exter‑
nal stakeholders. All volunteers receive special train‑
ing before they begin working, including a basic course 
addressing interviewing techniques, victims’ needs and 
the services VSN provides. The training also includes 
some legal instruction, focusing on victims’ rights in 
the Netherlands. Volunteers working in specific fields 
receive additional specialised training.

The  reasons  and  benefits  of  employing  volunteers 
differ (see Table 9). One obvious benefit to the organi‑
sations, which already struggle to find funding, is that 
of having unpaid workers providing services to victims. 
Another benefit especially for younger volunteers could 
be the gain of professional experience and enhance‑
ment of opportunities for future employment. All this 
should not, however, compromise the quality of ser‑
vices provided to victims, or detract from the obliga‑
tion of Member States to ensure that such services 
are available to all victims of crime, free of charge. 

As organisations in many Member States struggle to 
fund already overstretched services to victims in times 
of austerity, there seems to be an increasing reliance 
on volunteers. Member States need to find a balance 
between the number of volunteers and of paid, pro‑
fessional personnel necessary to coordinate the work 
of volunteers and train them. Tasks performed by per‑
sonnel of victim support organisations must also be 
in line with quality standards and appropriate to the 
professional background of the person providing the 
support or advice.

3�5�  European umbrella 
organisations

At the European level (see Section 3.2.2 on umbrella 
organisations at national level), there are a range of 
umbrella organisations active in the fields of network‑
ing, coordinating and promoting generic victim support, 
or supporting specific groups of victims (see Annex 2 for 
an annotated list). This section examines such organi‑
sations, including their mandates and activities, and 
provides examples of promising practices. This is done 
to provide a comprehensive overview of victim support 
organisations in Europe, including linkages between 
national and European levels.

Information in the following four basic areas was used 
to analyse umbrella organisations active in victim sup‑
port at EU level and promising practices at EU level that 
may also be of relevance at national level:

•  membership
•  transparency and funding
•  support, capacity building, training and expertise
•  participation and rights‑based approach

Table 9:  Advantages and disadvantages of volunteers’ work in victim support organisations in selected 

EU Member States

Advantages

Disadvantages

Lower costs for service providers 

Motivated staff

Less professional staff, potentially leading to lower 
quality service and decrease in trust by victims

Unpaid work is not feasible for all individuals who 
are interested and qualified to help, in some Member 
States voluntary work is not recognised or valued

Continued provision of services

Higher staff turnover

Volunteers gain professional experience and 
can participate in training programmes

Volunteers are part of local communities and may 
be able to identify and engage with victims better

Staff may not be able to carry out all elements 
of support which require full qualification, e.g. 
legal representation or medical assistance

Source: FRA, 2014

70

 
Victim support services in EU Member States

3�5�1�  Membership and independence

Membership relates to the number of member organ‑
isations  represented  along  with  the  balanced  and 
wide geographical coverage of the national members 
making up the EU umbrella organisation. Membership 
is also about a common agenda or common principles 
for action or the same basic programme, the repre‑
sentativeness of the national members and the clar‑
ity and comprehensiveness of the conditions/criteria 
for becoming members of the umbrella organisation 
in question.

Victim Support Europe (VSE) is the organisation that 
perhaps  best  reflects  both  these  aspects  of  mem‑
bership.  A  policy‑oriented  organisation  comprising 
36  non‑governmental  victim‑support  organisations 
in 25 European countries, VSE has strict membership 
conditions. A member organisation, for example, “does 
not undertake campaigns concerning the sentencing 
of offenders, except where issues of compensation 
or other forms of reparation are concerned”.142 This 
approach reflects Victim Support Europe’s philosophy 
in balancing the fundamental rights of suspects and 
of victims. Organisations must also provide a range of 
general services supporting victims of crime, operate at 
a state or national level, provide services free of charge, 

and ensure that the confidentiality of the service user 
is respected and maintained in all its activities.

Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE) offers a good 
example  of  a  European‑wide,  structured  umbrella 
network  with  a  large  membership  of  more  than 
4,000 organisations and over 100 Focal Points working 
on the national level in 46 countries. Unlike VSE, which 
aims mainly at promoting the establishment and devel‑
opment of victim rights and services throughout Europe 
through policy and advocacy, WAVE is an operational 
network of European women’s NGOs working specifi‑
cally to combat violence against women and children. 
Organisations include women’s shelters, counselling 
centres, SOS hotlines/helplines and organisations focus‑
ing on prevention and training.143 The organisational 
structure and the relationships among members are 
simplified through a system of regional and national 
focal points.144

An  example  of  a  smaller  EU  umbrella  organisation, 
but one that also applies strict membership criteria, is 
La Strada International. La Strada represents support 
services for victims of trafficking in human beings in 
four EU Member States and ensures that all members 
are victim support services and respect La Strada’s 
code of conduct.145 Table 10 provides an overview of the 

Table 10:  Selected European umbrella organisations in the area of victim support – members and coverage

Umbrella organisation

Victim Support Europe (VSE)

Number of 
members

36

Geographical coverage

25 European countries

Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE)

About 4,000

46 European countries

International Centre for Missing 
and Exploited Children (ICMEC)

ECPAT International

La Strada International

Global Alliance Against Traffic 
in Women (GAATW)

Network of Associations of 
Victims of Terrorism (NAVT)

About 25

Worldwide, covers four EU Member States

Over 80

Worldwide, covers 23 European countries

9

106

34

Nine European countries, four EU Member States

Worldwide, covers eight EU Member states

Seven EU Member States

Note: 

For a more comprehensive list, see Annex 2.

Source: 

FRA, 2014

142  See: Victim Support Europe’s membership conditions: 

143  See: http://wave‑network.org/content/
woman‑against‑violence‑europe‑wave.

144  See: www.wave‑network.org/content/wave‑network. 
145  See: https://lastradainternational.org/dynamic/files/Code_

www.victimsupporteurope.eu/becomemember/conditions.

of_Conduct.pdf.

71

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

number and geographical coverage of the EU umbrella 
organisations under study.

in its Communication on Strengthening victims’ rights 
in the EU.151

Independence from public authorities, government or 
political activities, and involvement in criminal pro‑
ceedings are criteria for membership of some umbrella 
organisations. WAVE member organisations, for exam‑
ple, must be non‑governmental women’s organisations 
in Europe. Similarly, Global Alliance Against Traffic in 
Women (GAATW) and VSE member organisations must 
be NGOs. Other umbrella organisations allow the par‑
ticipation of public actors but on the condition that the 
lead organisation at the national level is an NGO. This is 
the case for End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography 
and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT), 
for example.146

Other organisations have more mixed structures and 
membership, including public authorities. For instance, 
The International Centre for Missing and Exploited Chil‑
dren (ICMEC) has developed its cooperation with the 
Belgian government, private sector leaders, victims’ 
parents  and  law  enforcement.  Using  linkages  with 
public authorities, ICMEC encourages the establish‑
ment of national and regional operational centres that 
are based on a public–private partnership model set up 
with national government support.147

3�5�2�  Transparency and funding

Transparency, clarity and the level of accountability 
equally play a key role. Information available on fund‑
ing and activities, as well as the existence of a clear mis‑
sion statement on aims and target group(s) are among 
the most relevant aspects in this regard.

Many of the organisations examined could improve how 
they make available detailed information on their fund‑
ing sources and annual budgets, including online. Some 
organisations, however, are role models in this regard, 
including La Strada International148 and WAVE.149

Another common feature is these actors’ participation 
in the public consultations launched by the European 
Commission, such as on the victims’ package.150 The 
European Network Against Racism (ENAR) and VSE, 
for example, provided contributions which the Euro‑
pean Commission took into account. Victim Support 
Europe presented figures which the Commission used 

EU funding, made available by the European Commis‑
sion, and membership fees are these organisations’ 
main funding sources. The role EU funding plays is par‑
ticularly  important.  Most  of  the  organisations  have 
relied on EU financial support, especially from different 
Directorates‑General (DGs) of the European Commission. 
For instance, the EU’s Daphne Operating Grant funded 
most of WAVE’s principal activities and infrastructure. La 
Strada International also started its activities under the 
European Commission’s PHARE Programme.

3�5�3�  Support, capacity building, 
training and expertise

Some of these organisations provide direct support 
and assistance to victims. La Strada International, for 
example, provides social, legal and emotional support 
to trafficked persons.152 Other organisations work to 
strengthen grassroots organisations. This is true of 
ECPAT, which has been active in improving the capaci‑
ties of grassroots organisations. Local organisations are 
encouraged to reflect rights‑based practices in the care 
and support of children, and to integrate care standards 
and child protection policies. ECPAT groups take part 
in the implementation of various initiatives to protect 
children at the local level.153

WAVE offers a noteworthy example in the provision of 
information and legal advice. Together with the Austrian 
Women’s Shelter Network, WAVE set up the European 
Information Centre, a project supported by the Euro‑
pean Commission’s Daphne Programme. The centre acts 
as a community‑wide information source to support 
NGOs and public institutions, promoting the establish‑
ment and enlargement of women’s shelters and sup‑
port activities.154 Other organisations, such as GAATW, 
do not support the creation of victim support services 
specifically, but engage in initiatives seeking to pro‑
vide victims of trafficking with pertinent information 
about their rights in specific countries. As an exam‑
ple, they provide links to national legislation, policies, 
action plans and cases that can be used to prosecute 
trafficking and related crimes in countries around the 
world. Country‑specific information on Europe is avail‑
able for Spain and the Czech Republic, as well as for 
other non‑EU countries.155 The European Federation of 
Road Traffic Victims (FEVR) provides free legal advice 

146  See: www.ecpat.net/sites/default/files/membership_

information_revised_oct_2013.pdf.
147  See: www.icmec.org/missingkids/servlet/

PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_X1&PageId=1222.

148  See: http://lastradainternational.org/.
149  See: www.wave‑network.org/.
150  See the European Commission’s website on the consultation 

151  See: European Commission (2011c), p. 3, footnote 13.
152  La Strada International (2004).
153  See: www.ecpat.net/what‑we‑do/. 
154  See: www.wave‑network.org/content/

establishing‑european‑information‑center.

on the victims’ package: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/
consulting_public/news_consulting_0053_en.htm.

155  See: www.gaatw.org/atj/index.php?option=com_content&

view=category&layout=blog&id=22&Itemid=100. 

72

Victim support services in EU Member States

for road crash victims in Europe through its website and 
those of its member organisations.156

As for training, ICMEC developed models to train law 
enforcement  officials  on  how  to  investigate  inter‑
net‑related child exploitation cases in collaboration with 
Interpol.157 ECPAT is equally involved in training, hold‑
ing workshops and other educational forums to extend 
and exchange knowledge among groups in different 
countries.158 La Strada International trains profession‑
als – such as the police, service providers and border 
officials – on trafficking issues.159 WAVE has been par‑
ticularly active in organising and coordinating training 
activities for experts and professionals, especially those 
designed to support local victims’ services through 
capacity‑building measures.160 Victim Support Europe 
also offers training and awareness events.161

3�5�4�  Participation and rights-based 

approach

Some EU umbrella victim support organisations place 
the individual at the centre of their activities and encour‑
age direct input and participation. ECPAT established 
a Child and Youth Action Committee (EICYAC), for exam‑
ple, whose role is to form a strong network of children 
and young people who can participate in ECPAT’s work 
at the local, national, regional and international levels.162

Another  good  example  is  La  Strada  International, 
which “recognises trafficked persons as active actors 

in changing their own situation, rather than passive 
recipients of services or victims in need of rescue”.163 
This aspect is of particular relevance to the activities of 
GAATW, which include support for “self‑representation 
and organisation of those directly affected by traffick‑
ing”. This aim is translated into self‑help and self‑organ‑
ised groups under the structure of GAATW, which affirms 
the role of small organisations and directly affected 
groups in anti‑trafficking efforts, including trafficking 
survivors, migrant women, sex workers, rural women, 
women workers and returnee migrant women.164

Some EU umbrella organisations use a rights‑based 
approach in their work. La Strada International does 
so in its advocacy work.165 Similarly, GAATW applies 
a human rights‑based approach to address trafficking 
issues, which means:

•  centring on the human rights of trafficked persons 
and those in vulnerable situations in all anti‑traffick‑
ing activities;

•  acknowledging the equality of all persons to exer‑
cise, defend and promote their inherent, universal 
and indivisible human rights;

•  non‑discrimination on any grounds;
•  primacy of principles of accountability, participation 
and inclusivity/non‑discrimination in working meth‑
odologies, and organisational structures and proce‑
dures. In this respect, the self‑representation and 
organisation of those directly affected by trafficking 
are strongly encouraged and supported.166

156  See information available at: http://fevr.org/
157  See: www.icmec.org/missingkids/servlet/

PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_X1&PageId=2036.
158  See some training resource kits at: www.ecpat.net/resourc

es?keyword=training&=Search.

159  See, for example: http://

lastradainternational.org/doc‑center/1221/
regional‑standard‑for‑anti‑trafficking‑police‑training‑in‑see.

160  See: www.wave‑network.org/content/training‑institute.
161  See, for example: http://victimsupporteurope.eu/

publications/3h‑standardised‑distance‑training‑for‑victim‑s
ervice‑providers‑patrick‑coleman/.

163  See La Strada International’s aims and philosophy: http://

lastradainternational.org/?main=informationlsi&section=ai
msphilosophy.

164  See: www.gaatw.org/index.php?option=com_content&vie

w=article&id=94&Itemid=47.

165  See: http://lastradainternational.org/?main=newsletter&se

ction=newsfacts&news_id=414.

166  See: www.gaatw.org/index.php?option=com_content&vie

162  See: www.ecpat.net/child‑youth‑participation.

w=article&id=94&Itemid=47.

73

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

FRA ACTIVITY

Expert perspectives on the challenges relating to victims’ rights in the EU

As part of its research, FRA interviewed 11 leading senior‑level experts from European umbrella victim support 
organisations surveyed in 2012 on their perceptions of the achievements and shortcomings of victims’ rights 
in practice at EU Member State level. The resulting information highlights some of the main expert perceptions 
about challenges relating to the status of victim support and the rights of victims in practice.

• 

Lack of knowledge and information: experts stress the need for reliable data and information as a basic 
precondition of effective victim support in two contexts: 

1)  There is little knowledge about the situation and targeted needs of certain specific groups of victims, the 

real extent of victimisation, the number of unreported cases, etc. 

2)  Similarly,  information  is  lacking  on  the  work  of  victim  support  organisations.  Reliable  data  about  the 
actual work and quality of European victim support services is lacking, making it very difficult to assess 
their work on a comparative basis and to identify key areas for further improvement. Europe‑wide, com‑
parative data gathering could help with this.

•  Gap  between  legislation  and  practice:  experts  agree  that  while  most  EU  Member  States  have  adopted 
adequate legislation on victims’ rights, legislation at both the national and EU levels has had a limited im‑
pact on actual victim support practices. One problem highlighted is that not all victims are treated equally. 
While some groups of victims are prioritised, others – for example migrants and particularly undocumented 
migrants – are in a disadvantaged position regarding access to effective support services and protection in 
criminal proceedings. Access to support services should also be available even in cases where the victims of 
crime do not wish to report the crime to the police. Experts also point to insufficient criminal law definitions, 
for example in relation to victims of hate crimes, victims of trafficking in human beings and victims of road 
traffic accidents.

• 

Insufficient funding: the availability of high quality victim‑support services is closely related to funding, and 
experts perceive that victim support services are often seriously underfunded. The lack of proper funding 
affects the quality of services: many organisations lack proper professional personnel, and staff members 
are not trained or do not have enough experience.

•  Providing  victims  with  timely  and  comprehensive  compensation  for  damages:  Experts  criticise  the  dif‑

ficult, lengthy and bureaucratic procedures to obtain compensation.

Conclusions

This chapter has looked at how the principles derived 
from Articles 8 and 9 of the Victims’ Directive translate 
into the practical reality of victim support in EU Member 
States. Within this context, it sought to present an over‑
all perspective of some of the key aspects, dimensions 
and challenges of generic victim support provision in 
the EU, also referring to the role of EU‑level umbrella 
organisations that advocate for and provide support to 
various categories of victims.

As regards the organisation of victim support services, 
the FRA findings confirm the variety of structures in 
place across the EU. Amongst other factors, the Member 
State models vary as to the state actor responsible 
for the oversight of support services, funding meth‑
ods, the geographical distribution of services and the 
extent to which services rely on the work of volunteers 
as opposed to permanent staff. Nonetheless, the find‑
ings indicate some emerging themes. In the majority 
of Member States, responsibility for support services is 
distributed among several ministries. The most common 

model regarding the geographical distribution of generic 
support services is that of strong regionalisation, regard‑
less of the size of the Member State or the public or 
private nature of the main service provider. Volunteers 
outnumber permanent staff in most Member States, 
while their tasks and training vary depending not only 
on the nature of the service provider, but also on the 
historical development of volunteerism in the country 
in question. In addition, generic victim support provision 
in the majority of Member States relies on cooperation 
between public and private bodies.

However, while it is obvious that Member States may 
wish to take experiences of other Member States into 
account when establishing, extending or strengthening 
a system of victim support services, a careful assess‑
ment of the transferability of models and solutions 
from one Member State to another is necessary. Sev‑
eral aspects must be considered. These might include, 
for example, cultural differences relating to traditions 
of  private  initiatives  and  involvement  in  issues  of 
common interest, or the readiness of citizens to engage 
in voluntary work.

74

Ensuring access to generic victim 
support for all victims

FRA opinion

Victim support services in EU Member States

Most Member States provide some form of generic 
victim support services, and all Member States pro‑
vide support services to at least some specific groups 
of victims. Eight Member States, however, have yet to 
establish the generic victim support services required 
by  Article  8  of  the  Directive.  Article  8  (5)  further‑
more specifies that provision of services should not 
be dependent on a victim making a formal complaint. 
Funding to support services should be carried out in 
a transparent and objective manner that ensures access 
to victim support services for all.

FRA opinion

EU Member States which have not yet established 
generic support services are encouraged to take 
urgent steps to comply with the Victims’ Directive 
(Article 8). Access to support services should be 
available  to  all  crime  victims  free  of  charge  and 
should  not  be  dependent  on  a  victim  reporting 
the crime to the police.

Providing comprehensive 
and confidential services

FRA  research  shows  that  a  majority  of  EU  Member 
States distribute responsibility for support services 
among several ministries. Most also rely on cooperation 
between public and private bodies to provide generic 
victim support. FRA research shows that generic sup‑
port services in a large number of Member States are 
clearly regionalised. For effective support services, the 
organisation must be designed with a view to establish‑
ing trust and confidence with victims. This can be done, 
for example, by ensuring that victims are not trans‑
ferred between organisations and individuals (although 
in some cases specialist referral may be necessary). The 
tasks of support services should also solely focus on 
providing support to victims. Mixing victim support with 
mediation and probation services, as some EU Member 
States do, would not, for example, instil sufficient con‑
fidence in the objective of the delivery of support. FRA 
findings also show that a number of EU Member States 
do not guarantee victims the right to be accompanied 
by support persons during trial.

EU  Member  States  should  ensure  that  victim 
support is coordinated and that referral – according 
to Articles 4 (1) and 8 (2) of the Victims’ Directive – 
is  effective,  particularly  for  certain  groups  of 
victims  who  may  have  specific  protection  needs 
and may fall under the remit of different ministries 
and/or support organisations.

