REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL assessing the impact of existing national law, establishing as a criminal offence the use of services which are the objects of exploitation of trafficking in human beings, on the prevention of trafficking in human beings, in accordance with Article 23 (2) of the Directive 2011/36/EU
Date: 2016-12-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU statistics, criminal law, data collection, fight against crime, national law, trafficking in human beings, victim

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.12.2016  COM(2016) 719 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL assessing the impact of existing national law, establishing as a criminal offence the use of services which are the objects of exploitation of trafficking in human beings, on the prevention of trafficking in human beings, in accordance with Article 23 (2) of the Directive 2011/36/EU  
 
 
1.  Background and Purpose 

This Report responds to the requirement of Article 23(2) of the Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing 
and  combating  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  protecting  its  victims,  and  replacing  Council 
Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA,  according to which: "The Commission shall, by 6 April 2016, 
submit  a  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  assessing  the  impact  of  existing 
national  law,  establishing  as  a  criminal  offence  the  use  of  services  which  are  the  objects  of 
exploitation  of  trafficking  in  human  beings,  on  the  prevention  of  trafficking  in  human  beings, 
accompanied, if necessary, by adequate proposals".  

Reference to the criminalisation of the use of services of victims of trafficking is set out in Article 
18 (entitled "Prevention") (1) and (4) of Directive 2011/36/EU which states as follows: "1. Member 
States shall take appropriate measures, such as education and training, to discourage and reduce 
the demand that fosters all forms of exploitation related to trafficking in human beings. […] 4. In 
order  to  make  the  preventing  and  combating  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  more  effective  by 
discouraging  demand,  Member  States  shall  consider  taking  measures  to  establish  as  a  criminal 
offence the use of services which are the objects of exploitation as referred to in Article 2, with the 
knowledge that the person is a victim of an offence referred to in Article 2".   

This  Report  provides  a  description  of  existing  national  legislation  that  criminalises  the  use  of 
services of victims of trafficking and an assessment of the impact of any such legal measures. It is 
beyond the scope of Art.23(2) to examine other non-legislative measures that may exist at national 
level  or  legislative  measures  that  do  not  touch  upon  the  criminalisation  of  the  use  of  services  of 
victims of trafficking. Of note, this is not a report assessing compliance with the provisions of the 
Directive  2011/36/EU.  It  should  be  read  in  conjunction  with  the  "Report  assessing  the  extent  to 
which  Member  States  have  taken  the  necessary  measures  in  order  to  comply  with  Directive 
2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims in 
accordance  with  Article  23(1),  COM(2016)  722.  It  also  takes  into  account  the  first  Commission 
Report on the progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings trafficking in human 
beings and protecting its victims (hereinafter "Progress Report” ). 

In the drafting of this report, the Commission made use of information received from the Member 
States, through a questionnaire that was sent in May 2016, and consulted with the civil society via 
the EU Civil Society Platform against  Trafficking in  Human Beings1 as well as  via the European 
Commission's Group of Experts on Trafficking in Human Beings2.  

1 For more information, please see Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, 
Report  on  the  progress  made  in  the  fight  against  trafficking  in  human  beings  (2016)  as  required  under  Article  20  of 
Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, COM(2016) 
267 final. 
2 Commission Decision (2011/502/EU) of 10 August 2011 on setting up the Group of Experts on Trafficking in Human 
Beings and repealing Decision 2007/675/EC. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                            
2.  Existing national law establishing as a criminal offence the use of services which are the 

objects of exploitation of trafficking in human beings 

2.1. Summary of replies 
The  analysis  below  is  based  on  the  replies  provided  by  Member  States.  The  Commission  cannot 
exclude  that  other  national  provisions  or  developments  may  exist.    In  view  of  the  analysis,  the 
Commission  asked  Member  States  to  report  on  "Existing  national  law  establishing  as  a  criminal 
offence the use of services which are the objects of exploitation of trafficking in human beings; who 
is precisely criminalised; if criminalisation for all forms of exploitation is envisaged; if legislation 
requires  proving  the  element  of  knowledge  that  the  person  is  a  victim  of  trafficking  and  how  it 
impacts the applicability of the legislation; what measures were taken to ensure that the public is 
aware  of  the  law  to  ensure  better  implementation;  available  statistical  data  on  prosecutions  and 
convictions and hurdles faced; if there is no existing national law, what are the reasons and what 
alternatives are in place to fulfil the obligation of considering criminalisation; how they assess the 
impact of such laws and if they have relevant suggestions; what consultation processes are in place 
and; if they have commissioned any evaluation and research of such laws."   