Victim  support  should  be  organised  in  a  manner 
that allows victims, as much as possible, to benefit 
from  a  relation  of  trust.  The  support  system 
should  avoid  handing  the  victim  over  from  one 
support  provider  to  another,  where  unnecessary. 
In  this  respect  it  is  important  that  victims  can  be 
accompanied  to  court  proceedings  by  the  same 
person  who  supports  them  before  and  after  the 
trial  phase,  as  required  by  Article  20  (c)  of  the 
Victims’ Directive.

Support services should be positioned in a manner 
that allows them to act in strict confidence and in 
the interests of the victim and ensures that support 
services  can  also  be  perceived  to  act  in  such 
a  manner.  In  order  to  guarantee  this  orientation, 
organisations  providing  victim  support  should 
not  also  be  tasked  with  providing  mediation  or 
probation services.

Involving volunteers

The tasks and training of volunteers working for victim 
support services vary depending not only on the nature 
of the service provider but also on the historical devel‑
opment of volunteerism in the country in question. FRA 
research shows increased reliance on volunteers, due in 
part to economic constraints and to a rise in volunteer‑
ism in several EU Member States where such traditions 
are less strong. While FRA findings highlight the need 
to strike a balance between the number of volunteers 
and professional staff working in victim support, over‑
all, FRA evidence shows that victim support systems in 
the vast majority of Member States rely to some extent 
on volunteers. There tends to be a higher provision of 
generic victim support services in those countries with 
a long‑standing culture of volunteerism.

75

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

FRA opinion

FRA opinion

The  EU  should  continue  its  interaction  with  and 
support  to  victim  support  organisations  working 
at the European level, drawing on their expertise 
and ability to pool best practices and knowledge 
among  their  members.  This  expertise  includes 
the provision of further assistance with respect to 
the increasing need for cross‑border facilitation of 
victim support. Generic services at EU and Member 
State  levels  should  cooperate  with  and  draw  on 
the wealth of experience amassed by specialised 
services,  in  particular  that  of  organisations  that 
support women who are victims of violence.

FRA  recognises  the  importance  of  encouraging 
citizens  to  become  involved  in  the  performance 
of  public  tasks  and  recommends  initiatives  at 
EU  Member  State  level  to  foster  volunteerism, 
particularly  in  Member  States  where  voluntary 
work  may  be  a 
relatively  new  concept. 
Consideration  should  be  given  to  the  relation 
between the number of professional staff and the 
number of volunteers. In particular, organisations 
relying  on  volunteers  should  make  sure  that 
permanent  staff  offer  effective  guidance  to 
volunteers  and  supervise  the  quality  of  their 
work.  Tasks  performed  by  professionals  or 
volunteers  of  victim  support  organisations  must 
be in line with quality standards and appropriate 
to  the  professional  background  of  the  person 
providing the support or advice.

Role of umbrella organisations at the 
EU level

A considerable number of organisations advocate at 
EU level for the rights of victims of crime in general 
or for specific groups of victims – such as women who 
are victims of violence. Such organisations contribute 
significantly to making the fundamental rights of per‑
sons living in the EU a reality. Importantly, the diver‑
sity of organisations at EU level mirrors the different 
approaches to the rights of victims and to the organi‑
sation of the provision of victim support both between 
and within Member States.

76

4 

Support for specific 
groups of victims

This chapter examines the requirement under the Vic‑
tims’ Directive for Member States to ensure that victims 
receive an individual assessment to identify specific 
protection needs. Various victim support initiatives 
target specific, often especially vulnerable victims – 
persons  in  situations  of  vulnerability,  who  are  also 
victims. This chapter will outline various categories of 
victims, accompanied by a number of promising prac‑
tices that have been identified in EU Member States and 
could be considered transferable. FRA research related 
to specific categories of victims, such as victims of vio‑
lence against women, migrant victims and victims of 
hate crimes will also be referred to here.

As all Member States provide victim support services to 
at least some categories of victims, this section covers 
all 28 Member States (see Section 4.2).

4�1�  Individual assessment

Some categories of victims, such as children, victims 
of domestic violence, victims of exploitation or hate 
crime and victims with disabilities, may be considered 
to be particularly vulnerable to secondary and repeat 
victimisation, intimidation and retaliation, and therefore 
require specific support and protection (some victims 
may also have ‘multiple’ vulnerabilities, such as migrant 
women or children with disabilities). The Victims’ Direc‑
tive recognises this by requiring an individual assess‑
ment of victims’ needs, as well as specific services to 
address these needs. The two issues are closely related, 
as the initial individual assessment may lead to referral 
to either a specialised support organisation, or a spe‑
cialised service within a generic organisation.

Article 22 of the Victims’ Directive obliges EU Member 
States  to  ensure  an  individual  assessment  of  victims 
to identify possible specific protection needs, including 

victims who have suffered considerable harm due to the 
severity of the crime, victims of a crime based on bias or 
a discriminatory motive, or victims made vulnerable by 
their relationship to and dependence on the perpetrator.167

EU legislation: Measure E of the Budapest Roadmap

Measure E (see Figure 5) of the Budapest Roadmap addresses the 
specific needs of certain groups of victims.167 The Council recalls 
that some victims have specific needs based on the type or on 
the circumstances of crime they are victim of, given the social, 
physical and psychological repercussions of these crimes. Among 
other groups, the Roadmap mentions victims of trafficking in hu‑
man beings and child victims of sexual exploitation.

See: http://eur‑lex.europa.eu/legal‑content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011G0628(01)
&qid=1402495822750&from=EN

The first point of contact with the victim, typically the police 
or a victim support organisation, should carry out the indi‑
vidual assessment. Where the police conduct the assess‑
ment, the identification of specific protection needs may 
lead to the referral of the victim to a specialised victim 
support organisation able to cater to these needs (see 
Section 4.2).

The  assessment  tool‑
box  framework  from 
Victim  Support  Scot‑
land 
illustrates  how 
such an assessment by 
victim  support  organi‑
sations  may  be  struc‑
tured in practice.

Source: 
Scotland

Victim Support 

167 Council of the European Union (2011).

77

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Promising practice

Developing common practices for 
assessing victims’ protection needs

The  Ministry  of  Justice’s  Victim  Support  Service 
in  France  is  aiming  to  set  a  common  EU  process 
for  the  evaluation  of  victims’  protection  needs 
and  to  promote  a  standardised  implementation 
of  Article  22  of  the  Victims’  Directive.  This  pilot 
project is one of two the French support service is 
conducting concerning this article’s implementation, 
which is funded by the Criminal Justice programme 
of the European Commission (JUST/2013/JPEN/AG).

Assisting victims of terrorism

The UN set up a global portal to support victims of 
terrorism. The portal, launched in June 2014, provides 
an  overview  of  government‑offered  services  from 
around the world and lists available legal resources. 
There are currently 14 services listed, of which five 
are from EU Member States. The portal also provides 
a  directory  of  civil  society  organisations  that  offer 
support  to  victims  and  provides  an  overview  of 
what the UN has done in terms of developing tools 
to  support  victims,  such  as  handbooks,  monitoring 
mechanisms and other instruments.

Available at: www.un.org/victimsofterrorism/en

Among the groups that should be considered as typically 
having particular vulnerabilities, the Victims’ Directive 
lists victims of terrorism, organised crime, human traf‑
ficking, gender‑based violence, violence in closed rela‑
tionships, sexual violence, exploitation or hate crime, 
and victims with disabilities. Children, irrespective of 
the nature of the crime, are always presumed to have 
specific protection needs.168 More precisely, the Direc‑
tive states that “persons who are particularly vulnerable 
or who find themselves in situations that expose them 
to a particularly high risk of harm, such as persons sub‑
jected to repeat violence in close relationships, victims 
of gender‑based violence, or persons who fall victim 
to other types of crime in a Member State of which 
they are not nationals or residents, should be provided 
with specialist support and legal protection. Special‑
ist support services should be based on an integrated 
and targeted approach which should, in particular, take 
into account the specific needs of victims, the severity 
of the harm suffered as a result of a criminal offence, 
as well as the relationship between victims, offend‑
ers, children and their wider social environment”.169 The 
Victims’ Directive also emphasises the significant role 
played by specialist support services, and the impor‑
tance of providing victims with information about their 
rights, in addition to support such as shelter and safe 

168 In addition to Art. 22, see Recitals 14–18, 36 and 56–59, 

Victims’ Directive.

169 Directive 2012/29/EU, Recital 36.

accommodation, immediate medical support, short‑ and 
long‑term psychological counselling, trauma care and 
legal advice (for more information on the importance 
of the provision of information to crime victims, see 
Section 2.4).

4�2�  Provision of support to 

specific groups

While not all EU Member States have support struc‑
tures offering support to all categories of victims of 
crime (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Romania and Slovenia), all Member States offer support 
to at least certain categories of victims. Article 8 (3) of 
the Victims’ Directive requires Member States to ensure 
that victims, in accordance with their specific needs, 
have access to specialist support services. According to 
Article 9 (3), these services must as a minimum develop 
and provide “appropriate interim accommodation for 
victims in need of a safe place due to an imminent risk 
of secondary and repeat victimisation, of intimidation 
and of retaliation”, as well as “targeted and integrated 
support for victims with specific needs, such as victims 
of sexual violence, victims of gender‑based violence 
and victims of violence in close relationships, including 
trauma support and counselling”.

As discussed in Chapter 3, the Directive leaves it up to 
Member States to establish specialist services sepa‑
rately and in addition to general support services or to 
integrate them into a generic organisation.

There are strong arguments in favour of both solutions. 
Robust and flexible referral mechanisms that oper‑
ate without friction are easiest to achieve through an 
embedded service. A comprehensive organisation also 
avoids gaps and fragmentation and fosters a homog‑
enous and consistent philosophy across the support of 
various groups of victims.

Specialised services, on the other hand, may be better 
positioned to promote the rights of certain groups of 
victims. Article 22 of the Council of Europe Conven‑
tion on preventing and combating violence against 
women and domestic vio lence, known as the Istanbul 
Convention,170 also obliges parties to establish special‑
ist support services. This requirement can be seen as 
relating to the objective of implementing a gender per‑
spective throughout state policies countering violence 
against women. Once again, this is less a matter of 
internal expertise than of external visibility. For exam‑
ple, the public is less likely to perceive a generic service 
as an advocate for the rights of women, even if the 
staff are all qualified to do so, than a smaller service 
that deals predominantly or exclusively with violence 

170 Council of Europe (2011).

78

Support for specific groups of victims

against women. Similar considerations apply to the 
provision of support to specific groups of hate crime 
victims, for example LGBT persons. Specific groups of 
victims may find it easier to confide in and rely on the 
solidarity of smaller and highly specialised organisa‑
tions advocating for their rights.

Building upon a general overview of victim support 
at the national level, part of the research focused on 
two specialised areas of victim support in each Member 

State. It selected those areas considered to be particu‑
larly relevant for identifying promising practices which 
could assist other Member States when implementing 
legislation and measures related to the rights and sup‑
port of victims of crime (see Table 11 for an overview by 
Member State of which areas were selected). The fol‑
lowing section outlines the types of services available 
to specific groups of victims and highlights promising 
practices from Member States and other comparative 
findings identified during the research.

Table 11:  Overview of specific areas of victim support chosen, by EU Member State

EU Member 
State

Generic

Domestic 
violence

Children

Human 
trafficking

Terrorism/
torture

Hate

Road
traffic

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

Note: 

FRA research chose two areas per Member State that were considered particularly developed and likely to provide promising 
practices of interest to other Member States. The first column also denotes those Member States that have at least 
one generic victim support organisation. Many Member States also offer support services targeting multiple categories of 
victims – this table should be read only in light of which two areas were chosen as particularly relevant for the research.

Source: 

FRA, 2014. The information supplied is based on the FRA project on victims of crime, which involved fieldwork and desk 
research

79

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

4�2�1�  Migrant and non-national 

victims (especially migrants with 
irregular status)

According to data compiled during the research for this 
report, in 19 of 28 EU Member States, support is avail‑
able to victims of crime irrespective of their nationality, 
country of origin or legal status. Project data show that 
police and victim support services in most states have 
special measures in place to deal with at least certain 
categories of victims who may be irregular migrants, 
such as victims of human trafficking.

Promising practice

Deploying special measures for 
migrant victims with an irregular status

In Belgium, the Centre for Equal Opportunities and 
Opposition  to  Racism  can  file  a  complaint  before 
the criminal courts in the name of victims, while the 
NGOs Payoke, Pagasa and Sürya can issue requests 
for a residence permit on behalf of victims who are 
irregular migrants.

immigration 
In  Finland,  clients  without 
status  are  referred  to  the  ‘Paperless’  services 
(Paperittomat) or to the Helsinki Deaconess Institute  
(Diakonissalaitos/Diakoni‑institut).

legal 

In  Spain,  female  victims  of  gender  violence  can 
obtain  special  residence  independent  of  their 
spouse.  In  general,  protective  measures  may  be 
offered irrespective of the person’s legal situation, 
depending on each case.

In Sweden, the Sisters’ Shelter Somaya (Systerjouren 
Somaya)  specifically  provides  services  to  migrant 
and  Muslim  women  who  are  victims  of  violence 
and abuse.

Source: Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to 
Racism, www.diversiteit.be; Interview with Petra Kjällman, 
Executive Director of RIKU, 23 April 2013, see also:  
www.paperittomat.fi/; and Sisters Shelter Somaya,  
www.somaya.se/start/ditt‑språk/english‑5996417

Project data show that police provide migrant victims 
with interpretation free of charge in almost all Member 
States (26). Police make information available to vic‑
tims in more than one language in 17 of the 28 states, 
and this is done by victim support services in 25 states. 
Support services offer interpretation and translation 
in at least 14 Member States. A particularly promis‑
ing organisation in this regard is the United Kingdom’s 
Victim  Support  England  and  Wales,  which  commis‑
sions interpreters from their ‘Language line’ to provide 
interpreting in approximately 200 languages. Victim 
Support Sweden’s helpline (BOJ) provides support in 
24 languages (Stöd på eget språk), while in Finland, 
the victim support organisation RIKU has translated 
general  information  about  the  organisation  and  its 
functions into 19 languages. For updated information 

and details, see the online tables, http://fra.europa.
eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/
comparative‑data/victims‑support‑services.

FRA ACTIVITY

Securing the fundamental rights of 
migrant victims with irregular status

Securing the fundamental rights of migrants in an 
irregular  situation –  those  who  do  not  fulfil  condi‑
tions  for  entry,  stay  or  residence  in  an  EU  Mem‑
ber  State –  remains  a  challenge.  FRA  therefore 
launched  a  project  to  examine  key  aspects  of  the 
social situation of irregular immigrants in the EU to 
assess the extent to which their fundamental rights 
are respected and protected. Areas covered by the 
research included health, housing, education, social 
care,  employment  status  and  fair  working  condi‑
tions, access to remedies as well as implications of 
immigration law enforcement.

While  EU  Member  States  have  a  right  to  control 
immigration,  non‑compliance  with  migration  reg‑
ulations  cannot  deprive  migrants  in  an  irregular 
situation  of  certain  basic  rights  to  which  they  are 
entitled  as  human  beings.  In  2011,  FRA  published 
a  report  which  examines  the  legal  and  practical 
challenges facing EU Member States as they strive 
to  guarantee  such  migrants’  fundamental  rights 
and proposes ways to incorporate those rights into 
the policies, laws and administrative practices that 
affect migrants in irregular situations.

See: FRA (2011), Fundamental rights of migrants in an irregu‑
lar situation in the European Union, http://fra.europa.eu/en/ 
publication/2012/fundamental‑rights‑migrants‑irregular‑ 
situation‑european‑union

Focusing on children

The  arrival  in  the  European  Union  of  thousands 
of  separated  children  from  third  countries  poses 
a serious challenge to EU institutions and Member 
States, since, according to the EU Charter of Funda‑
mental Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights 
of the Child, they have a duty to care for and protect 
children. A report by FRA examines the experiences 
and  views  of  336  separated,  asylum‑seeking  chil‑
dren  and  those  of  302  adults  responsible  for  their 
care across 12 EU Member States. The report looks 
at the children’s living conditions as well as legal is‑
sues and procedures which concern them. The dif‑
ferent  findings  correspond  to  the  various  settings 
in which these children live, thereby addressing the 
need  to  incorporate  children’s  views  and  experi‑
ences into work that seeks to inform policy action. 
The challenge for the EU and its Member States is 
how to deal with this issue effectively, while fully 
respecting  fundamental  rights  and  acting  in  the 
best interests of each child.

See: FRA (2010), Separated, asylum‑seeking children in European 
Union Member States, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/
separated‑asylum‑seeking‑children‑european‑union‑member‑states

80

4�2�2�  Victims of domestic violence or 

stalking

In March 2014, FRA launched the results of its survey 
on violence against women, covering all 28 EU Member 
States.171 The survey is based on face‑to‑face inter‑
views with a representative sample of 42,000 women. 
Trained interviewers carried out the interviews in 2012, 
asking respondents about their personal experiences 
of violence, including physical and sexual violence, 
psychological violence by a partner, stalking, sexual 
harassment and violence in childhood.172

Promising practice

Implementing special measures for 
victims of domestic violence

In  Belgium,  the  Centres  for  General  Welfare 
Work offer an internet platform to assist general 
practitioners  in  identifying  cases  of  domestic 
violence.172

Results from the FRA survey on violence against 
women  show  that  victims  contact  doctors  and 
healthcare  institutions  more  often  than  any 
other  professional  organisation  or  agency. 
Healthcare professionals thus have a key role to 
play  in  identifying  and  providing  initial  support 
to  victims  of  domestic  violence.  Evidence  also 
shows,  however,  that  doctors  and  other  clinical 
professionals  are  rarely  trained  for  an  effective 
response to domestic violence. Hence initiatives 
that  aim  at  training  and  informing  healthcare 
professionals  could  be  considered  as  promising 
practices.

See: FRA (2014), http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/
vaw‑survey‑main‑results

Support for specific groups of victims

FRA ACTIVITY

Surveying victims of domestic 
violence and stalking

The  FRA  survey  report  presents  a  comprehensive 
overview of women’s experiences of violence from 
the age of 15 and in the 12 months before the in‑
terview. Overall, the survey found that one woman 
in  three  (33  %)  surveyed  had  experienced  physi‑
cal  and/or  sexual  violence  by  a  (current  or  previ‑
ous) partner or non‑partner since the age of 15. The 
survey also showed that 8 % had experienced this 
type of violence in the 12 months before the survey.

The results highlight the vulnerability and specific 
needs  of  victims  of  sexual  violence.  Women  who 
have experienced sexual violence indicate a num‑
ber  of  psychological  consequences.  They  were 
also more likely to say – compared with victims of 
physical violence – that they felt ashamed, embar‑
rassed or guilty about what had happened, which 
can result in victims of sexual violence not report‑
ing  these  incidents  to  the  authorities.  Depending 
on the type of violence and perpetrator, some 61 % 
to  76  %  of  women  did  not  report  the  most  seri‑
ous  incident  of  physical  and/or  sexual  violence  to 
the  police  or  contact  any  other  support  services. 
The  survey  compared  the  experiences  of  victims 
who  contacted  some  service  or  organisation  for 
support.  Victims  were  least  satisfied  with  the  as‑
sistance  they  received  from  the  police,  compared 
with other services such as healthcare, social sup‑
port or victim support services, particularly in rela‑
tion  to  crimes  of  sexual  violence.  FRA  opinions  in 
the report on violence against women refer to the 
need for multi‑agency cooperation, involving police 
and  other  services  providers,  to  address  violence 
against women, as well as further specialised vic‑
tim support services in line with the Victims’ Direc‑
tive and the Istanbul Convention.

FRA  findings  show  that  all  EU  Member  States  of‑
fer  at  least  some  support  services  to  victims  of 
domestic  violence.  However  domestic  violence 
against women in Europe remains widespread and 
under‑reported and victims of violence are not ef‑
fectively supported by public services.173 It is hoped 
that the entry into force of the Istanbul Convention 
in 2014 will have a positive effect on the enforce‑
ment of the rights and protection of women across 
those Council of Europe member states that ratify 
the convention.

See main results report: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/
vaw‑survey‑main‑results; and data visualisation tool: http://fra.
europa.eu/DVS/DVT/vaw.php

171  FRA (2014), http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/

vaw‑survey‑main‑results.

172 See: www.caw.be/

173 See: EIGE (2012), http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/

violence‑against‑women‑victim‑support‑report and FRA (2014).

81

4�2�3�  Child victims

Targeted victim support services are available to child 
victims in most EU Member States. Some promising 
practices are highlighted in the accompanying text box.

Promising practice

Adopting special measures for child 
victims of sexual abuse

In  Italy,  the  Center  for  Maltreated  Children  and 
family crisis treatment (CBM) provides a 24‑hour 
helpline for individuals, as well as assistance and 
advice to social services in the area of child abuse. 
It also carries out awareness‑raising initiatives to 
support people directly involved in the protection 
of  abused  children  to  enable  them  to  recognise 
signs  of  child  abuse  and  to  understand  how  to 
respond.

In Hungary, the ESZTER Foundation’s Ambulance 
is  an  outpatient  centre  that  has  provided 
counselling,  psychotherapy  and  free  legal  aid 
services  for  the  survivors  of  child  sexual  abuse 
and sexual assault since 1994. Besides providing 
support  to  victims,  the  Foundation  organises 
campaigns, carries out research, publishes books 
and  leaflets  and  participates  in  national  and 
international networks and projects.

In  Latvia  in  2010–2011,  the  NGO  Centre  against 
Violence  Dardedze  developed  guidelines  for  the 
interviewing/interrogation procedure, which five 
NGOs  that  provide  social  services  for  abused 
children  tested.  The  programme was  funded  by 
a  Latvian‑Swiss  project  ‘A  child  as  a  victim  or 
witness in criminal proceedings’.

Source: www.cbm‑milano.it/who‑we‑are/; Eszter Foundation 
for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Violent Sexual Attacks 
(Alapítvány az Erőszakos Szexuális Támadást Elszenvedettek 
Rehabilitációjára – ESZTER), http://eszteralapitvany.hu/
ambulancia/; Centre against Violence Dardedze (Centrs pret 
vardarbību Dardedze) (2011b). Standard for Interview/
Interrogation Room (Nopratināšanas telpas standarts), 
http://rasasperles.lv/eeriks/projektu_faili/Standarts_mini.pdf

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

EIGE research on support services to 
victims of violence against women

A  2012  report  published  by  the  European  Institute  for 
Gender Equality (EIGE), a sister agency of FRA, analyses 
and  assesses  the  range,  number,  extent  and  actual  use 
of  support  services  in  EU  Member  States  and  identifies 
recommendations for improvement.

One of the issues the report highlights is shortcomings in 
state funding for specialised services for women victims 
of violence. The report points out that while all EU Mem‑
ber States have counselling centres/services for victims 
of violence, EIGE’s research shows that only nine Member 
States (Croatia, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, 
Malta, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom) fulfil 
the Council of Europe’s recommended ratio of one coun‑
selling  centre/service  per  50,000  women.174  Findings 
also point to insufficient specialised services for female 
victims of violence and the absence of mandatory gen‑
der‑sensitive training for professional helpers of victims 
and perpetrators.

See: Review of the Implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action in the 
EU Member States: Violence against Women – Victim Support, http://eige.
europa.eu/content/document/violence‑against‑women‑victim‑ 
support‑report

USEFUL TOOLS FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME 

Supporting women against violence 

This  app,  called  Clique180, 
guides  women  information 
on what to do if exposed to 
violence. The app, launched 
during  the  2014  World  Cup 
in Brazil, provides user‑gen‑
erated geodata on safe and 
unsafe  areas  and  explains 
what violence against wom‑
en  is.  The  self‑explanatory 
user‑friendly interface gives 
links to support services and 
to  Brazilian  federal  legis‑
lation  on  violence  against 
women.  The  app  also  in‑
cludes a direct call button to 
a support services hotline.

Available at: http://clique180.org.br/download

174

174 EIGE (2012).

82

Support for specific groups of victims

FRA ACTIVITY

Mapping child protection systems

Following  a  request  from  the  European  Commission,  FRA  mapped  child  protection  systems  in  all  28  EU  Member 
States. The research, due for publication in 2015, is designed to support the European Commission’s work on drafting 
EU guidelines for child protection systems. It aims thus: to identify the general scope, structures and functions of the 
child protection systems in place in the 28 EU Member States; to provide information on interagency cooperation and 
describe how specific needs of diverse groups of children are addressed; to identify and prioritise opportunities for 
the EU to support child protection systems; to provide information on transnational cooperation of child protection.

See: http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2014/mapping‑child‑protection‑systems‑eu

Researching child‑friendly justice

In January 2012, FRA launched a project which looks at the treatment of children in EU justice systems. The re‑
search aims to identify forms of child participation in criminal and civil judicial proceedings, as well as to collect 
promising practices, in 10 EU Member States. Practices of child participation in justice proceedings vary consider‑
ably across EU Member States. There are gaps in relation to clear, consistent standards and guidelines on how and 
when children should be involved. In 2011, the European Commission highlighted in the EU Agenda for the Rights 
of the Child that promoting child‑friendly justice is at the centre of its actions. Therefore, in close cooperation with 
the Commission, FRA has engaged in research to examine practices and procedures of child participation in justice 
proceedings which should conform to the Council of Europe’s guidelines on child‑friendly justice.

See: Council of Europe (2010), www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/childjustice/Guidelines%20on%20child‑friendly%20justice%20and%20their%20
explanatory%20memorandum%20_4_.pdf

The qualitative fieldwork research covers Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Poland, Romania, 
Spain and the United Kingdom. The project has two phases, the first focuses on adult views and the second on 
children’s views. Researchers carried out interviews with adults who work with children in 2012. These included 
legal professionals such as judges, prosecutors, court staff, legal counsellors, lawyers and law enforcement of‑
ficials. They also interviewed staff of social service providers, NGOs, psychologists and social workers. In 2013 and 
2014, researchers interviewed children to learn from their experiences as witnesses, victims or parties to civil and 
criminal proceedings in judicial proceedings. The focus is on cases of domestic violence, sexual abuse, neglect and 
custody conflicts in divorce proceedings. Child‑friendly material about justice and the rights of the child is being 
developed for child interviewees and other interested children.

The main findings of the professionals’ views will be presented in a comparative report at the end of 2014; chil‑
dren’s views will be presented in 2015.

See: http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2012/children‑and‑justice

Investigating violence against children with disabilites

FRA’s research project Children with disabilities: targeted violence and hostility looks at hostility, including vio‑
lence,  towards  children  with  disabilities  across  the  EU.  It  seeks  to  identify  the  legal  and  policy  framework,  as 
well as the services providing assistance to children and their families. The project, the findings of which will be 
published at the end of 2014, will also look for examples of promising practices of how some Member States are 
addressing the problem.

See: http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2012/children‑disabilities‑targeted‑violence‑and‑hostility

Reinforcing guardianship systems to cater for the specific needs of child victims 
of trafficking

The EU Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings 2012–2016 points out that, “there is at 
present  no  uniform  definition  of  a  guardian  and/or  representative  across  the  Member  States  and  their  roles, 
qualifications and understanding of competences vary from one Member State to another”. It also recognised that 
comprehensive child‑sensitive protection systems, ensuring interagency and multidisciplinary coordination, are 
key in catering to the needs of diverse groups of children, including victims of trafficking.

It therefore asked FRA to develop guidance, together with the European Commission, on the role of guardians 
and/or representatives of child victims of trafficking.

FRA  conducted  desk  research  through  its  research  network  Franet,  which  collected  data  and  information  on 
guardianship systems in Member States, focusing in particular on the situation of child victims of trafficking. FRA 
analysed the research findings alongside existing legal standards, including relevant EU legal instruments such as 
the EU Anti‑Trafficking Directive and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. To help develop the handbook, 
FRA  also  consulted  representatives  of  relevant  European  and  international  organisations,  NGOs,  and  selected 
practitioners and representatives of national guardianship authorities.

83

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

The resulting handbook, published in June 2014, aims to strengthen the protection of children by assisting national 
authorities and other stakeholders across the EU to further develop existing guardianship systems. It seeks to 
clarify the role of guardians as an essential component of an integrated child protection system. It underlines 
the importance of the role of guardians and legal representatives in preventing and responding to child abuse 
and exploitation, and in protecting and assisting child victims of trafficking. The handbook promotes a shared 
understanding of the main principles and features of a guardianship system. By presenting a set of core common 
principles and key standards it aims to improve conditions for children under guardianship and promote respect 
for their fundamental rights.

See: http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2014/guardianship‑provisions‑child‑victims‑trafficking

Tackling child trafficking in the EU

Trafficking in human beings is a major problem both in the EU and worldwide. Every year a substantial number of 
children fall victim to trafficking for sexual exploitation or other purposes. There are extremely low numbers of 
convictions in child trafficking cases. A FRA report finds that overall, the EU must do more to address the issue. In 
particular, it must improve the protection and care of victims.

See: FRA (2009), Child trafficking in the EU – Challenges, perspectives and good practices, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2009/
child‑trafficking‑eu‑challenges‑perspectives‑and‑good‑practices

4�2�4� Victims of hate crime

FRA research indicates that Member States are less 
advanced in the field of support for victims of hate 

crime  in  comparison  to  other  categories  of  crimes, 
although recognition of the need for support services 
in this area appears to be on the rise.

Promising practice

Instituting special measures for victims of hate crime

In Germany, the initiative Maneo supports gay and bisexual men affected by violence and discrimination. It 
records and documents homophobic offenses and engages in educational work. Support is offered to victims, 
persons close to the victim as well as witnesses of a crime related to homophobia. Maneo provides information 
and support on dealing with the police and other public authorities, refers victims to doctors or lawyers and 
advises on insurance issues or compensation.

See: http://www.maneo.de/en.html

In the Netherlands, police developed an online tool in 2013 to enable victims of hate crime to re port the incident 
to the police anonymously. The website explains the concept of hate crimes and encourages reporting. Victims 
are invited to see a police office and are informed about their rights and legal proceedings.

See: www.hatecrimes.nl/info‑en‑links/achtergrond

This tool was inspired by True Vision, a web facility providing information for victims and facilitat ing the reporting 
of hate crimes, implemented by the Association of Chief Police Officers in the United Kingdom (England and Wales).

See: www.report‑it.org.uk/home

In Poland, a practical guide to antidiscrimination measures for the police defines and describes various forms 
of  discrimination.  The  manual  of  good  antidiscrimination  practices  advises  on  how  to  deal  with  hate  crime 
and  discrimination  cases  in  a  sensitive  manner.  The  manual,  published  by  the  National  Network  of  Police 
Plenipotentiaries  for  Human  Rights  Protection  and  funded  by  the  Polish  police,  benefited  from  the  input  of 
a  number  of  stakeholders,  including  the  Polish  Human  Rights  Defender,  the  Government  Plenipotentiary  for 
Equal Treatment and several civil society or ganisations representing LGBT people, religious minorities, people 
with disabilities and the elderly.

See: Poland, Plenipotentiary of the Commander Chief of Police for the Protection of Human Rights (Pełnomocnik Komendanta Głównego 
Policji ds. Ochrony Praw Człowieka) (2013), Human first (Po pierwsze człowiek), Warsaw 2013, http://isp.policja.pl/isp/ 
prawa‑czlowieka‑w‑poli/aktualnosci/4344,dok.html

In  Slovenia,  the  Legebitra  project  provides  support  services  to  LGBT  persons  including  advice,  psychosocial 
assistance, a hotline, accompanying victims to the police, in court proceedings, and information on and referral to 
other available services. The project also engages in public advocacy, and provides police training programmes 
on dealing with victims of homophobic crime.

See: www.lmit.org/baza/drustvo‑informacijski‑center‑legebitra‑2.html

84

Support for specific groups of victims

FRA ACTIVITY

Investigating discrimination and hate crime against Jews

FRA conducted a survey asking self‑identified Jews their opinions about trends in antisemitism.

Key findings include:

•  Almost  half  (46  %)  of  the  respondents  worry  about  becoming  the  victim  of  an  antisemitic  verbal  insult  or 

 harassment in the next 12 months, and one third (33 %) fear a physical attack in the same period.

•  Almost two thirds (64 %) of those who experienced physical violence or threats of violence did not report the 
most serious incident to the police or to any other organisation. Three quarters (76 %) of the respondents who 
experienced  antisemitic  harassment  in  the  five  years  preceding  the  survey  did  not  report  the  most  serious 
incident. More than four in five (82 %) of those who said that they felt discriminated against in the 12 months 
preceding the survey because they are Jewish did not report the most serious incident to any organisation.

•  Large proportions of respondents said they considered emigrating from the Member State they live in because 

they do not feel safe there as Jews.

The survey collected data from 5,847 self‑identified Jewish respondents (aged 16 or over) in eight EU Member 
States:  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Italy,  Latvia,  Sweden  and  the  United  Kingdom.  These  countries 
cover over 90 % of the estimated Jewish population in the EU. It is the first EU survey to collect comparable data 
on Jewish people’s experiences and perceptions of hate motivated crime, discrimination and antisemitism.

See: FRA (2013), Jewish people’s experiences and perceptions of discrimination and hate crime in European Union Member States:  
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2013/jewish‑peoples‑experience‑discrimination‑and‑hate‑crime‑european‑union‑member; also see the data 
explorer tool at: http://fra.europa.eu/DVS/DVT/as2013.php

Charting discrimination against LGBT persons

FRA’s  online  survey  of  over  93,000  LGBT  people  across  the  EU  reveals  widespread  bullying  and  harassment 
that starts early on in school and carries over into work, housing, social services and access to other goods and 
services. Without proper intervention, such behaviour may turn into hate crime. About 80 % of the respondents 
recalled negative comments or bullying at school and close to 50 % said they had felt personally discriminated 
against or harassed because they were LGBT.

Key findings include:

•  A  quarter  (26  %)  of  all  EU  LGBT  survey  respondents  had  been  attacked  or  threatened  with  violence  in  the 

five years preceding the survey.

•  About three in 10 of all transgender respondents said they were victims of violence or threats of violence more 

than three times in the year preceding the survey.

•  A majority of respondents who had experienced violence (59 %) in the year preceding the survey said that the 

last attack or threat of violence happened partly or entirely because they were perceived to be LGBT.

•  Fewer than one in five (17 %) reported the most recent incident of hate‑motivated violence to the police.

See: FRA (2013), EU LGBT survey – European Union lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender survey – Results at a glance, http://fra.europa.eu/en/ 
publication/2013/eu‑lgbt‑survey‑european‑union‑lesbian‑gay‑bisexual‑and‑transgender‑survey‑results; see also the data explorer tool at:  
http://fra.europa.eu/DVS/DVT/lgbt.php

Exploring discrimination against minorities

The FRA’s EU‑MIDIS Data in Focus 6 presents data on respondents’ experiences of victimisation across five crime 
types: theft of or from a vehicle; burglary or attempted burglary; theft of personal property not involving force 
or threat (personal theft); assault or threat; and serious harassment. The average rate of criminal victimisation 
for all groups surveyed in EU‑MIDIS was 24 % – in other words every fourth‑person from a minority group said 
that they had been a victim of crime at least once in the 12 months preceding the survey. More ‘visible’ minority 
groups – that is, those who look visibly different to the majority population – report, on average, higher levels of 
victimisation in EU‑MIDIS than immigrant or minority groups who look similar to the majority population. These 
results, however, mask significant differences depending on the EU Member State in which generic respondent 
groups, such as ‘Roma’ or ‘Sub‑Saharan African’, live.

See: FRA (2012), EU‑MIDIS – Data in Focus 6: Minorities as Victims of Crime, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/eu‑midis‑data‑focus‑report‑6‑ 
minorities‑victims‑crime

85

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Tackling hate crime

Discrimination and intolerance persist in the EU despite the best efforts of Member States to root them out, FRA 
research shows. Verbal abuse, physical attacks and murders motivated by prejudice target EU society in all its 
diversity, from visible minorities to those with disabilities. Those who commit such ‘hate crimes’ – a loose term for 
this troubling reality – are drawn from across society. Their crimes cause incalculable damage to victims, families 
and society as a whole, making it ever more urgent to consider how best to respond. This FRA report is designed 
to help the EU and its Member States to tackle these fundamental rights violations both by making them more 
visible and by bringing perpetrators to account. This means encouraging victims and witnesses to report these 
crimes and increasing their confidence in the criminal justice system’s ability to deal with them decisively and 
effectively.

See: FRA (2012), Making hate crime visible in the European Union: acknowledging victims’ rights, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/
making‑hate‑crime‑visible‑european‑union‑acknowledging‑victims‑rights

4�2�5�  Victims of human trafficking

All EU Member States offer at least some support ser‑
vices to victims of human trafficking. In many Member 
States, however, such support appears to include only 

victims of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploi‑
tation, with victims of labour exploitation often lacking 
the specific support they need to enforce their rights 
and access justice.

Promising practice

Ensuring special measures for victims of trafficking

In 2010 in Bulgaria, the Training Centre at the Local Commission for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings in 
Varna together with the National Commission for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings developed a shelter 
for the temporary placement of victims of trafficking. The shelter’s key tasks are to provide the accommodated 
persons with decent living conditions and hygiene items, food and medicines, urgent medical and psychological 
help and an opportunity to establish contacts with their relatives, agencies and organisations. As of March 2012, 
the shelter is run by the SOS‑families at risk Foundation with national budget funding.

Source: Bulgaria (2010), National Commission for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, 2010 Annual Report, p. 46, and interview with 
representative of the SOS – families at risk Foundation, Varna, 7 March 2012

In the Czech Republic, La Strada Czech Republic carries out both reactive and proactive fieldwork seeking to 
identify cases of human trafficking. This includes the dissemination of information material on prevention and 
awareness‑raising initiatives.

See: www.strada.cz/en/our‑activities/field‑work

In Latvia, the NGO “Shelter “Safe House”” has created a multi‑disciplinary team, which provides the services of 
a social worker, social rehabilitator, psychologist, general practitioner, gynaecologist and lawyer.

See: www.patverums‑dm.lv/en/about‑us

FRA ACTIVITY

Examining the fundamental rights challenges affecting migrants in an irregular 
situation employed in the domestic work sector

Based on research conducted with (predominantly female) migrants and civil society organisations in 10 EU Mem‑
ber States, this report highlights some of the fundamental rights challenges affecting migrants in an irregular 
situation employed in the domestic work sector. It focuses on the experiences of migrants in an irregular situa‑
tion. While many fundamental rights issues raised in this report are common to other persons employed in the 
domestic work sector, the risk of violations is exacerbated for workers who do not have the right to stay in the 
host country.

See: FRA (2011), Migrants in an irregular situation employed in domestic work: Fundamental rights challenges for the European Union and its Member 
States, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/migrants‑irregular‑situation‑employed‑domestic‑work‑fundamental‑rights‑challenges

86

Support for specific groups of victims

Focusing on child victims

For more information on this report please see Section 4.2.3.