It  should  be  highlighted  from  the  outset  that  Member  States  did  not  elaborate  in  the  information 
furnished  on  how  they  fulfilled  the  legal  obligation  to  consider  the  criminalisation  of  users  of 
victims stemming from Art.18 (4) Directive 2011/36/EU.  

The analysis of the replies by Member States demonstrates that, at the time of drafting this report, 
there  are  ten  (10)  Members  States  that  have  established  as  a  criminal  offence  the  use  of 
services which are the objects of all forms of exploitation of victims of trafficking in human 
beings,  and  fifteen  (15)    Member  States  having  established  only  a  limited  and  selective 
criminalisation for the use of services of victims of trafficking in human beings.  

More specifically:  

1) Member States that have established such a criminal offence for all forms of exploitation (BG, 
EL, HR, CY, LT, MT, PT, RO, SI, UK)  

Ten (10) Member States reported having existing national law establishing as a criminal offence the 
use of services which are the objects of exploitation of trafficking in human beings (BG, EL, HR, 
CY, LT, MT, PT, RO, SI, UK3),  addressing all forms of exploitation.  

BG  informed  the  Commission  that  according  to  the  Bulgarian  Criminal  Code  (Art.159c)  an 
individual who uses a person affected by trafficking in human beings for debauchery, forced labour 
or  begging,  removal  of  organs,  tissues,  cells  or  body  fluid  or  for  keeping  him/her  in  forceful 
subjection, regardless of his/her consent, shall be punished by deprivation of liberty of three to ten 
years and a fine of 10 000 to 20 000 leva. HR has a similar provision but goes even further, as it 
imposes  the  same  penalties  on  anyone  who  knowingly  uses  a  victim  or  the  services  thereof  with 

3  UK  conveyed  to  the  Commission  that  England  and  Wales  have  such  existing  measures  for  trafficking  in  human 
beings, while Scotland has no such measures in place and Northern Ireland reported to have such measures targeting 
only trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation. 

3 

 
 
                                                            
those who are charged for committing the offence of trafficking in human beings. CY reports that 
Article 17 of Law 60(I)/2014 stipulates that any person who can reasonably assume that the labour 
or services s/he uses are provided by a victim of human trafficking shall have committed an offence 
under the anti-trafficking law. EL established such national legal provisions in 2013 with the Law 
4198/2013, which criminalises those persons who knowingly accept the labour of a person who is a 
victim  of  trafficking  as  well  as  those  persons  who  knowingly  perform  a  sexual  act  with  a  person 
who  is  a  victim  of  trafficking.  LT  reported  that  under  Article  147-2  of  the  Criminal  Code  any 
person who uses services provided by victims of trafficking and who knew or should have known 
that they are victims shall be punished by a fine or freedom restricting measures. Of note, a person 
who commits such an act and subsequently voluntarily informs the law enforcement agencies and 
actively  cooperates,  before  being  declared  a  suspect,  can  be  absolved  of  criminal  liability.  In 
addition, legal entities shall also be held liable for such acts. MT informed the Commission that any 
person engaged in or making use of services or labour in the knowledge that the person providing 
such  services  or  labour  has  been  trafficked,  shall  be  guilty  of  an  offence  and  be  held  liable,  on 
conviction, to imprisonment for a term of eighteen months to five years. Similar provisions exist in 
PT and SI (imposing prison sentence of up to three years and a fine). RO informed the Commission 
that under Art. 216 of the Romanian Criminal Code any person who uses the services as set out in 
Art.182  of  the  Criminal  Code  (on  exploitation)  other  than  the  trafficker,  and  who  knows  that  the 
services are provided by a victim of trafficking in human beings shall be criminalised.  