See: FRA (2009), Child trafficking in the EU – Challenges, perspectives and good practices, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2009/child‑trafficking‑ 
eu‑challenges‑perspectives‑and‑good‑practices

Bolstering guardianship systems

For more information on this report please see Section 4.2.3.

See: FRA (2014), Guardianship for children deprived of parental care: a handbook to reinforce guardianship systems to cater for the specific needs of 
child victims of trafficking, http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2014/guardianship‑provisions‑child‑victims‑trafficking

Addressing labour exploitation

FRA began research in 2013 into criminal forms of work exploitation of migrants across the EU, involving fieldwork 
in 21 EU Member States and desk research in all 28 Member States. The project looks at criminal exploitation of 
the work of EU and non‑EU migrants. It aims to collect information on the nature of and responses to severe forms 
of labour exploitation across the EU. It builds on previous FRA research, particularly concerning irregular migrants 
in domestic work, and is linked to work on victims’ rights and support.

Through fieldwork interviews and desk research, the project will collect information about the situation on the 
ground with regard to: the forms and frequency of labour exploitation incidents; the economic areas affected; 
common  risk  factors  that  contribute  to  labour  exploitation;  prevention  measures  aimed  to  reduce  the  risk  of 
labour exploitation; and the obligations of specific organisations involved in preventing labour exploitation and 
supporting victims and the cooperation that exists between them.

Using the information and evidence collected in 2014 by FRA, the Agency will prepare a comparative report based 
on the research findings, to be published in 2015.

See: FRA (forthcoming), Addressing severe forms of labour exploitation, http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2013/severe‑forms‑labour‑exploitation

USEFUL TOOLS FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

Sending life support messages to victims of human trafficking

The Victim Translation Assistance Tool uses audio messages 
to enable law enforcement officials and victim service provid‑
ers – often the first point of contact for victims of human traf‑
ficking  who  do  not  speak  the  language  of  the  country  they 
are  in –  to  provide  a  level  of  basic  assistance  to  victims  of 
human trafficking.

Thirty‑five basic questions and messages have been recorded 
and translated into 40 languages, including special questions 
for children.

The  tool  was  developed  by  UN.GIFT/UNODC,  the  Austrian 
Criminal Intelligence Service and the Austrian NGO LEFOE‑IBF. 
Human trafficking survivors contributed to the development 
of the messages, with the support of human trafficking experts who focus on victims’ needs.

Download the tool from: www.ungift.org/knowledgehub/en/tools/vita.html 

87

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

4�2�6�  Victims with disabilities

FRA research shows that at least a third of police ser‑
vices in EU Member States have special measures in 
place to deal with victims with a disability, while at 
least a quarter of victim support services also have 

special measures. Support measures are more likely to 
be provided on an ad hoc basis and most often relate to 
physical and communicative barriers faced by persons 
in a wheelchair, deaf persons or persons with intellec‑
tual disabilities.

Promising practice

Adopting special measures for victims with disabilities

Denmark  has  specialised  centres  for  women  (Handikap,  Udvikling  i  Kvindecentre,  HUK)  aimed  at  improving 
services for women and children with disabilities who were victims of violence. From 2005–2009, seven such 
crisis centres were established.

Source: Final evaluation of the project “Disability, Development of Centres for Women”, which operated from 2005‑2009, published by the 
National Board of Social Services, June 2009 (Afsluttende evalueringsrapport for projekt HUK i perioden 2005‑2009, udgivet af 
Servicestyrelsen i juni 2009)

In  Portugal,  the  Portuguese  National  Republican  Guard  has  special  teams  in  place  to  deal  with  victims  with 
a  disability.  These  teams  then  communicate  with  other  services  to  respond  to  the  specific  needs  of  these 
victims.

Source: Guarda Nacional Republicana, www.gnr.pt/default.asp?do=0z7zr/avn8r

In Spain, the police (Guardia Civil) has a Support Unit for people with mental health problems. CERMI is a Spanish 
Committee  representing  victims  of  gender  violence,  terrorism  and  traffic  accidents  with  various  disabilities. 
Depending  on  the  category  of  victim  and  the  type  of  disability,  CERMI  offers  free  legal  aid,  full  social  care, 
provisional financial support for urgent needs, and priority access to social housing.

Source: Unidad de Atención a Víctimas con Discapacidad Intelectual (UAVDI), www.pardo‑valcarce.com/uavdi/uavdi.php; Comité Español de 
Representantes de Personas con Discapacidad, www.cermi.es/es‑ES/Paginas/Portada.aspx

In  Romania,  children  with  disabilities  who  are  victims  of  abuse  or  violence  can  be  questioned  using  special 
techniques, such as the use of anatomic dolls, drawing or playing.

Source: Romania, Government Decision No. 49/2011 approving the Framework Methodology for the Prevention and Intervention in the 
Multi‑disciplinary Team or in the Network in Situations of Violence against Children and of Domestic Violence

In the United Kingdom, for victims with a disability, Victim Support uses a Needs Assessment Tool to identify 
specific needs and tailor its services. Victim Support enables people with a disability to access its services using 
enhanced telephony and other communication systems, such as by email, fax, SMS/text message, directly to 
a text phone or via text relay. It also arranges to see victims in a location that is accessible to wheelchair users, 
where relevant.

Source: www.victimsupport.org.uk/

Supporting victims with learning disabilities

A United Kingdom‑based not‑for‑profit social enterprise, Beyond Words, produced a guide on supporting victims 
aimed at people with learning disabilities. The guide offers the following features:

•  explanations of special measures to assist victims, making them feel more comfortable and helping them to 

give evidence;

•  description of the Crown Court officials;

•  short glossary of terms;

•  relevant organisations and literature for further help;

•  guidance on using the book.

Beyond Words publishes books and provides services for adults with learning disabilities, their family carers, 
support workers and other professionals.

For more information and to download the guide, Guide on Supporting Victims aimed at victims with a learning disability, see: www.
booksbeyondwords.co.uk/node/24

88

Support for specific groups of victims

Conclusions

FRA opinion

The Victims’ Directive requires Member States to take 
the needs of specific groups of victims into account. 
Specific needs must first be identified through an indi‑
vidual assessment, and then catered for either through 
the establishment of specialised support organisations, 
or that of specialised services within generic support 
organisations that offer targeted support to specific 
groups of victims.

FRA conducted limited research on specialised areas 
of  victim  support  (such  as  support  for  victims  of 
domestic violence, human trafficking and hate crime), 
underpinned by extensive FRA research on different 
vulnerable victim groups. Findings indicate that victims 
belonging to each of these groups may face particular 
problems in accessing justice, as opposed to victims 
who do not fall under any of the categories outlined 
in this chapter. These findings are supported by addi‑
tional parallel research by FRA, outlined in this chapter, 
on a wide range of issues related to victims of crime, 
including studies of specific categories, such as migrant 
victims, victims of hate crime, violence against women 
and child victims. FRA research shows that victims face 
problems such as vulnerability to secondary and repeat 
victimisation, intimidation and retaliation, fear of facing 
bias from police or support service staff and a related 
unwillingness to report the crime in question.

The findings of this project show that specialised ser‑
vices for at least some specific groups of victims exist 
in all Member States. Several promising practices are 
of note in this regard. The nature and scope of special‑
ised support offered, however, varies widely between 
Member States (also depending on the group in ques‑
tion). There is much room for improvement.

Ensuring individual assessments 
to identify possible specific 
protection needs

Article 22 of the Directive stipulates that EU Member 
States must ensure that individual assessments of vic‑
tims are carried out to identify possible specific protec‑
tion needs. Such specific protection needs might refer 
to victims who have suffered considerable harm due 
to the severity of the crime, victims of crime based on 
bias or a discriminatory motive, or victims made vul‑
nerable by their relationship to and dependence on the 
perpetrator. FRA findings show that the police often 
refers victims to generic support services who then 
have to further assess the possible individual need for 
specialised support.

EU  Member  States  must  ensure  that  individual 
assessments are carried out by the victim’s first point 
of  contact,  typically  the  police  or  a  victim  support 
organisation. Victims should be referred in a timely 
fashion  to  specialised  victim  support  services  that 
are  able  to  offer  them  the  help  and  support  they 
need. EU Member States must ensure that children 
are  always  treated  as  persons  in  need  of  special 
protection, taking into account their age, maturity, 
level  of  understanding  and  any  communication 
difficulties they may have, and in accordance with 
Article 22 (4) of the Victims’ Directive.

Recognising the important role played 
by support services for victims with 
specific needs in EU Member States

Whether integrated within a larger generic structure 
or established as separate, individual services, the Vic‑
tims’ Directive stipulates that support services should 
adopt an approach that considers the specific needs of 
victims, the severity of the harm suffered as a result of 
a criminal offence, and also the relationship between 
victims, offenders and their wider social environment. 
This would include, for example, the specific needs of 
children. Individual support services targeting victims 
with specific needs might be particularly well placed to 
promote the rights of certain groups. Hate crime vic‑
tims, for example, might feel more comfortable con‑
fiding in and relying on the expertise of smaller and 
highly specialised organisations advocating their rights.

FRA opinion

While  recognising  that  specialist  services  can 
either  be  established  separately  and  in  addition 
to  general  support  services  or  integrated  into 
a  generic  organisation,  EU  Member  States  should 
ensure the existence of support services, including 
trauma  support  and  counselling,  that  provide 
targeted  support  for  victims  with  specific  needs. 
These  include  child  victims,  victims  of  sexual 
violence and other gender‑based violence, victims 
with a disability, victims who are irregular migrants 
and  victims  of  violence  in  close  relationships. 
In  accordance  with  the  Victims’  Directive,  these 
services must, as a minimum, develop and provide 
suitable interim accommodation for victims in need 
of  a  safe  place  due  to  an  imminent  risk  of  repeat 
victimisation, of intimidation and of retaliation.

In  addition,  when 
implementing  the  Victims’ 
Directive,  EU  Member  States  should  pay  particular 
attention  to  the  protection  needs  of  victims  of 
crimes committed with a discriminatory motive.

89

5 

Performance standards 
and indicators

This chapter explores key elements of victim support 
services, specifically in terms of quality standards and 
performance.  Performance  in  this  context  includes 
cooperation and referrals at national level (for EU‑level 
cooperation see Section 3.5, and for cross‑border refer‑
rals see Section 2.6.4).

5�1�  Quality standards

While  Article  8  of  the  Victims’  Directive  requires 
needs‑based provision of “access to confidential victim 
support services, free of charge, acting in the inter‑
ests of the victims […]” (paragraph 1) and opens up 
the possibility for such support services to “be set up 
as public or non‑governmental organisations and may 
be organised on a professional or voluntary basis […]” 
(paragraph 4), no mention is made of quality standards. 
Recital 63 of the Victims’ Directive stresses that in order 
“to encourage and facilitate reporting of crimes and to 
allow victims to break the cycle of repeat victimisation, 
it is essential that reliable support services are available 
to victims and that competent authorities are prepared 
to respond to victims’ reports in a respectful, sensi‑
tive, professional and non‑discriminatory manner”. To 
review whether this is indeed the case, Article 28 of the 
directive requires Member States to share data regularly 
on how victims have accessed the rights it guarantees.

As expanded upon later, broad quality standards beyond 
the aspects of Recital 63 of the Victims’ Directive would 
reasonably be an essential criteria of victim support 
services and are therefore explored in more detail here.

This FRA research covered formally adopted key perfor‑
mance indicators on the quality of service provided by 
generic victim support services in EU Member States. It 
did not consider in detail how the standards were applied. 
The findings show that the generic support services of 

fewer than half of the Member States use such indica‑
tors (for updated information and details, see the online 
table, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/
data‑and‑maps/comparative‑data/victims‑support‑ser‑
vices/quality). Fourteen Member States have a generic 
support service for which quality standards have been elab‑
orated. Among these are examples of government‑devel‑
oped standards, either as a free‑standing set of norms or as 
part of obligations under which state‑operated or non‑state 
victim support services are provided instructions and fund‑
ing. National umbrella organisations have also developed 
standards. In several Member States, performance indica‑
tors include victims’ satisfaction, which is monitored by 
various kinds of surveys. For an explicit example of moni‑
toring qualitative and quantitative indicators on a quarterly 
basis, see the following promising practices.

In Austria, an inter‑ministerial working group developed 
standards for counselling women, children and situa‑
tional violence.175 In Belgium, the government needs to 
approve a victim support organisation for it to be recog‑
nised and receive funding. Required quality aspects con‑
cern, for instance, specific principles and criteria for staff 
training.176 The Czech Republic177 has designed a similar 
scheme and the Netherlands178 has one in operation. Cro‑
atian legislation enacted in 2013 gives detailed criteria for 
the delivery of service, including on the rights of victims 
and on what information must be provided.

175 Information provided by the White Ring (Weißer Ring) on 

15 April 2013 in response to an information request.
176 Belgium, Decree concerning Social Support to Litigants, 

18 July 2001, https://wallex.wallonie.be/PdfLoader.php?typ
e=doc&linkpdf=280‑277‑6444; Belgium, Decree concerning 
the general welfare, 19 December 1997; Belgium, Order of 
the Flemish government to implement the Decree concerning 
the general welfare, 12 October 2001.

177 Czech Republic, Decree No. 119/2013 Coll – Decree of 

7 May 2013 on Quality Standards of Services Provided 
according to the Law on Victims of Crime, 7 May 2013.
178 The information supplied is based on the FRA project on 

victims of crime, which involved fieldwork and desk research.

91

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

In Spain, the legislation setting up support services 
includes comprehensive listings of tasks and duties 
on victim support. Some services in Spain have also 
adopted ‘service charters’, detailing quality indicators 
such as the number of victims assisted by police or psy‑
chologists.179 In Poland, the Ministry of Justice adopted 
uniform standards of work for victim support services, 
specifying, for instance, requirements of confidentiality 
and victims’ consent.180

Promising practice

Monitoring quality standards

In  the  Netherlands,  Victim  Support  Netherlands 
has  a  dedicated  quality  manager  for  monitoring 
key performance indicators.

Source: Victim Support Netherlands

In Romania, there is a national standard for support 
services for victims of trafficking, which regulates 
their  organisation  and  management,  as  well  as 
confidentiality,  assessment  of  victims,  service 
provision,  inter‑institutional  communication  and 
post‑intervention monitoring.

Source: Romania, Government Decision No. 1238/2007 to 
approve the Specific National Standards for the Specialised 
Assistance Services for the Victims of Trafficking in Persons, 
10 October 2007

In the United Kingdom, both qualitative (for instance 
satisfaction with service) and quantitative (number 
of victims assisted) indicators are published annually 
and monitored quarterly in meetings between the 
Ministry of Justice and Victim Support.

Source: Victim Support England and Wales

In Germany, the umbrella organisation Working Group on 
Victim Support has developed standards for professional 
support, including a list of requirements, good practices 
and core principles.181 Similarly, but in more detail, the 
main victim support service in Portugal has a monitor‑
ing framework in place, looking at indicators related to 
the adequacy and quality of support.182 In Sweden, Victim 
Support Sweden has a quality management system that 
defines professional standards regarding responsiveness, 
confidentiality, quality of services and relations to other 
actors. They have also developed guidelines including 
mandatory training for staff as well as for volunteers 

179 See for example: Spain, Commitments Charter of the 
Support Service for Victims of Domestic Violence and 
Gender Violence of the City of Palma, p. 11, http://
policia.palmademallorca.es/portal/PALMA/policialocal/
RecursosWeb/DOCUMENTOS/1/22_3498_2.pdf.
180 Certificate of quality issued in August 2009 by 

the International Organization for Standardization 
(ISO 9001:2008). Source: APAV website.
181 See: www.opferhilfen.de/aufgaben.html.
182 See: http://apav.pt/apav_v2/index.php/pt/. For a legal 
framework governing shelters for victims of domestic 
violence see Portugal, Decree 1/2006 of 25 January 2006.

involved in providing victim support. Staff and volunteers 
also sign a confidentiality agreement to protect victims 
and their families.183

Many organisations have internal rules, such as the 
Association for the Prevention and Handling of Domes‑
tic Violence in Cyprus, which has protocols of operation 
and guidelines in place.184

In France,185 and similarly in Croatia,186 Finland,187 the 
Netherlands,188 Portugal,189 and the United Kingdom,190 
indicators include the level of satisfaction expressed 
by victims through surveys or simple questionnaires.

An integral part of the delivery of services to victims of 
crime must be clear standards of both qualitative and 
quantitative nature. The data must be collected in a sys‑
tematic way and monitored according to key indicators 
on a regular basis. Such a system can ensure that victim 
support is provided at an adequate level in accord‑
ance with the obligations under the Victims’ Directive. 
Article 28 requires Member States to share data as of 
November 2017 – and every three years thereafter – 
on “how victims have accessed the rights” under the 
directive. Recital 64 of the Victims’ Directive specifies 
that data shared should at least include “the number 
and type of the reported crimes and, as far as such 
data are known and are available, the number and age 
and gender of the victims”. Submissions could include 
statistical data from prosecutors or courts (reported 
crimes, investigations, persons prosecuted and sen‑
tenced) and police, and from healthcare and social wel‑
fare services as well as from civil society organisations, 
including support services (such as the number of refer‑
rals by police, or the number of victims requesting and 
receiving services). Victim surveys such as those carried 
out by FRA (see Chapter 4, in addition to the following 
examples) can also indicate the level of victims’ aware‑
ness of where to turn for support, reveal the level of 
unreported incidents as well as victims’ reasons for not 
reporting and show the satisfaction of those victims 
who do report incidents.

183 See in particular: brottsofferjouren.se/uploads/

userfiles/files/V%C3%A4rdegrund%20f%C3%B6r%20
Brottsofferjouren.pdf; see also Statute with minimum 
requirements for member of Victim Support Sweden, p. 7, 
www.brottsofferjouren.se/uploads/userfiles/files/lokala%20
stadgar%20med%20minimikravA4%202013.pdf. 
184 The information supplied is based on the FRA project on 

victims of crime, which involved fieldwork and desk research.
185 France, Ministère des Finances et des Comptes Publics (2014), 
p. 57, www.performance‑publique.budget.gouv.fr/sites/
performance_publique/files/farandole/ressources/medias/
documents/ressources/2014/PLF2014/liste_mpoi_plf2014.pdf.

186 The information supplied is based on the FRA project on 

victims of crime, which involved fieldwork and desk research.

187 Ibid.
188 Ibid.
189 Ibid.
190 Victim Support England and Wales (2012), www.victimsupport.
org.uk/sites/default/files/Trustees%20report%202011‑12.pdf. 

92

Performance standards and indicators

Victims’ reasons for not reporting incidents make it pos‑
sible to identify potential shortcomings in the quality of 
support services as perceived by their respective target 

audience, including factors such as limited geographic 
availability, inefficient referral mechanisms or lack of 
trust in the service.

Table 12:  Victims of violence who said they were satisfied with the assistance they received following the most 

serious incident, by type of perpetrator and type of violence

Any partner (current and/or previous)
Sexual violence
Physical violence
%
%

n

n

Victim support 
organisation

86

102

72

64

Non‑partner

Physical violence

%

(88)

n

29

Sexual violence
%

n

72

42

Notes: 

Respondents were able to give more than one answer, so categories may total to more than 100 %. Results based on a small 
number of responses are statistically less reliable, thus observations based on fewer than 30 responses are put in brackets.