2)  Member  States  that  have  not  established  explicit  national  legal  provisions  or  that  have 
established limited and selective criminalisation of the use of services of victims of trafficking in 
human beings4  

Fourteen  (14)  Member  States  reported  having  no  explicit  national  legal  provisions  in  place  for 
establishing  as  a  criminal  offence  the  use  of  services  which  are  the  objects  of  all  forms  of 
exploitation of victims of trafficking in human beings (AT, BE, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FR, HU, IT, LV, 
LU, NL, PL, SK). However, some Member States (FI, IE, SE) have instituted legislation targeting 
the  use  of  victims  of  trafficking  but  only  in  respect  to  particular  forms  of  exploitation.  More 
specifically,  FI  and  IE  reported  having  existing  national  legislation  targeting  only  at  the  use  of 
victims  of  trafficking  for  sexual  exploitation.  SE  reports  that  while  there  is  no  specific  provision 
that criminalises the use of services of a victim of trafficking, they apply provisions under the law 
on banning the purchase of sexual services, which can cover the use of services exacted by victims 
of trafficking for sexual exploitation.  

Of those Member States that have not established such explicit provisions, according to information 
provided by them, in some instances recourse could be made to provisions which relate to sexual 
offences  or  child  sexual  exploitation  (e.g.  IT,  ES,  NL  and  BE).  While  IT  has  no  such  explicit 
provisions,  it  reports  having  established  as  a  criminal  offence  under  Art.  603  bis  of  the  Italian 
Criminal  Code  the  unlawful  brokering  and  exploitation  of  labour  generally.  While  AT  has  no 
explicit provision on victims of trafficking in human beings, there is a recently adopted provision on 

4 FI, IE, SE have established legal provisions only for  trafficking for sexual exploitation and  AT, BE, DE, EE, 
FR, HU, IT, LV, LU, NL, PL, SK only within the context of the Employers' Sanctions Directive.  

4 

 
 
                                                            
engaging  in  a  sexual  act  with  persons  against  their  will,  by  exploiting  a  predicament  or  after 
previous intimidation.  

Furthermore,  some  Member  States  report  having  in  place  only  measures  which  transpose  and 
implement  Directive  2009/52/EC  of  18  June  2009  providing  for  minimum  standards  on 
sanctions  and  measures  against  employers  of  illegally  staying  third  country  nationals5  (so-
called Employers' Sanction Directive) (e.g. PL or HU). In this respect, the Communication on 
the  application  of  Directive  2009/52/EC  of  18  June  2009  notes  that  Member  States  have  in 
general criminalised illegal employment in all the circumstances described in Article 9 (including 
instances where the employer knows that the worker is a victim of human trafficking). According to 
this  Communication,  CZ  and  ES  did  not  specifically  penalise  illegal  employment  in  situations 
where ‘the employer was aware that the worker was a victim of human trafficking’.6   

It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  the  personal  scope  of  Directive  2009/52/EC  is  limited  only  to 
third country nationals illegally staying in the EU. Hence, it does not cover victims of trafficking 
who are EU nationals or victims of trafficking who are third country nationals but lawfully residing 
in the EU. In addition, while the Directive applies to instances of dependent employment7, it does 
not cover cases where victims are self-employed or cases where the user is not the employer. Thus, 
the criminalisation set forth in Directive 2009/52/EC is adapted to its subject matter and scope, 
which  is  limited  and  not  sufficient  in  addressing  all  instances  of  trafficking  in  human  beings. 
However,  it  serves  as  a  good  example  of  measures  that  could  be  used  in  this  direction  to  further 
develop and consolidate the anti-trafficking legal framework.    

3) Alternatives to the lack of criminalisation  

As mentioned above, according to the Art. 18(4) of the Directive, Member States have an obligation 
to  at  least  consider  criminalising  those  who  knowingly  use  the  services  of  victims  of  trafficking. 
However,  Member  States  provided  limited  information  to  the  Commission  on  alternatives  when 
there  are  no  national  measures  criminalising  those  who  use  the  services  of  victims  of  trafficking. 
From the replies to the questionnaires it appears that only NL and ES provided information in this 
respect. NL reported information campaigns on anonymous reporting of crimes, raising awareness 
and publicity on prosecutions of child sexual abuse were recourse is made to payment, covenants 
with business sectors on promoting respect for human rights. ES reported that despite not having a 
provision explicitly on the criminalisation of the use of the sexual services of a victim of trafficking 
in human beings, where there is knowledge of the state of vulnerability of the victim any such act 

5  Directive  2009/52/EC  providing  for  minimum  standards  on  sanctions  and  measures  against  employers  of  illegally 
staying third-country nationals, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32009L0052 
6Bearing  in  mind  the  period  lapsed  since  the  adoption  of  the  Commission  on  the  application  of  the  Directive 
2009/52/EC, it cannot be excluded that relevant legislation was adopted in the meantime. For more information see the 
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  application  of  Directive 
2009/52/EC  of  18  June  2009  providing  for  minimum  standards  on  sanctions  and  measures  against  employers  of 
illegally staying third country nationals, COM (2014) 286final.   
7 The definition of employment encompasses the exercise of activities whatever form of labour or work regulated under 
national  law  or  in  accordance  with  established  practice  for  or  under  the  direction  and/or  supervision  of  an  employer 
(Article  2  (c)  Directive  2009/52/EC);  the  preamble  specifies  that  this  should  be  irrespective  of  the  legal  relationship 
(Recital 7).  

5 

 
 
                                                            
could be considered as an offence against the sexual freedom and integrity of a person, and relevant 
articles of the Penal Code would be applicable.  

4) Evaluations 

A  limited  number  of  Member  States  reported  having  commissioned  evaluations  of  such  laws  or 
relevant research (e.g. FI, SE). SE reported to the Commission that the inquiry report on the Ban 
against the Purchase of Sexual Services was published in 2010. Among the key findings were: (a) 
street  prostitution  had  been  reduced  by  half;  (b)  the  internet  had  become  a  new  arena  for 
prostitution;  (c)  the  ban  on  the  purchase  of  sexual  services  had  counteracted  the  establishment  of 
organized crime; and (d) public support for the ban had increased. Furthermore, an Anti-Trafficking 
Inquiry  is  expected  which  will  evaluate  the  application  of  the  penal  provision  on  trafficking  in 
human  beings,  and  which  will  also  scrutinize  how  law  enforcement  authorities  investigate  and 
handle human trafficking matters.   

FI  has  commissioned  research  following  a  landmark  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  on  the  so-
called  partial  criminalisation  of  the  purchase  of  sexual  services  from  procured  prostitutes  and 
victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings.  The  research  concluded  that  the  major  problem  in  the 
application of the law was that very few cases of abuse of a victim of sex trade had been detected, 
investigated, prosecuted and punished. The requirement of mens rea in the partial criminalisation of 
sex  purchasers  was  reported  to  be  problematic.  The  report  stated  that  the  situation  favoured  sex 
buyers  who  avoid  gaining  any  knowledge  of  the  prostitute’s  circumstances  but  were  intimately 
familiar with the letter of the law. The researchers proposed the full criminalisation of the buying of 
sex.  Following this report, the Government proposed the amendment of the offence establishing it 
on the user’s negligence8.  

UK (Northern Ireland)  expects an evaluation in 2018 and reported that  Scotland commissioned 
research on the subject matter during the scrutiny of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act 
(2015).   

Generally, statistical data provided to the Commission by all Member States is scarce with only a 
limited  number  of  prosecutions  and  convictions  communicated.  Moreover,  it  is  questionable 
whether  such  disaggregated  data  on  this  offence  is  available  at  national  level.  For  example,  IT 
stresses that at present there is no separate data concerning the use of services provided by victims 
of trafficking. This is an area that the Commission will further look into in the context of the work 
delivered  in  improving  the  quality  and  comparability  of  statistical  data  on  trafficking  in  human 
beings collected at EU level. 

8 For more information see Johanna Niemi & Jussi Aaltonen, "Abuse of a victim of sex trade: Evaluation of the Finnish 
sex 
http://ec.europa.eu/anti-
of  Finland, 
Justice 
trafficking/publications/abuse-victim-sex-trade_en  

ban",  Ministry 

available 

purchase 

2014 

of 

at 

6 

 
 
 
                                                            
2.2.Assessing the impact and the application  
The  information  conveyed  to  the  Commission  shows  that  Member  States  follow  rather  diverse 
approaches and practices. In all Member States where there are national measures establishing as a 
criminal  offence  the  use  of  services  which  are  the  objects  of  exploitation  of  trafficking  in  human 
beings, the personal scope of those provisions is limited only to those who directly use services or 
labour provided by the victims.  