Source:  

FRA gender‑based violence against women survey data set, 2012

Table 13:  Awareness of institutions or services that offer services to victims of violence against women, 

by EU Member State (%)

Not aware of any of the 
three organisations
19

Aware of one 
organisation
25

Aware of two 
organisations
27

Aware of all three 
organisations
29

Out of all respondents (N = 42,002). In Greece only two organisations were listed.

FRA gender‑based violence against women survey dataset, 2012

EU‑28

Notes:  

Source: 

Table 14:  Reasons for not contacting any organisation or service (other than the police) following the most 

serious incident, by type of violence and perpetrator (%)

Any partner (current 
and/or previous)

Non‑partner

Physical  
violence

Sexual  
violence

Physical 
violence

Sexual  
violence

Dealt with it myself/involved 
a friend/family matter
Too minor/not serious enough/
never occurred to me
Did not believe that anyone could help
Did not know where to turn to
No services were available
Services were too far away or difficult to get to
Could not afford it
The queues for services were too long
Fear of offender, of reprisal
Somebody stopped me or discouraged me
Shame, embarrassment
Did not want anyone to know/kept it private
Afraid I would be blamed
Thought it was my fault
Too emotionally upset
Would not be believed
Other reason
n

55

34

8
6
2
0
2
(0)
6
1
9
9
2
2
3
2
6
3,935

47

21

15
9
4
(1)
2
–
10
3
22
21
6
5
3
5
9
1,164

49

40

7
5
2
0
(1)
–
4
1
4
4
1
2
2
2
7
3,435

37

20

15
10
5
(2)
(2)
–
9
(1)
23
20
9
7
6
8
10
1,391

Notes:  

Respondents were able to give more than one answer, so categories may total to more than 100 %. Results based on a small 
number of responses are statistically less reliable, so observations based on fewer than 30 responses are put in brackets and 
observations based on fewer than five responses are suppressed (denoted with ‘–’).

Source: 

FRA gender‑based violence against women survey dataset, 2012

93

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Improving the quality of victim support 
services

Capacity  Building  for  EU  Crime  Support  Project  (Cabvis) 
was an EU‑wide project supporting victims of crime. Run‑
ning from January 2011 until December 2012, it aimed at 
promoting the implementation of EU measures for sup‑
porting victims of crime and improving the quality of vic‑
tim support services.

Partner  organisations  from  several  EU  Member  States 
participated in the project, which was funded by the Eu‑
ropean Commission’s Criminal Justice Programme. It tack‑
led difficulties arising from the lack of harmonised victim 
support services among EU Member States and from the 
legal  implementation  of  EU  measures.  In  this  way,  the 
project  addressed  the  gap  between  the  availability  of 
and the need for victim support in the EU.

Cabvis focused on activities including:

•  improving the networking and knowledge exchange of 
victim  support  organisations,  with  a  special  focus  on 
cross‑border victimisation issues;

•  informing about EU Member States’ legal sys tems and 

access to justice within them;

•  enhancing  the  training  capacity  of  victim  support  or‑

ganisations; and

•  organising  informational  seminars  for  police  officers, 

judicial practitioners and other stakeholders.

Victim Support Europe, the umbrella network for national 
victim  support  organisations  in  Europe,  developed  the 
project  with  financial  support  from  the  European  Com‑
mission  Directorate‑General  Justice.  Germany,  Hungary, 
the Netherlands, Portugal, and the United Kingdom par‑
ticipated in the project, which was managed by the Por‑
tuguese  Association  for  Victim  Support  (Associação  de 
Apoio à Vítima, APAV).

Products developed within the framework of the project 
include:

•  a leaflet on cross‑border victimisation, translated into 

32 languages;

•  a  handbook  on  the  116006 –  Helpline  for  victims  of 
crime,  to  support  the  implementation  of  the  Frame‑
work Decision 2007/116/EC through the inclusion of or‑
ganisational measures and the collection of promising 
practices; and

•  a training manual Victims of Crime in the EU, filling in 
some  gaps  discovered  over  time  and  other  gaps  cre‑
ated by the challenges the present EU package on vic‑
tims’ rights has brought about. Materials included are 
therefore focused on cross‑border victims and the shift 
in victims’ rights that the new directive might entail.

All publications are available on Victim Support Europe’s 
website.

See: http://victimsupporteurope.eu/about/projects/cabvis

94

5�2�  Quality in a cross-border 

setting

Another ‘quality standard’ that reflects EU reality is 
cross‑border support. Article 26 (1) of the Victims’ Direc‑
tive, concerned with “[c]ooperation and coordination of 
services”, requires the facilitation of cooperation aimed 
at “consultation in individual cases […]”. The Guidance 
Document suggests the “establishment of national con‑
tact points”.191 Consular authorities are also referenced 
as suitable to be involved in cross‑border cases. Travel 
companies, hotels, and insurance companies should 
make sure to reach persons who become victims of 
crime while travelling abroad. The Guidance Document 
stresses this target group as particularly vulnerable, 
given the likely challenges in terms of “different lan‑
guage, legal system and culture […]”.

Article 26 also calls on cooperation with European net‑
works working on victim support (see further Chapter 1 
and Section 3.5). Statistics from EU Member States (or 
regions within these) suggest that the proportion of 
non‑nationals approaching victim support can be sig‑
nificant. In Catalonia (Spain), about a third of the victims 
assisted were non‑nationals (either EU citizens or third 
country nationals).192

A number of practical aspects can greatly facilitate 
cross‑border support to victims of crime, such as the 
possibility to report crimes – and be supported – in their 
home country, an efficient referral system between 
victim support services in different Member States and 
information about services available in different lan‑
guages. A large number of Member States actually have 
systems in place that offer these services (for updated 
information and details, see the online table: http://
fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑
and‑maps/comparative‑data/victims‑support‑services/
cross‑border).

191 European Commission (2013), pp.49–50, http://
ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/files/victims/
guidance_victims_rights_directive_en.pdf.

192 Spain, Catalonian Regional Government, Departament de 

Justícia (2011), http://justicia.gencat.cat/web/content/home/
departament/estadistiques/dades_oav_2011.pdf.

Performance standards and indicators

Promising practice

Guaranteeing cross-border victim 
support

In the Grande Région (Belgium, France, Germany 
and Luxembourg) a joint working group on crime 
prevention published a basic guide for victims of 
crime on what to do in the event of a crime.

In  Ireland,  the  Tourist  Assistance  Service  offers 
immediate, free and confidential help to tourists 
in the country. This includes both emotional and 
practical  assistance –  such  as  with  language, 
contacting  authorities,  money  transfers,  and 
medical  needs.  In  Portugal,  the  generic  victim 
support  organisation  has  developed  targeted 
information to tourists who are victims of crime. 
The  Netherlands  offers  similar  services 
in 
Amsterdam  and  the  Hague,  through  the  tourist 
assistance  services,  and  in  Spain,  through  the 
Foreign  Tourist  Assistance  Service.  In  Croatia, 
joint  patrolling  with  police  from  countries  from 
which many tourists originate has proven useful 
for victims of crime.

Source: http://itas.ie/; Fonds slachtofferhulp (2011), 
Amsterdam Tourist Assistance Service, http://jaarverslag2010.
fondsslachtofferhulp.nl/2.2‑projecten/2.2.3‑directe‑hulp
‑aan‑slachtoffers/2.2.3.5‑amsterdam‑tourist‑assistance‑
service.html; denhaag.nl (2013), Tourist Assistance 
Service (theft), www.denhaag.nl/en/visitors/to/
Tourist‑Assistance‑Service‑theft.htm;  
http://apav.pt/proj/ and http://helptouristvictims.org/;  
www.guardiacivil.es/es/servicios/planturismoseguro/
ServicioAtencionTuristaExtranjero/index.html

Victim  Support  Sweden  operates  a  helpline 
offering support in 24 different languages (10 of 
which are official EU languages). They also operate 
a  webpage  through  which  you  can  request 
assistance  by  leaving  your  name  and  number/
email  (in  addition  to  some  basic  information 
about  the  crime),  and  a  volunteer  speaking  any 
of 27 specified languages will contact the victim 
within days.

Source: www.brottsofferjouren.se/

In  the  United  Kingdom  the  organisation  Victim 
Support  provides  interpreter  support  through 
a service offering some 200 languages.

Source: The information supplied is based on the FRA project 
on victims of crime, which involved fieldwork and desk 
research. See also: www.victimsupport.org.uk

Still, only 20 Member States have a formal cross‑bor‑
der referral system. The police, not just support ser‑
vices, also provide information in several languages in 
most (25) Member States. Half of the support services 
offer translation and interpretation services. Some of 
the support services offering information in other lan‑
guages do so in many different languages. Even though 
most provide information in less than a handful of lan‑
guages, some victim support organisations offer infor‑
mation in 10 (Cyprus, Hungary), 20 (Denmark, Finland 
and Sweden) and even 50 (Austria) languages, as well 
as (upon request) potentially up to 200 in the United 
Kingdom.

5�3�  Emerging indicators of 

victims’ effective access 
to criminal justice

FRA ACTIVITY

Expert meeting on indicators and 
victims of crime

In March 2012 FRA convened an expert meeting to 
identify possible indicators related to access to jus‑
tice  and  victims  of  crime.  The  meeting  examined 
how indicators can capture access to justice in the 
context of rights of victims.

The  experts  concluded  that  the  indicators  should 
focus  on  trust  in  services,  monitoring  and  data 
collection,  provision  of  information  and  support, 
participation in proceedings, protection of victims, 
compensation,  training  and  quality  and  effective 
cross‑border  victim  referral.  The  expert  meet‑
ing  stimulated  the  development  of  the  emerging 
indicators  outlined  in  this  section.  Victim  support 
services in the EU would benefit from having clear 
indicators  and  benchmarks  for  quality  standards. 
The European Commission will assess the situation 
in Member States (in relation to the Victims’ Direc‑
tive  but  also  in  relation  to  the  other  instruments 
concerned  with  rights  of  victims,  see  Figure  4  in 
 Chapter 1 as well as Figure 7). Indicators will prove 
useful  in  that  setting,  and  can  also  help  identify 
promising practices.

95

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Figure 7:  EU instruments related to victims of crime

Combating 
terrorism

Framework 
decision
13 June 2002
Art. 10 on VS

Implementa-
tion deadline
31 December 
2002

Trafﬁcking 
Directive
Art. 11 (1) 
on VS

Directive 
2011/36/EU
5 April 2011

Transposition 
deadline
6 April 2013

s
e
m

i
r
c

c
ﬁ
i
c
e
p
S

Past transposition deadline

To be proposed

Source 

FRA 2014, EUR‑Lex

Combating 
sexual 
abuse and 
exploitation
of children
and child 
pornography
Art. 19 (1) 
on VS

Directive 
2011/92/EU
13 December 
2011

Transposition 
deadline
18 December 
2013

Racism and 
xenophobia

Framework 
decision
2008/913/JHA
28 November 
2008
Nothing on VS

Implementa-
tion deadline
28 November 
2010

Employer 
sanctions 
directive
– illegally 
staying TCNs 

Directive 
2009/52/EC
18 June 2009
Nothing on VS

Implementa-
tion deadline
20 July 2011

For victims of 
road trafﬁc 
accidents, 
revision of 
existing EU 
legislation on 
conﬂict of laws 
to ensure that 
time limits 
applicable in 
the home 
country can 
apply

COM press 
release 
IP/11/585
18 May 2011

DK not taking part

UK not taking part

IE not taking part

Analysing the Victims’ Directive, there are a number 
of specific requirements that could serve as indicators. 
Article 8 of the Victims’ Directive requires needs‑based 
provision of:

1.  “access to confidential victim support 

services […]”

2.  “free of charge […]”
3.  “acting in the interests of the victims before, 
during and for an appropriate time after crimi‑
nal proceedings […, including for] family mem‑
bers […]” (“paragraph 1)

and the facilitation of:

4.  “referrals of victims, by the competent author‑
ity that received the complaint and by other rel‑
evant entities, to victim support services […]” 
(paragraph 2); this is further elaborated on in the 
recitals, stressing that in cases where a victim 
brings a crime to the attention of authorities 
such as the police (but also “hospitals, schools, 
embassies, consulates, welfare or employment 
services”),193 these should be able to refer vic‑
tims to the appropriate support services (so as 
to avoid “repeat referrals”) (Recital 40)

Paragraph 4 says that such support services could “be 
set up as public or non‑governmental organisations and 
may be organised on a professional or voluntary basis”. 

193 European Commission (2013), p. 25.

Article 9 of the Victims’ Directive offers some minimum 
requirements:

5.  “[I]nformation, advice and support relevant to 
the rights of victims, including on […] compen‑
sation schemes […] and on their role in criminal 
proceedings […]” (paragraph 1 (a))

6.  Information about or referral to specialised sup‑

port services (paragraph 1 (b))

7.  E m ot i o n a l  a n d  p s yc h o l o g i ca l  su p p o r t 

(paragraph 1 (c))194

8.  Advice on financial and practical issues related 

to the crime (paragraph 1 (d))

9.  Advice on “risk and prevention of secondary 
and repeat victimisation, of intimidation and of 
retaliation […]” (paragraph 1 (e))

10. Assessment  of  specific  needs  of  the  victim 

(paragraph 2)

11.  Access to victim support should not be depend‑
ent on the victim making a formal complaint 
about the crime (paragraph 5)

As for specialist support services (required under Arti‑
cle 8 (3)), details are provided in Article 9 (3), prescrib‑
ing the provision of:

194 According to Recital 39, support services are “not required 
to provide extensive specialist and professional expertise 
themselves […] should assist victims in calling on existing 
professional support, such as psychologists”.

96

 
Performance standards and indicators

12.  Shelters “for victims in need of a safe place due 
to an imminent risk of secondary and repeat vic‑
timisation, of intimidation and of retaliation […]” 
(sub‑paragraph a)

13.  “[T]argeted and integrated support [taking “into 
account the relationship between victims, per‑
petrators, children and their wider social envi‑
ronment  to  avoid  the  risk  of  assessing  their 
needs in isolation or without acknowledging 
their social reality […]”]195 for victims with spe‑
cific needs, such as victims of sexual violence, 
victims of gender‑based violence and victims of 
violence in close relationships, including trauma 
support and counselling”. (sub‑paragraph b)

The Victims’ Directive elaborates on the nature of sup‑
port services in the recitals:

14. “[P]rovided through a variety of means, without 
excessive formalities and through a sufficient 
geographical distribution […]” (recital 37)

15.  Such referrals should ensure “that data pro‑
tection requirements can be and are adhered 
to […]”. (recital 40)

16. “Member States should encourage and work 
closely with civil society organisations, […] in 
particular in policymaking initiatives, informa‑
tion and awareness‑raising campaigns, research 
and education programmes and in training, as 
well as in monitoring and evaluating the impact 
of measures to support and protect victims of 
crime […]” (recital 62)

17.  “[P]ublic services should work in a coordinated 
manner and should be involved at all adminis‑
trative levels — at Union level, and at national, 
regional and local level […]” (recital 62)

18. “Member  States  should  consider  developing 
‘sole points of access’ or ‘one‑stop shops’, that 
address victims’ multiple needs when involved 
in criminal proceedings, including the need to 
receive information, assistance, support, pro‑
tection and compensation.” (recital 62)

19. “[T]o  encourage  and  facilitate  reporting  of 
crimes and to allow victims to break the cycle 
of repeat victimisation, it is essential that reli‑
able support services are available to victims 
and that competent authorities are prepared 
to respond to victims’ reports in a respectful, 
sensitive, professional and non‑discriminatory 
manner [… practitioners likely to receive com‑
plaints] should be appropriately trained to facili‑
tate reporting of crimes […]” (recital 63)

20. “[M]easures should be put in place to enable 
third‑party reporting, including by civil society 
organisations.” (recital 63)

21.  “It  should  be  possible  to  make  use  of  com‑
munication technology, such as e‑ mail, video 
recordings or online electronic forms for making 
complaints.” (recital 63)

The Guidance Document on transposition and imple‑
mentation of the Victims’ Directive, issued by DG Justice 
of the European Commission,196 stresses some addi‑
tional points (pp. 24–28):

22. “Support  should  be  available  for  the  earli‑
est possible moment after a crime has been 
committed […]”

23. “[E]stablish internal procedures or protocols for 
assessing the support needs of victims and their 
families […]”

24. Allocate the phone number 116‑006 for victim 
support helpline (and 116‑016 for victims of gen‑
der‑based violence)

25. “Establishing a national fund for crime victims 
to fund non‑public [victim support organisations 
which] could be directly State funded, funded for 
example by proceeds gathered by financial pen‑
alties, surcharges or fees imposed on offenders, 
from confiscated assets or as a solidarity fund 
financed by insurance policies […]”

There are thus 25 explicit criteria required or strongly 
suggested for the delivery of effective victim support 
services and to correctly transpose the Victims’ Direc‑
tive. In addition, for victim support to be effective, as 
discussed in this chapter in particular, the following ele‑
ments are of key importance:

26. Criteria capturing the capacity to handle all vic‑

tims of crime
27.  Quality standards
28. Accommodation of ‘cross‑border victims’

With these three elements added, there are 28 criteria 
(some with more than one element, marked as a, b, etc.) 
that could serve as the basis for indicators of victim 
support services in an EU Member State.

Structural, process and outcome 
indicators

FRA applies the indicator framework developed by 
the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human 
Rights, which groups indicators into structural, pro‑
cess and outcome categories. This approach enables 
the assessment first of legal and policy provisions – 
reflecting  “acceptance,  intent  and  commitment”  to 
human rights standards (structural indicators), second, 
the assessment of specific measures – implementing 
these legal and policy provisions (process indicators), 

195 European Commission (2013), p. 28 (referring to requirements 

under the Istanbul Convention).

196 Ibid.

97

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

and third, the assessment of changes in the enjoyment 
of rights, as experienced by the rights holders (outcome 
indicators).197 Organising the 28 key criteria as indicators 
(or in some cases as issues on which more exact indica‑
tors would have to be formulated) within this frame‑
work highlights that they are basically of a structural 
and procedural nature.

By adding outcome indicators, the overview in Table 17 
could be seen as capturing the situation on the ground.

All these indicators – under structure, process and out‑
come – would aim to capture victim support services 
narrowly. Other aspects of rights of victims of crime 
would be closely related and in part overlapping, such 
as those related to participation in criminal proceed‑
ings (some are included in the report and some addi‑
tional  ones  are  available  online,  http://fra.europa.
eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/
comparative‑data/victims‑support‑services).

Table 15:  Structural indicators for victim support services (with indications of availability)

t
n
e
m

t
i

m
m
o
c
d
n
a
t
n
e
t
n

i

,

e
c
n
a
t
p
e
c
c
a
‑

l

a
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
S

Sole point of access / ‘one‑stop‑shop’ (18)

Available in part online (FRA)

Support provided through a sufficient 
geographical distribution (14b)

Access not dependent on complaint (11)

Available online (FRA)

Support available at earliest possible moment (22)

Before, during and after trial (3)

Shelters in place (12)

Available in part through EIGE

Dedicated EU‑wide phone number (116 006) (24)

Available online (FRA)

Complaints possible also by communication technology (21)

Available on file with FRA

Third‑party reporting possible, including by CSOs (20)

Reporting possible in country of origin (28a)

s
c
i
s
a
B

g
n
i
t
r
o
p
e
R

n Protection when transferring data – automatic transfer (15a)
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
p

Victim’s consent needed to transfer data (15b)

Legal basis for transferring of data (15c)

a
t
a
D

y
t
i
l

a
u
Q

d
n
u
f
&

s Quality standards in place (27)

National crime victim fund (25)

Available online (FRA)

Available online (FRA)

Available online (FRA)

Available online (FRA)

Available online (FRA)

Notes: 

Italics in the right‑hand column indicates partial data availability by EU Member State and roman indicates full availability; see: 
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/comparative‑data/victims‑support‑services

Source: 

FRA, 2014

197 UN Office of the High Commission for Human Rights (2012), 

pp. 34 et seq.

98

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 16:  Process indicators for victim support services (with indications of availability)

Performance standards and indicators

e Information, advice and support (5a)

c
i
v
d
a
&
n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n

I

y
t
i
c
a
p
a
C

y
c
a
u
q
e
d
A

Information on compensation scheme (5b)

Information on role in criminal proceedings (5c)

Information /referral to specialised service (6)

Emotional and psychological support (7)

Advice on financial and practical aspects of the crime (8)

Advice on risk and prevention (9)

Capacity to service all victims in need (26)

Free of charge (2)

Access to confidential service (1)

Support provided without excessive formalities (14a)

Specific needs assessment (10)

Internal procedure for assessing the needs (23)

Targeted and integrated support (13)

Respectful, sensitive, professional and 
non‑discriminatory manner (19a)

Training for professionals likely to receive complaints (19b)

i

n Referrals by competent authorities to support services (4)
o
i
t
a
n
d
r
o
o
C

Member States in close cooperation with CSOs (16)

Public services joined up – horizontally and vertically (17)

between support providers (28b)

r Cross‑border contacts established 
e
d
r
o
b
‑
s
s
o
r
C

Information available in different languages (28c)

Available online (FRA)

Available online (FRA)

Available online (FRA)

Available online (FRA)

Available online (FRA)

Notes: 

Right‑hand column indicates full data availability; see: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/data‑and‑maps/
comparative‑data/victims‑support‑services

Source: 

FRA, 2014

Table 17:  Outcome indicators for victim support services (with indications of availability)

Level of ‘customer satisfaction’ through surveys

&
y
t
i
l

a
u
Q

y
t
i
c
a
p
a
c

Quality of the support provided, in terms of sensitivity, timeliness 
and accessibility

Ratio of victims of crime supported v. estimated total

s Victims’ awareness of their rights
s
e
n
e
r
a
w
A

Duty bearers’ awareness of victims’ rights

Victims’ awareness of victim support services and what they offer See Table 13 

Available  for  specific  groups 
from FRA surveys

t Trust in police and judges
s
u
r
T

Trust in victim support as neutral providers of support

E.g. Eurobarometer

See Table 14

Source: FRA, 2014

99

s
n
o
i
t
a
g

i
l

b
o
t
n
e
m
e
p
m

l

i

o
t

t
r
o
f
f
e
‑

s
s
e
c
o
r
P

d
n
u
o
r
g
e
h
t
n
o
s
t
l
u
s
e
r

‑
e
m
o
c
t
u
O

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Establishing quality control standards 
that respect the independence of civil 
society

Recital 63 of the Victims’ Directive stresses that in order 
“to encourage and facilitate reporting of crimes and to 
allow victims to break the cycle of repeat victimisation, 
it is essential that reliable support services are available 
to victims and that competent authorities are prepared 
to respond to victims’ reports in a respectful, sensitive, 
professional and non‑discriminatory manner”. To assess 
whether a given Member State’s services meet these 
criteria, clear and consistent quality control mechanisms 
should be established, including across borders.

FRA opinion

FRA  stresses  the  responsibility  of  EU  Member 
States  to  develop  a  comprehensive  network  of 
victim  support  services  and  to  monitor  support 
services’ performance, ensuring that they conform 
to  designated  standards  while  also  respecting  the 
independence of civil society.

FRA  analysis  highlights  good  examples  of  criteria 
and/or  membership  conditions  developed  by 
EU‑level umbrella organisations active in the fields 
of networking, coordinating and promoting generic 
victim  support,  or  supporting  specific  groups 
of  victims.  Such  criteria  include,  for  example: 
separation  between  victim  support  and  probation 
services,  independence  from  political  activities, 
confidentiality  of  service  users  (i.e.  victims)  and 
transparency  concerning  sources  of  funding.  Such 
standards  could  form  a  basis  on  which  to  explore 
additional  criteria  that  could  be  developed  at 
national, regional and EU levels, as appropriate.

Inspiration  for  a  system  of  quality  control  for 
victim  support  services  could  also  be  drawn  from 
the peer‑review system used globally by National 
Human  Rights 
Institutions  (a  self‑accreditation 
system under the so‑called Paris Principles).

To  this  end,  and  taking  these  examples  into 
account, Member States could consider establishing 
an accreditation system for victim support services.

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Conclusions

This chapter has looked at quality aspects of victim sup‑
port, including in cross‑border cases. The Victims’ Direc‑
tive is not explicitly on quality and performance. But 
for victim support to be effective and efficient, quality 
standards need to be at the core of the design, improve‑
ment and continued delivery of victim support. An inte‑
gral part of quality standards are indicators. By using 
the established methodology of clustering indicators 
under the headings of structural, process, and outcome, 
the full range of actions that need to be taken – from 
acceptance and intent, through efforts, to results on 
the ground – can be captured. This in turn will facilitate 
measuring progress as well as enabling comparison 
between systems, which is needed for a solid assess‑
ment of what practices actually work. This report has 
suggested a range of indicators within this methodo‑
logical framework, based on existing standards for the 
delivery of victim support services. A more advanced 
and refined version of these indicators – which should 
be validated by relevant stakeholders, such as victim 
support organisations – would be a useful first step for 
a systematic follow‑up and assessment of practices. 
Indicators would have to be coupled with clear bench‑
marks on the required level of ‘compliance’. A system 
for data collection to populate all of the indicators would 
also have to be conceived. In this context Article 28 
of the Victims’ Directive should be recalled, requiring 
Member States to share data, as of November 2017 and 
every three years thereafter, on victims’ rights in prac‑
tice under the directive.

UNODC‑UNECE manual on victimisation 
surveys

In 2005, the UN established a joint Task Force on Victim 
Surveys, in which FRA participated. Amongst other pro‑
jects,  the  task  force  developed  a  manual  on  victimisa‑
tion surveys. The purpose of this manual was to provide 
basic  information  for  developing  national  victimisation 
surveys; to identify key issues to assist in decision mak‑
ing  about  survey  approach,  methodology,  analysis  and 
presentation of results; to improve comparability of vic‑
tim  survey  data  across  countries;  and  to  identify  best 
practices. It answers typical questions faced when plan‑
ning a victimisation survey, including how often surveys 
should be repeated, which types of crime should be in‑
cluded, and how to identify the correct sampling design.

See: www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data‑and‑analysis/Manual‑on‑victim‑
surveys.html

100

Benchmarking quality standards

Quality standards for victim support services would 
benefit  from  clear  indicators  and  benchmarks.  FRA 
research covered formally adopted key performance 
indicators on the quality of service EU Member States’ 
generic victim support services provide. Such indica‑
tors, when measured over time, would help assess the 
implementation and effect of the Victims’ Directive on 
victims and on their enjoyment of rights in practice.

FRA opinion

FRA  emphasises  the  importance  of  defined  and 
generally accepted organisational and performance 
standards for victim support delivery. FRA findings 
show  that  generic  support  services  have  adopted 
such  standards  in  fewer  than  half  of  the  Member 
States.

Article 28 of the Victims’ Directive obliges Member 
States to communicate to the European Commission 
available  data  on  how  victims  have  accessed 
the  rights  established  in  the  Victims’  Directive, 
beginning  in  November  2017  (two  years  after  the 
transposition  deadline)  and  every  three  years 
thereafter.  Such  data  should  take  into  account 
indicators  related  to  victim  support  and  victims’ 
rights,  including  performance  indicators  related  to 
the  quality  of  service  provided  by  generic  victim 
support  services.  Indicators  about  the  service 
provision  quality  should  also  be  directly  collected 
from victims who use these services.

Victim  support  organisations  and/or  governments, 
as appropriate in the respective EU Member States, 
should  consider  developing  shared  indicators  on 
victim support – and more broadly on victims’ rights. 
Data for such indicators could in part make use of 
the  required  collection  of  data  under  Article  28  of 
the Victims’ Directive.

Performance standards and indicators

101

General conclusions

When it comes to transposing the Victims’ Directive at 
Member State level, one of the greatest challenges is 
the obligation to ensure that all victims have access to 
victim support services in accordance with their needs.

Where robust structures exist, they are often less the 
result of decisions and actions taken by governments 
than of devoted private initiatives and extensive volun‑
tary contributions, often developing from a grassroots 
level over many years. Hence, in establishing or extend‑
ing a network of support services by the end of 2015, 
the undoubted achievements in a number of Member 
States may not necessarily provide a model of how to 
proceed as they might have come about under consider‑
ably different cultural parameters and time constraints.

What therefore may prove relevant to policy makers 
are some encouraging developments in countries that 
do not look back at a history of continuous robust civil 
society structures and a long‑established culture of pri‑
vate initiatives, including volunteering by citizens. In 
this respect, what has recently been achieved under 
less favourable conditions in partnership with ministries 
and private initiatives, for example in Poland and Croa‑
tia, deserves attention and recognition. At the same 
time, Member States with robust and well‑established 
services for victims of crime should be encouraged to 
continue their work and to revise and adjust initiatives – 
where necessary – to reflect recent developments and 
the demands of the Victims’ Directive, including the 
recognition of ‘new’ victims groups.

By providing an overview of victims’ rights in Euro‑
pean and national law, the principles of victim support 
generally and the concrete application of these mat‑
ters through victim support services in EU Member 
States more specifically, this report emphasises the 
fundamental rights dimension of victim support. The 
message is that the rights of victims to access jus‑
tice and be protected against repeat victimisation will 
often remain theoretical and illusory as long as the 
victim is not advised and supported in a professional 
manner. In the language of human rights: the report is 
less interested in abstract fundamental rights stand‑
ards than in the processes that mediate between the 
abstract standards and the final outcome at the level 
of individual rights holders. Whether victim support 
services are available or not is one of the key factors 
determining the practical effectiveness of victims’ 
access to justice, along with factors such as victims’ 
awareness of their rights or their trust in the police. 
It is the daily work of the staff of victim support ser‑
vices across the EU, including volunteers, that cru‑
cially contributes to making victims’ rights of access 
to justice a reality.

This  report  highlights  that  governments,  in  taking 
responsibility for ensuring victims’ access to support 
services,  should  respect  the  contributions  and  the 
independence of NGOs working in this area. Whether 
Member States are successful in ensuring the availabil‑
ity of support services may depend on their readiness 
to cooperate with and to support NGOs often drawing 
from a wealth of experience and an intimate knowledge 
of the needs of victims. Hence, safeguarding victims’ 
access to support services and to justice is one of the 
policy areas that lends itself particularly well to a part‑
nership between states and non‑governmental actors. 
The FRA opinions found in this report are intended to 
support the further development of such a partnership 
through a fundamental rights‑based approach, focus‑
ing on areas in which Member States need to invest 
further to meet the requirements of the Victims’ Direc‑
tive regarding the provision of victim support services.

The research findings presented in this report show 
that despite differences in the historical development 
of victim support services throughout the EU, it is pos‑
sible  to  identify  some  similarities  among  Member 
States. In a number of Member States, victim support 
services  began  to  develop  in  the  1970s  and  1980s, 
often driven by important socio‑political trends such 
as women’s movement. Most were initiated by NGOs 
or private organisations founded by police and parole 
officers, lawyers, journalists and activists. The involve‑
ment of volunteers has been key to this development, 
with volunteerism constantly increasing across the EU. 
A long‑standing culture of volunteerism is linked to 
a higher provision of generic victim support services.

While there are still no generic victim support services 
in eight Member States, all of these provide services for 
specific groups of victims, typically child victims, vic‑
tims of human trafficking and domestic violence. This 
type of targeted support has played an important role 
in the overall development of support services in many 
Member States in which victim support services were 
initially only linked to specific groups of victims of crime.

EU legislative developments concerning the rights of 
victims of crime have also played a role in the develop‑
ment of support services at the national level. A focus 
on the effective implementation of the Victims’ Direc‑
tive has in some Member States led to the development 
of promising practices (some of which are included in 
this report), which could potentially serve as models for 
further developments across the EU. While legislation 
on the rights of victims has improved in EU Member 
States, the actual situation on the ground needs to be 
carefully reviewed, as the evidence presented to FRA 
warrants concerns about implementation in practice.

103

References

Avis du Conseil National des Villes (2013), L’aide aux 
victimes  d’actes  de  criminalité  sur  les  territoires: 
quelle politique publique pour 2013 et 2014, 17 Janu‑
ary 2013, www.ville.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/aide_aux_vic‑
times‑avis_17_01_2013_def.pdf.

Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers (1985), Rec‑
ommendation Rec(85)11, 28 June 1985, https://wcd.coe.
int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=697267&Site=CM&BackColorInter
net=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLo
gged=F5D383.

Belgium  (1996),  National  Forum  for  Victim  Support 
Policy (Nationaal Forum voor slachtofferbeleid), Stra‑
tegic Plan for a National Victim Support Policy (Strat‑
egisch plan van een nationaal slachtofferbeleid).

Belgium (1997), Decree concerning the general wel‑
fare  (Décret  relative  à  l’aide  sociale  générale), 
19 December 1997.

Belgium (2001), Order of the Flemish government to 
implement the Decree concerning the general welfare 
(Arrêté du gouvernement Flamand portant exécution 
du decrêt du 19 décembre 1997 relatif à l’aide sociale 
générale), 12 October 2001.

Belgium (2001), Decree concerning Social Support to Lit‑
igants (Décret relative à l’aide sociale aux justiciables), 
18 July 2001, https://wallex.wallonie.be/PdfLoader.php
?type=doc&linkpdf=280‑277‑6444.

Bulgaria (2006), Legal Aid Act (Закон за правната 
помощ),  1  January  2006,  www.lex.bg/bg/laws/
ldoc/2135511185.

Bulgaria, National Commission for Combating Traffick‑
ing in Human Beings (2010), Annual Report.

Council  Framework  Decision  2001/220/JHA  of 
15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal 
proceedings, OJ L 82/1.

Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating 
to compensation to crime victims, OJ L 261.

Council of the European Union (2011), Resolution of the 
Council 2011/C 187/01 of 10 June 2011 on a Roadmap for 
strengthening the rights and protection of victims, in 
particular in criminal proceedings, OJ C 187.

Council of Europe (2010), Guidelines of the Committee of 
Ministers of the Council of Europe on Child‑friendly Justice, 
www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/childjustice/Guide‑
lines%20on%20child‑friendly%20justice%20and%20
their%20explanatory%20memorandum%20_4_.pdf.

Council of Europe (2011), Convention on preventing and 
combating violence against women and domestic vio‑
lence, CETS No. 210.

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No.  168/2007  of  15  Febru‑
ary 2007 establishing a European Union Agency for 
Fundamental  Rights,  OJ  2007  L  53/2,  http://europa.
eu/about‑eu/agencies/regulatory_agencies_bodies/
policy_agencies/fra/index_en.htm.

Court of Appeal of England and Wales, R v. Christopher 
Killick [2011] EWCA Crim 1608.

Court of Justice of the European Communities, Opinion 
of Advocate General Carl Otto Lenz, Cowan v. Trésor 
public, 186/87, 2 February 1989.

Crawford, A., and Goodey, J. (2000), Integrating a victim 
perspective  within  criminal  justice:  international 
debates, Aldershot, Ashgate.

Croatia, Ministry of Justice (Ministarstva pravosuđa) 
(2012), Regulation on the internal organisation of the 
Ministry of Justice (Uredba o unutarnjem ustrojstvu Min‑
istarstva pravosuđa), Art. 346, 5 March 2012.

Czech  Republic,  Law  on  Victims  of  Crime  (Zákon 
o  obětech  trestné  činnosti),  No.  45/2013  Coll, 
30 January 2013.

Czech Republic, Decree No. 119/2013 Coll – Decree of 
7 May 2013 on Quality Standards of Services Provided 
according to the Law on Victims of Crime (Vyhláška za 
dne 7. května 2013 o standardech kvality poskytovaných 
služeb podle zákona o obětech trestných činů).

Denmark, Act no. 349 of 13 May 1997 strengthening 
the legal position of victims of crime, etc. (Lov nr. 349 
af 13. maj 1997 om styrkelse af retsstillingen for ofre 
for kriminallitet mv.).

Denmark, Circular no. 10462 of 8 July 1998 from the 
Ministry of Justice, on the establishment of a network 
of local, voluntary victim support services (Cirkulære 
nr. 10462 af 8 juli 1998 om oprettelse af et net af lokale, 
frivillige offerrådgivninger), 8 July 2008, www.retsin‑
formation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=586.

Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating 
trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims.

105

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the 
sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and 
child pornography.

Directive 2012/29/EU of the European parliament and 
of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum 
standards on the rights, support and protection of vic‑
tims of crime.

European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal 
Policies (2012), Standing up to your right(s) in Europe, 
www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/
join/2012/462478/IPOL‑JURI_ET(2012)462478_EN.pdf.

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), A v. Croatia, 
No. 55164/08, 14 October 2010.

ECtHR, Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, No. 32446/96, 
2 November 2004.

ECtHR, Al‑Skeini and Others v. The United Kingdom [GC], 
No. 55721/07, 7 July 2011.

ECtHR, B. v. Finland, No. 17122/02, 24 April 2007.

E Ct H R ,  Ca d i ro ğ l u  v.  Tu r key,  N o.  15 762 /1 0, 
3 September 2013.

ECtHR, Collette and Michael Hemsworth v. the United 
Kingdom, No. 58559/09, 16 July 2013.

ECtHR, El‑Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Mac‑
edonia [GC], No. 39630/09, 13 December 2012.

ECtHR, Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova, No. 3564/11, 
28 May 2013.

ECtHR, Eremiasova and Pechova v. the Czech Republic, 
No. 23944/04, 16 February 2012.

ECtHR,  Gäfgen  v.  Germany  [GC],  No.  22978/05, 
1 June 2010.

ECtHR, Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], No. 23458/02, 
24 March 2011.

ECtHR, Khamzatov and Others v. Russia, No. 31682/07, 
28 February 2012.

ECtHR, Kummer v. the Czech Republic, No. 32133/11, 
25 July 2013.

ECtHR, M.C. v. Bulgaria, No. 39272/98, 4 December 2003.

ECtHR, McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom, 
No. 43098/09, 16 July 2013.

ECtHR, Menson v. UK, No. 47916/99 (Dec.), 6 May 2003.

ECtHR,  Nachova  v.  Bulgaria  [GC],  No.  43577/98, 
6 July 2005.

ECtHR, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, No. 7888/03, 
20 December 2007.

ECtHR, Novak v. Slovenia, No. 5420/07, 25 April 2013.

ECtHR, Osman v. UK, No. 23452/94, 28 October 1998.

ECtHR, Perez v. France, No. 47287/99, 12 February 2004.

ECtHR,  Valiulienė  v.  Lithuania,  No.  33234/07, 
26 March 2013.

ECtHR,  X  and  Y  v.  The  Netherlands,  No.  8978/80, 
26 March 1985.

European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (2012), 
Review  of  the  Implementation  of  the  Beijing  Plat‑
form  for  Action  in  the  EU  Member  States:  Violence 
against  Women  Victim  Support,  Luxembourg,  Pub‑
lications Office of the European Union (Publications 
Office),  http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/
violence‑against‑women‑victim‑support‑report.

European Commission (2004), Report from the Commis‑
sion on the basis of Art. 18 of the Council Framework 
Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in 
criminal proceedings, COM(2004) 54 final/2, Brussels, 
16 February 2004.

European Commission (2009), Report from the Com‑
mission pursuant to Article 18 of the Council Frame‑
work  Decision  of  15  March  2001  on  the  standing 
of  victims  in  criminal  proceedings  (2001/220/JHA), 
COM(2009) 166 final, Brussels, 20 April 2009.

European  Commission  (2011),  Impact  assessment 
accompanying the Commission proposal for a Directive 
establishing minimum standards on the rights, support 
and protection of victims of crime (SEC(2011) 780 final, 
Brussels, 18 May 2011.

European  Commission,  DG  Justice  (2013),  DG  Jus‑
tice Guidance document related to the transposition 
and implementation of Directive 2012/29/EU of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 25 Octo‑
ber  2012  establishing  minimum  standards  on  the 
rights,  support  and  protection  of  victims  of  crime, 
and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/
JHA, Ares(2013)3763804, Brussels, 19 December 2013, 
http://ec.europa.eu/  justice/criminal/files/victims/
guidance_victims_rights_directive_en.pdf.

106

European  Parliament  (2011),  Eurobarometer  75.2, 
Volunteering and Intergenerational Solidarity, Octo‑
ber  2011,  www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/eurobaro‑
metre/2011/juillet/04_07/rapport_%20eb75_2_%20
benevolat_en.pdf.

European Union (2010), Charter of Fundamental Rights 
of the European Union, OJ 2010 C 83.

Finland, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (sosiaali‑ 
ja terveysministeriö / social och hälsovårdsministeriet) 
(2013), TANE:n aiheet ja vaiheet – Tasa‑arvoasiain neu‑
vottelukunta 40 vuotta, Helsinki, TANE, 23 April 2013, 
www.tane.fi/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=3
32637&name=DLFE‑5601.pdf.

FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) 
(2009), EU‑MIDIS – European Union minorities and dis‑
crimination survey – Main results, Luxembourg, Publi‑
cations Office, http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
fra_uploads/663‑FRA‑2011_EU_MIDIS_EN.pdf.

FRA (2012), EU‑MIDIS – Data in Focus 6: Minorities as 
Victims  of  Crime,  Luxembourg,  Publications  Office, 
http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra‑2012‑
eu‑midis‑dif6_0.pdf.

FRA  (2013a),  EU  LGBT  Survey –  European  Union 
lesbian,  gay,  bisexual  and  transgender  survey – 
Results  at  a  glance,  Luxembourg,  Publications 
Office,  http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
eu‑lgbt‑survey‑results‑at‑a‑glance_en.pdf.

FRA  (2013b),  Discrimination  and  hate  crime  against 
Jews  in  EU  Member  States:  experiences  and  per‑
ceptions of antisemitism, Luxembourg, Publications 
Office,  http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra‑
2013‑discrimination‑hate‑crime‑against‑jews‑eu
‑member‑states‑0_en.pdf.

FRA  (2014),  Violence  against  Women:  an  EU‑wide 
survey;  Main  results,  Luxembourg,  Publications 
Office,  http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
fra‑2014‑vaw‑survey‑main‑results_en.pdf.

France (1998), Loi n° 98‑657 d’orientation relative à la 
lutte contre les exclusions, 29 July 1998, www.legi‑
france.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000
000206894&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id.

France (2000), Loi n° 2000‑516 renforçant la protection 
de la présomption d’innocence et les droits des victimes, 
15 June 2000, www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?c
idTexte=JORFTEXT000000765204&fastPos=1&fastReqI
d=843632059&categorieLien=id&oldAction=rechTexte.

France (2012), Décret n° 2012‑681 relatif aux bureaux 
d’aide aux victimes, 7 May 2012, www.legifrance.gouv.

fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000025822780&d
ateTexte=&categorieLien=id.

France, Cour des Comptes (2012), ‘La politique d’aide aux 
victimes d’infractions pénales’, Rapport public annuel 
2012,  www.ccomptes.fr/Publications/Publications/
Rapport‑public‑annuel‑2012.

France, Ministère des Finances et des Comptes Publics 
(2014), Direction du Budget – Cellule de Communica‑
tion, Forum de la Performance, Missions, programmes, 
objectifs et indicateurs projet de Loi des finances 2014, 
www.performance‑publique.budget.gouv.fr/sites/
performance_publique/files/farandole/ressources/
medias/documents/ressources/2014/PLF2014/liste_
mpoi_plf2014.pdf.

France, Ministry of Justice (2005), Circulaire relative 
à l’amélioration du traitement judiciaire des procédures 
relatives aux infractions de nature sexuelle, CRIM‑AP 
N°05‑10/E1‑02‑05‑2005, 2 May 2005, www.justice.gouv.
fr/bulletin‑officiel/98‑04‑dacg‑c.pdf.

France, Ministry of Justice (2013), Circulaire relative à la 
présentation des bureaux d’aide aux victimes et des 
conditions de mise en œuvre de leur généralisation, 
9 January 2013, www.textes.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/
JUST1301453C.pdf.

France, Parliament (2010), Act No. 2010‑760 on Vio‑
lence  Against  Women,  Violence  Between  Spouses, 
and the Effects of These Types of Violence on Children, 
9 July 2010 (Loi n° 2010‑769 du 9 juillet 2010 relative 
aux violences faites spécifiquement aux femmes, aux 
violences au sein des couples et aux incidences de ces 
dernières sur les enfants).

Germany, Act on Compensation to Victims of Violent Crime 
(Gesetz über die Entschädigung für Opfer von Gewalt‑
taten), BGBl. I S. 1, 7 January 1985, www.gesetze‑im‑inter‑
net.de/englisch_oeg/englisch_oeg.html.

Gortais, J. (1991), L’aide psychologique aux victimes, 
Rapport pour le ministère de la Justice, Multigraph.

Grothe Nielsen, BGN (2005), The Victims of Crime and 
the Penal System, Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

Hungary, Act 135 of 2005 on Support and State Compen‑
sation for Victims of Crime (2005. évi CXXXV. törvény 
a  bűncselekmények  áldozatainak  segítéséről  és  az 
állami kárenyhítésről), 6 June 2005.

Ireland,  Commission  for  the  Support  of  Victims  of 
Crime (2012), Annual Report 2011, Dublin, CSVC, [18], 
www.csvc.ie/en/CSVC/Victims%20of%20Crime%20
Annual%20Report%202011.doc/Files/Victims%20
of%20Crime%20Annual%20Report%202011.doc.

References

107

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

La Strada International (2004), Official Articles of Incor‑
poration of La Strada International, Amsterdam.

Latvia, Crisis Centre “Skalbes” (Krīzes centrs “Skalbes”) 
(2012).

Lienemann, M. N., Magliano H. et al (1999), Pour une 
nouvelle politique publique d’aide aux victimes: rapport 
au Premier ministre, www.ladocumentationfrancaise.
fr/var/storage/rapports‑publics/994000991/0000.pdf.

McDonald, M., Justicia European Rights Network (2012), 
Know Your Rights on the Victims’ Directive, Dublin, 
www.eujusticia.net/images/uploads/pdf/Victims_
Directive_36_page.pdf.

Milliez, P. (1982), Rapport de la Commission d’étude et 
de proposition dans le domaine de l’aide aux victimes, 
Ministère de la Justice, Multigraph.

The Netherlands, Public Prosecution Service (Open‑
baar  Ministerie)  (2010),  Aanwijzing  slachtofferzorg 
(2010A029) (Victim Support Instruction), www.om.nl/
onderwerpen/huiselijk‑geweld/@155130/aanwijzing/.

Päll, E. and Raag, T. (2012), FW: ohvriabi uuring, Social 
Insurance Board, E‑mail communication, 19 January 2012.

Peyferitte, A., Study committee on violence, criminality 
and delinquency (1977), Responses to violence, www.
prevention‑delinquance.interieur.gouv.fr/fileadmin/
user_upload/02‑Orientations_et_gouvernance/Pdf/
Peyrefitte1977.pdf.

Portugal, Decree 1/2006 of 25 January 2006.

Portugal, Decree‑Law No. 56/2006 of 15 March 2006.

Romania, Government Decision No. 49/2011 approving the 
Framework Methodology for the Prevention and Interven‑
tion in the Multi‑disciplinary Team or in the Network in 
Situations of Violence against Children and of Domestic 
Violence (Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 49/2011 pentru apro‑
barea Metodologiei‑cadru privind prevenirea şi intervenţia 
în echipa multidisciplinară şi în reţea in situaţiile de violenţă 
asupra copilului şi de violenţă in familie).

Sims, L., Myhill, A. (2001), Policing and the Public: Find‑
ings from the 2000 British Crime Survey. Home Office 
Research Findings No. 136, London, Home Office.

Spain, Act 35/1995, of 11 December, on Aid and Assis‑
tance to Victims of Violent Crimes and Against Sexual 
Freedom (Ley 35/1995, de 11 de diciembre, de Ayuda 
y Asistencia a las Víctimas de Delitos Violentos y Contra 
la Libertad Sexual), 12 December 1995.

Spain, Act 1/1996 on Free Legal Aid (Ley 1/1996, de 
10 de enero, de Asistencia Jurídica Gratuita), amended 
by Royal Decree‑Law 3/2013 of February 22 modifying 
the fees applied in the field of the administration of 
justice and the system of free legal aid (Real Decreto 
Ley 3/2013 de 22 de febrero, por el que se modifica 
el régimen de las tasas en el ámbito de la Adminis‑
tración de Justicia y el sistema de asistencia jurídica 
gratuita), 10 January 1996, www.boe.es/diario_boe/
txt.php?id=BOE‑A‑2013‑2029.

Spain, Catalonian Regional Government, Departament 
de Justícia (2011), Estadística Básica, Atenció a la víc‑
tima, 2011), Barcelona, Generalitat de Catalunya, http://
justicia.gencat.cat/web/content/home/departament/
estadistiques/dades_oav_2011.pdf.

Spain, Commitments Charter of the Support Service for 
Victims of Domestic Violence and Gender Violence of 
the City of Palma, (Carta de compromisos del servicio de 
asistencia a víctimas de violencia doméstica y de género 
del Ayuntamiento de Palma), http://policia.palmade‑
mallorca.es/portal/PALMA/policialocal/RecursosWeb/
DOCUMENTOS/1/22_3498_2.pdf.

Sweden  (1994),  Regulation  (1994:426)  on  the  Fund 
for Victim Compensation (Förordning (1994:426) om 
brottsofferfond).

Sweden (2007), Regulation (2007:1171) with instruc‑
tions for the Crime Victim Compensation and Support 
Authority.

United Kingdom, Ministry of Justice (2014), Our Commit‑
ment to Victims, www.gov.uk/government/publications/
our‑commitment‑to‑victims‑september‑2014.

Romania,  Government  Decision  No.  1238/2007  to 
approve the Specific National Standards for the Spe‑
cialised Assistance Services for the Victims of Traffick‑
ing in Persons, 10 October 2007.

Romania, Law No. 211/2004 on Measures to Ensure the 
Protection of Crime Victims (Legea nr. 211/2004 priv‑
ind unele măsuri pentru asigurarea protecţiei victimelor 
infracţiunilor), 27 May 2004.

United Nations (UN), ECOSOC (1989), Resolution 1989/57, 
24 May 1989.

UN, ECOSOC (1998) Resolution 1998/21, 28 July 1998, 
www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/res/1998/eres1998‑
21.htm.

UN,  General  Assembly  (2012),  Resolution  67/187, 
20 December 2012.

108

References

UN, Office of the High Commission for Human Rights 
(2012), Human Rights Indicators: A Guide to Measure‑
ment and Implementation, New York, United Nations, 
pp. 34 et seq, www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/
Human_rights_indicators_en.pdf.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2011), 
The Criminal justice response to support victims of acts 
of terrorism, New York, United Nations, www.un.org/
en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/victims_rights_e‑book_en.pdf.

UN,  UNDOC  (2013),  United  Nations  Principles  and 
Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice 

Systems, June 2013, www.unodc.org/documents/jus‑
tice‑and‑prison‑reform/UN_principles_and_guidlines_
on_access_to_legal_aid.pdf.

Victim Support England and Wales (2012), Trustees’ 
Annual Report 2011‑2012, London, Victim Support, www.
victimsupport.org.uk/sites/default/files/Trustees%20
report%202011‑12.pdf.

Wemmers,  J.  (1999),  ‘Victim  notification  and  public 
support for the criminal justice system’, International 
Review of Victimology, Vol. 6, No. 3.

109

Annex 1:  List of generic victim support 

organisations, by EU Member State

Countries that are blank have been identified as not having any generic victim support organisations.

Name

AT White Ring (Weisser Ring)

Public / 
private 
entity

Private 
(NGO)

Victims Reception Service 
(Dienst Slachtofferonthaal 
‑ Service d'accueil 
aux victimes)

Public

Short  
description

Weisser Ring is Austria’s largest 
generic victim support organisation. 
It has a federal office in Vienna and is 
organised into nine regional branches.
Each Office of the Public Prosecutor 
has a victim reception service which 
employs ‘judicial assistants’ in order 
to support victims through the courts 
and the public prosecution.

Number of branches/
member organisations/
geographical scope

Nine branches 
and 14 offices at 
regional level

Federal level

Victim Support Ser‑
vices (Services d’Aide aux 
Victimes‑Slachtofferhulp
Centre for Support to 
Victims of Crime (Dienst 
Slachtofferhulp)

Centres for Help to 
Victims of Crime (Service 
d’Aide aux Victimes)

Public

Provide assistance to crime victims at 
the regional level (Communities).

Regional level

Public

Support to crime victims in 
the Flanders region.

Support to crime victims in 
the Walloon region.

Community level

BE

BG

CY

CZ

The Probation and 
Mediation Service (PMS).

Public

The White Circle of Justice 
(Bílý kruh bezpečí)

Private 
(NGO)

Weisser Ring e.V.

Private 
(NGO)

Opferhilfe e.V.

DE

Private 
(NGO)

Umbrella organisation 
Working Group of Victim 
Support in Germany (ado)

Private 
(NGO)

PMS carries out legal and psycho‑social 
counselling, crisis intervention and 
support to victims in the framework 
of criminal proceedings.
The White Circle of Justice provides legal, 
psychological and social counselling to 
crime victims. It also aims to improve the 
position of victims in criminal proceedings.
The Weisser Ring NGO, founded in 1976,  
offers generic victim support based on  
volunteer work. It is the oldest and 
only country‑wide organisation 
providing generic victim support 
to all victims of crime.
Independent professional generic victim 
support charities (Opferhilfe e.V) run 
local offices in various provinces. 

In Bavaria, Baden‑Württemberg, 
Bremen, Saarland, Rhineland‑Palatinate, 
Saxony‑Anhalt, Schleswig‑Holstein 
and Thuringia there are no generic 
professional victim support services and 
volunteer support services fill this gap.
The Working Group of Victim Support NGO 
(ado) acts as an umbrella organisation and 
coordinates the networking and exchange 
of information between support services. It 
also supports the founding of new support 
organisations and organises training for 
counselors and information seminars.

National level

National level

420 local contact 
centres across 
Germany with more 
than 3,000 volunteer 
staff members

Branches in Berlin, 
Hamburg, Lower 
Saxony, Saxony, 
Mecklenburg‑Western 
Pomerania and Hesse

It operates in: Bavaria, 
Baden‑Württemberg, 
Bremen, Saarland, 
Rhineland‑Palatinate, 
Saxony‑Anhalt, 
Schleswig‑Holstein 
and Thuringia.

111

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Name

Public / 
private 
entity

Short  
description

DK

Victim Support 
Denmark (VID) 
(Offerrådgivningen, OID)

Public

Established in 1998, VID provides free 
and independent support to crime 
victims, witnesses and their families 
and provides information about 
support from psychologists, lawyers 
and the possibility of compensation.

Victim Support 
Department within the 
Social Insurance Board 
(Sotsiaalkindlustusamet)

Union of Support 
to Victims of Crime 
“Victim Support” 
(Kuriteoohvrite Toetamise 
Ühing “Ohvriabi”)

Private 
(NGO)

Private 
(NGO)

Acts as the main general service 
provider for crime victims, delivering 
services through local government. The 
regional offices provide information on 
available services and assistance.

The Union of Support to Victims of Crime 
NGO also provides general victim support 
services but their activity has largely been 
limited to online services in recent years.

EE

EL

ES

Offices for Support 
to Victims of Crimes 
(Oficinas de Asistencia 
a las Víctimas de 
Delitos, OAV)

Public

Number of branches/
member organisations/
geographical scope

33 different general 
local entities with 
VID as their umbrella 
organisation

National level

The Offices for Support to Victims of Crimes 
(OAV) inform, guide and offer counselling 
to all victims of crime. The OAV offers the 
only victim support services in Spain of 
a generic character as it deals with many 
types of victims (but gives preference to 
those who have been victims of violent 
crimes resulting in death, serious injury 
or damage to physical or mental health, 
as well as to victims of sexual violence).
Victim Support Finland (RIKU) began 
its activities in 1994 and was the first 
organisation to offer victim support 
services, including practical advice and 
psychological support to victims of 
crime and those close to them, as well 
as to witnesses of crime. RIKU is still 
the only organisation providing services 
to victims of various different types of 
crimes, with most other third‑sector 
actors specialising in providing assistance 
to certain specific victim groups.
The National Institute for Victims and 
Mediation (INAVEM) was established 
in 1986 to promote greater coherence 
in victim support services. Since June 
2004, INAVEM has been a federation 
which represents member associations 
150 associations belong to INAVEM and 
provide psychological, logistic, financial 
and legal support to victims. INAVEM 
ensures the consistent implementation 
of policies to support victims, trains 
staff and publishes studies and reports 
at national and European level.

Regional governments 
in Andalusia, Basque 
Country, Catalonia 
and Madrid

RIKU is an umbrella 
organisation with 
seven partner 
organisations.

More than 150 
member associations

FI

Victim Support Finland 
(Rikosuhripäivystys/ 
Brottsofferjouren‑RIKU)

Private 
(NGO)

FR

The National Institute for 
Victims and Mediation 
(L’Institut national d’aide 
aux victimes et de 
médiation, INAVEM)

Private 
(NGO)

112

List of generic victim support organisations, by EU Member State

Name

Public / 
private 
entity

Short  
description

Number of branches/
member organisations/
geographical scope

HR

Victim and witness 
support (Odjeli za 
organiziranje i pružanje 
podrške svjedocima 
i žrtvama)

Public

Victim Support Service 
(Igazságügyi Szolgálat 
Áldozatsegítő Szolgálat)

Public

The White Ring 
Association

Private 
(NGO)

Various 
non‑governmental victim 
support organisations

Private 
(NGO)

Victim and witness support departments:
a)  provide emotional support to 

witnesses/injured persons before, 
during and after court proceedings;

b)  provide practical information 
to witnesses, victims and 
their family members;

c)  standardise procedures/treatment 
of injured parties and witnesses;

d)  select, train and coordinate 

volunteers who provide support.

The Victim Support Service provides victims 
with information and assistance and refers 
victims to the Legal Aid Service in case 
they need specialised legal assistance, 
irrespective of their financial situation. 
The service can also provide financial aid.
The White Ring Association specialises in 
assisting victims of all crimes. It provides 
services similar to those of the state 
agency, however, the scope of its activities 
is rather limited due to financial issues.
Federation for Victim Assistance – 
voluntary organisation that offers 
Emotional and Practical Assistance to all 
Victims of Crime (and family members).

Support After Crime Services – 
voluntary service available free of 
charge to all victims of crime.

Services for victims 
(Le service d’aide 
aux victimes, SAV)

Waisser rank

Public

Private 
(NGO)

Provides support to crime victims, 
including advising victims on their 
rights throughout the criminal justice 
process. There are also persons who can 
accompany victims throughout trial.
Waisser rank provides a wide range 
of confidential services to victims 
free of charge, such as consultation, 
financial and legal aid. They can 
also accompany victims to court.

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

There are seven 
county courts, each 
with a victim support 
department: Zagreb, 
Split, Rijeka, Osijek, 
Zadar, Vukovar, Sisak.

National level

11 branches 
nationwide 

5 branches  
nationwide

National level

MT

Victim Support 
Malta (VSM)

Private 
(NGO)

VSM supports crime victims by providing 
professional, independent, confidential 
and impartial information and assistance; 
helping to orientate victims of crime 
within the systems of criminal and penal 
justice. VSM advises and monitors the 
needs of victims of crime, educates 
and trains both staff members and 
the public in matters related to victim 
issues. The organisation also provides 
legal advice and representation and 
support during court proceedings.

National level

113

 
Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Name

Victim Support 
Netherlands (VSN) 
(Slachtofferhulp 
Nederland, SHN)

Support Network for 
Victims of Crimes 
(Ośrodki Pomocy 
Społecznej)

Public / 
private 
entity

Private 
(NGO)

Public

Portuguese Association 
for Victim Support 
(Associação Portuguesa 
de Apoio à Vítima, APAV)

Private 
(NGO)

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

Victim Support Sweden 
(Brottsofferjourernas 
Riksförbund, BOJ)

Private 
(NGO)

Short  
description

Victim Support Netherlands (VSN) 
offers legal, practical and emotional 
support and advice to victims of crime, 
their families, witnesses and others.
The Support Network for Victims of Crimes’ 
regional support centres offer services 
to all victims of crime and violence. They 
cannot reject any type of victim, but if they 
cannot offer specialised services, they 
can refer the victim to other institutions.
APAV supports victims of crime and 
their families and friends. Aside from 
the generic support given, APAV also 
supplies specialised services such as legal, 
psychological and social support. APAV also 
plays a role in crime prevention by carrying 
out awareness and prevention campaigns 
directed at various kinds of audiences, 
mainly schools. It also does pro bono legal 
work, although it is not the APAV’s mission 
to represent victims in court proceedings.

Victim Support Sweden (BOJ) is the 
national umbrella organisation for victim 
support services. Founded in 1988, 
it has more than 8,000 members. It 
supports all victims of crime, witnesses 
and relatives by providing psychosocial 
support and advice, financial support, legal 
advice/representation, accompanying 
victims to the police and throughout 
court proceedings. BOJ also engages 
in crime prevention, public advocacy, 
legislation and training of professionals.

Number of branches/
member organisations/
geographical scope

Around 85 offices 
and service points 
with a head office 
is in Utrecht

16 regional centres

APAV has about 
15 victim support 
offices located 
throughout the 
country.

BOJ has about 100 
local victim service 
centres in Sweden.

SI

SK

Help to Violence 
Victims (HVV, Pomoc 
obetiam násilia)

Private 
(NGO)

Victim Support 
(England and Wales)

UK 

Victim Support (Scotland)

Victim Support 
(Northern Ireland)

Private 
(NGO)

Help to Violence Victims (HVV), founded 
in 1999, provides legal counselling 
psychosocial counselling and can 
accompany victims to police stations and 
courts. It encourages public awareness 
of the problems facing victims of crime.

The NGO Victim Support, founded in 
1973/74 in Bristol, offers confidential 
help to victims, their families and anyone 
affected by crime. It provides information, 
practical help and emotional support and 
works with other organisations to help 
victims and witnesses get what they need.

Seven regional 
advisory offices in 
Bratislava, Trnava, 
Nitra, Trenčín, Banská 
Bystrica, Prešov 
and Košice. All staff 
members (30 people) 
work as volunteers.

There are separate 
organisations in 
England and Wales, 
Scotland and 
Northern Ireland.

114

Annex 2:  Annotated listing of umbrella 
organisations in Europe with 
relevance to support services 
for victims of crime198

European umbrella organisations in the area of victim support – members and coverage

Umbrella organisation

Number of members

Geographical 
coverage

Membership

Target group

Victim Support Europe

36 organisations in 
25 European countries

Europe

Organisations

All victims of crime

European Forum for 
Restorative Justice

Over 300 in 18 EU 
Member States

Europe

World Society of 
Victimology

Over 500, including 
organisations in eight 
EU Member States 

Worldwide 

Organisations 
and individuals

Organisations 
and individuals

Women Against 
Violence Europe (WAVE)

About 4,000, in 46 
European countries

Europe

Organisations

International Centre for 
Missing and Exploited 
Children (ICMEC)

About 25, including 
organisations in four 
EU Member States

Missing Children 
Europe (MCE)

30 in 19 EU 
Member States

ECPAT International

La Strada International

Over 80, including 
organisations in 23 
European countries

Nine European 
countries, four EU 
Member States

Worldwide

Organisations

Europe

Organisations

Missing children

Worldwide

Organisations 
and individuals

Europe

Organisations

All victims of crime

Research and 
practices on 
victimology 

Women victims 
of violence

Sexually exploited 
and abducted 
children

Child prostitution, 
pornography and 
trafficking of children 
for sexual purposes

Persons and groups 
victims of human 
trafficking

Women migrant 
workers

Global Alliance 
Against Traffic in 
Women (GAATW)

106, including 
organizations in eight 
EU Member states

Worldwide

Organisations

Euro‑Mediterranean 
Network for Youth 
Trafficking Prevention 
(EMNYTP)

74, including 
organizations in 
23 countries

Regional 
(Europe – 
Mediterranean)

Organisations 
and individuals

Young people victims 
of human trafficking

FLARE Network

34 in 25 European 
countries

Europe

Organisations

Persons victims of 
human trafficking

198 European umbrella organisations are associations, alliances, forums and networks active in at least four European countries in the fields 
of networking, coordination, cooperation or promotion of organisations offering generic victim support or focusing on specific groups 
of victims. To evaluate the chosen organisations FRA used the following criteria and standards: membership, transparency, clarity and 
accountability, visibility, advocacy and campaigning, support, capacity building, training and expertise, networking and exchange of 
information, sustainability and financial support, independence, inclusivity and fundamental rights.

115

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Umbrella organisation

Number of members

Geographical 
coverage

Membership

Target group

European Network 
Against Racism (ENAR)

Over 700 in 26 
European countries

Europe

Organisations

Organisations 
working to 
combat racism

Victims of road 
traffic accidents

Europe

Organisations

Europe

Organisations

Victims of terrorism

European Federation 
of Road Traffic 
Victims (FEVR)

23 in 18 European 
countries

Network of Associations 
of Victims of 
Terrorism (NAVT)

34 in seven EU 
Member States

Source: FRA, 2014

European umbrella organisations in the area of generic victim support – missions, tasks and funding

Umbrella organisation

Mission

Tasks

Funding

To promote effective 
services, fair and equal 
compensation, the 
exchange of experience, 
information and best 
practices across Europe

Supports networking, coordination 
and cooperation among member 
organizations; leads members’ 
EU‑funded projects; carries out 
EU advocacy and collaborates 
with the European Commission

To help establish and 
develop victim‑offender 
mediation and other 
restorative justice practices 
throughout Europe

To advance victimological 
research and practices, 
encourage interdisciplinary 
and comparative work; to 
advance the cooperation 
of international, national, 
regional and local agencies 
active in this field

Offers a channel for participation, 
mutual support and contact, carries 
out follow‑up and stimulation 
of policymaking; participates in 
members’ EU‑funded projects; 
carries out advocacy at the 
EU and Council of Europe 

Organises International Symposium 
on Victimology; sponsors 
workshops, courses and seminars; 
carries out advocacy at the 
Council of Europe and the UN; 
publishes quarterly newsletter

European 
Commission 
operating 
grant

European 
Commission 
operating 
grant; grants 
from the 
Norwegian 
and Belgian 
governments

Membership 
fees

Victim Support Europe

European Forum for 
Restorative Justice

World Society of 
Victimology

Source: FRA, 2014

116

Annotated listing of umbrella organisations in Europe with relevance to support services for victims of crime

European umbrella organisations in the area of specific victim support – missions, tasks and funding

Umbrella Organisation

Mission

Tasks

Funding

Women Against 
Violence Europe 
(WAVE)

To establish gender equality 
by eliminating all forms of 
domestic violence against 
women and children

International 
Centre for Missing 
and Exploited 
Children (ICMEC)

To establish global 
resources to find missing 
children and prevent child 
sexual exploitation

Gathers and exchanges 
information; influences 
national and European policies 
and promotes criteria and 
guidelines at the European 
level; organises annual WAVE 
conference; provides training 
for experts and professionals; 
regularly publishes reports

Exchanges experience and 
networking; provides contacts 
and information; drafts model 
law on child protection and 
policy papers; partnership with 
Hague Conference on Private 
International Law; conducts law 
enforcement training and research, 
regularly publishes reports

EU Daphne 
Operating Grant, 
co‑financing 
through national 
authorities

Private 
foundations and 
individual donors

Missing Children 
Europe (MCE)

ECPAT International

La Strada 
International

Global Alliance 
Against Traffic in 
Women (GAATW)

Euro‑Mediterranean 
Network for 
Youth Trafficking 
Prevention (EMNYTP)

To ensure minimum 
standards to prevent 
and assist in cases of 
missing children and child 
sexual exploitation

Organises and coordinates 
working groups, provides staff 
training and traineeships, regularly 
publishes reports, newsletters 
and statistics; European telephone 
hotline for missing children

Daphne Operating 
Grant; EU‑funded 
projects; sponsors, 
donors and 
membership fees

To eliminate child 
prostitution, child 
pornography and 
trafficking of children 
for sexual purposes

To prevent trafficking in 
human beings and to defend 
the rights of persons who 
have been bought or sold

To improve the lives of 
trafficked women through 
understanding trafficking 
from a human rights 
perspective, to ensure 
that the human rights of 
all migrant women are 
respected and protected by 
authorities and agencies

To promote the wide 
dissemination of information 
on youth trafficking 
prevention through 
research, delivering 
educational programmes 
and facilitating exchange 
among its members

Organises Regional Network 
Resource Exchange workshops, 
an online CSEC database, training 
for grassroots organisations; 
carries out national and 
international advocacy

Provides information and carries 
out lobbying at the national and 
EU level; supports prevention 
and education trainings; provides 
assistance and support

Provides capacity‑building 
of member organisations; 
strengthens regional cooperation 
of members; leads projects 
and programmes offering tools 
and best practices on specific 
topics; collects and disseminates 
essential documents on 
trafficking; carries out research, 
advocacy and communication

Donations, 
donors include 
EU governments 
and the Oak 
Foundation

Daphne Operating 
Grant; Sigrid 
Rausing Trust; 
Dutch MFA

Unknown

Supports information exchange 
through Annual Conference, 
organises conferences within 
EU‑funded projects, participates 
in a variety of EU‑funded projects

EU‑funded 
projects; 
Membership fees

117

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Umbrella Organisation

Mission

Tasks

Funding

FLARE Network

To represent a new approach 
to tackle organised crime 
in Europe and neighbouring 
countries by raising 
awareness and informing 
the public, supporting 
victims and their families, 
and EU advocacy

Provides communication and 
information; supports FLARE21 
youth platform; carries out 
‘Memory’ project focused on 
commemorating victims of 
organised crime; publishes 
online magazine BRIGHT; 
carries out EU advocacy

Unknown

European Network 
Against Racism 
(ENAR)

To foster a collective 
civil society voice and 
influence decision‑making 
in the EU to redress 
negative consequences of 
discrimination, promote 
diversity and ensure 
the mainstreaming of 
anti‑racism, equality 
and diversity in all 
EU public policies

Coordinates members by 
exchanging information, best 
practice and experience; 
organises events and conferences; 
provides capacity‑building 
projects for European NGOs; 
engages in partnerships with 
other European networks and 
foundations; carries out EU 
advocacy; regularly publishes 
policy papers, memoranda 
and shadow reports; provides 
training; carries out research 
and regularly publishes reports

European Federation 
of Road Traffic 
Victims (FEVR)

To support road crash 
victims and contribute to 
road safety by highlighting 
dangers and influencing 
the effective enforcement 
of road safety measures

Provides victim support (also 
legal support) and information; 
carries out EU advocacy; regularly 
publishes statements, articles and 
opinions; carries out joint projects 
with member organisations

Commission 
funding; Network 
of European 
Foundations; 
Open Society 
Justice initiatives; 
Business sector 
donations

Membership fees; 
Administration 
fees covered 
by Luxembourg 
association; 
previously 
EU‑funded projects

Network of 
Associations 
of Victims of 
Terrorism (NAVT)

Source: FRA, 2014

To stimulate trans‑national 
cooperation between 
associations of terrorism 
victims and enhance the 
representation of victims’ 
interests at the EU level

Organises seminars, workshops 
and an annual commemoration on 
11 March; provides an exchange 
platform on the website; carries 
out EU‑funded projects

European 
Commission 
service contract

118

Annex 3:  Tabulated comparison between 
the Framework Decision and the 
Victims’ Directive

Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA,  
15 March 2001

Directive 2012/29/EU, 25 October 2012

Number of recitals

Number of articles

Main article on 
victim support 
services

12

19

13

72

32

8

Title of main article

Specialist services and victim 
support organisations

Right to access victim support services

Each Member State shall, in the 
context of proceedings, promote 
the involvement of victim support 
systems responsible for organising 
the initial reception of victims and 
for victim support and assistance 
thereafter, whether through the 
provision of specially trained 
personnel within its public services 
or through recognition and funding 
of victim support organisations.

Each Member State shall encourage 
action taken in proceedings by 
such personnel or by victim support 
organisations, particularly as regards:
(a) providing victims with information;
(b)  assisting victims according to 

their immediate needs;
(c)  accompanying victims, if 

necessary and possible during 
criminal proceedings;
(d)  assisting victims, at their 
request, after criminal 
proceedings have ended. 

Paragraph 1
(emphasis added)

Paragraph 2 
(emphasis added)

Paragraph 3 
(emphasis added)

Member States shall ensure that victims, in 
accordance with their needs, have access to 
confidential victim support services, free of 
charge, acting in the interests of the victims 
before, during and for an appropriate time 
after criminal proceedings. Family members 
shall have access to victim support services in 
accordance with their needs and the degree 
of harm suffered as a result of the criminal 
offence committed against the victim.

Member States shall facilitate the referral 
of victims, by the competent authority 
that received the complaint and by other 
relevant entities, to victim support services.

Member States shall take measures to 
establish free of charge and confidential 
specialist support services in addition to, 
or as an integrated part of, general victim 
support services, or to enable victim support 
organisations to call on existing specialised 
entities providing such specialist support. 
Victims, in accordance with their specific 
needs, shall have access to such services 
and family members shall have access in 
accordance with their specific needs and the 
degree of harm suffered as a result of the 
criminal offence committed against the victim. 

119

Victims of crime in the EU: the extent and nature of support for victims

Paragraph 4 
(emphasis added)

Paragraph 5 
(emphasis added)

Auxiliary article 
on victim support

Title

Paragraph 1
(emphasis added)

Paragraph 2
(emphasis added)

Paragraph 3
(emphasis added)

Source: FRA 2014

120

Victim support services and any specialist 
support services may be set up as public or 
non‑governmental organisations and may be 
organised on a professional or voluntary basis.

Member States shall ensure that access 
to any victim support services is not 
dependent on a victim making a formal 
complaint with regard to a criminal 
offence to a competent authority.

9

Support from victim support services

Victim support services, as referred to in 
Article 8 (1), shall, as a minimum, provide:
(a)  information, advice and support relevant 

to the rights of victims including on 
accessing national compensation 
schemes for criminal injuries, and on their 
role in criminal proceedings including 
preparation for attendance at the trial;
(b)  information about or direct referral to any 

relevant specialist support services in place;

(c)  emotional and, where available, 

psychological support;

(d)  advice relating to financial and practical 

issues arising from the crime;

(e)  unless otherwise provided by other 
public or private services, advice 
relating to the risk and prevention of 
secondary and repeat victimisation, 
of intimidation and of retaliation.

Member States shall encourage victim 
support services to pay particular 
attention to the specific needs of victims 
who have suffered considerable harm 
due to the severity of the crime.

Unless otherwise provided by other public 
or private services, specialist support 
services referred to in Article 8 (3), shall, 
as a minimum, develop and provide:
(a)  shelters or any other appropriate interim 
accommodation for victims in need of 
a safe place due to an imminent risk 
of secondary and repeat victimisation, 
of intimidation and of retaliation;
(b)  targeted and integrated support for 
victims with specific needs, such as 
victims of sexual violence, victims of 
gender‑based violence and victims of 
violence in close relationships, including 
trauma support and counselling.

Annex 4:  Overview of comparative tables 

available online

The following tables are available on the FRA website at http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications‑and‑resources/
data‑and‑maps/comparative‑data/victims‑support‑services.

1.  Helplines for victims

2.  Models of generic victim support organisations

3.  Quality standards

4. 

‘Victims of crime funds’

5.  Victims’ rights at trial

6.  Challenging the decision not to prosecute

7.  Cross‑border support

8.  Authorities’ obligation to provide information to crime victims

9.  Member State approaches to victims: conceptualisation of victims and their role in criminal proceedings

10.  Victims’ rights to compensation during criminal proceedings

11.  Legal aid provision

12.  Public coordination of victim support services

13.  Transfer of victim’s personal data from police to victim support services

14.  Victim support not dependent on complaint

121

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:
•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or 
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:
•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions:
•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union  

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

 
HELPING TO MAKE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS A REALITY FOR EVERYONE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

The rights of victims of crime to access justice and to be protected against repeat victimisation may remain illusory 
in practice if the victim fails to receive professional advice and support. This research by the European Union Agency 
for Fundamental Rights (FRA) examines support service provision for such victims across the 28 EU Member States, 
in line with the 2012 EU Victims’ Directive. It focuses not on abstract fundamental rights standards but on the final 
practical results. FRA research identified promising practices that Member States looking to improve their victim 
support structures might turn to for inspiration. It also found several areas where Member States currently fall short 
of meeting the directive’s requirements. They will need to take further legislative and policy steps to ensure they 
comply with the directive by the implementation deadline of 16 November 2015. 

d
o

i
:
1
0
.
2
8
1
1
/
7
7
4
5
0

T
K
-
0
2
-
1
4
-
9
3
3
-
E
N
-
C

F
R
A

V

i

c

t

i

m

s

o

f

c

r

i

m

e

i

n

t

h

e

E

U

:

t

h

e

e

x

t

e

n

t

a

n

d

n

a

t

u

r

e

o

f

s

u

p

p

o

r

t

f

o

r

v

i

c

t

i

m

s

FRA - EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Schwarzenbergplatz 11 – 1040 Vienna – Austria
Tel. +43 158030-0 – Fax +43 158030-699
fra.europa.eu – info@fra.europa.eu
facebook.com/fundamentalrights
linkedin.com/company/eu-fundamental-rights-agency
twitter.com/EURightsAgency

doi:10.2811/77450
ISBN 978-92-9239-522-3