In  the  vast  majority  of  Member  States  where  there  is  a  national  law  establishing  as  a  criminal 
offence  the  use  of  services  which  are  the  objects  of  exploitation  of  trafficking  in  human  beings, 
Member  States  report  that  it  is  too  soon  to  assess  their  impact.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
measures  came  into  force  following  the  deadline  of  transposition  of  the  Directive  2011/36/EU  in 
2013 due to the short period for the implementation of the Directive.  

Of those Member States that have such provisions, all require that the user had prior knowledge that 
the person whose services are being used is a victim of trafficking in human being. In these cases, a 
general difficulty with regard to evidence building has been reported. In most of the Member States 
concerned, the  burden of proof rests primarily with  the prosecutor: the suspect/defendant benefits 
from the presumption of innocence and has no obligation to prove his innocence. Only, in the case 
of IE the burden of proof is shifted and it rests with the defendant to show that he or she did not 
know, and had no reasonable grounds for believing, that the person against whom the offence was 
committed was a victim of human trafficking.  

In  this  regard,  the  Explanatory  Report  of  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  Action  against 
Trafficking in Human Beings notes that "[…] Proving knowledge may be a difficult matter for the 
prosecution authorities. A similar difficulty arises with various other types of criminal law provision 
requiring  evidence  of  some  non-material  ingredient  of  an  offence.  However,  the  difficulty  of 
finding  evidence  is  not  necessarily  a  conclusive  argument  for  not  treating  a  given  type  of 
conduct as a criminal offence".  In this context, difficulties in building evidence for a crime should 
not result in not criminalising certain conduct.  

While the number of successful investigations, prosecutions and convictions has unquestionably a 
deterrent effect, it is questionable how such statistics may be interpreted, particularly in relation to 
assessing  the  impact  or  success  of  relevant  measures.  Given  that  the  greatest  impact  of  such 
measures  lies  in  preventing  the  crime  from  occurring  in  the  first  place,  statistics  on 
prosecutions and convictions cannot give a safe indication of the efficacy of the measures. As 
stated above, statistical data provided for this report are scarce. For 2014 and 2015, BG reports that 
there were respectively four (4) indictments and one (1) conviction and five (5) indictments and two 
(2) convictions. EL reported that according to the statistical data of the Hellenic Police there was 
one (1) prosecution since the entry into force of the new Law. RO further informs that in 2015 the 
first cases were reported to the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism  and 
nine  (9)  persons  were  prosecuted  for  the  offence  of  using  the  services  of  trafficking  victims. 
According to the Superior Council of Magistracy, up to May 2016, 15 people had been convicted 
for  the  offence  of  using  the  services  of  an  exploited  person.  These  sentences  were  not  final 
however, and could be appealed before the Supreme Court.  

7 

 
 
In  this  respect,  the  Commission  wishes  to  recall  the  findings  of  the  Progress  Report  “The 
information  gathered  by  the  Commission  clearly  shows  that  it  is  important  for  Member  States  to 
strengthen  efforts  to  increase  the  number  of  investigations  and  prosecutions,  and  to  reduce  the 
burden  placed  on  victims  and  their  testimonies  during  proceedings  for  evidence  gathering.  They 
could  do  this  by  developing  regular  and  tailor-made  training  for  investigators,  prosecutors  and 
judges  and  by  systematically  using  financial  investigations  (as  recommended  by  the  Financial 
Action  Task  Force)  and  other  effective  intelligence-led  investigative  tools,  which  can  provide  a 
diversity  of  evidence  to  be  used  in  addition  to  victims'  testimonies.  They  should  also  dedicate 
sufficient financial and human resources to properly address this crime".  

Restricting  criminal  liability  only  to  the  situation  where  the  user  has  direct  and  actual 
knowledge that the person is a victim of human trafficking creates a very high threshold for 
achieving prosecutions. In this respect, consideration of the level of knowledge that should be 
required for this offence should be a matter for close examination.  

3.  Ensuring effective prevention of trafficking in human beings  
This chapter reflects the deliberations9 by the Commission on the matter, guided by the EU Anti-
Trafficking Strategy10 and other key policy instruments11, and provides a backbone to the analysis 
thereof. The abovementioned analysis has demonstrated an incomplete and diverse legal framework 
at national level on the legal treatment of users of victims of trafficking, which impacts the effective 
prevention  of  the  crime.  It  is  in  this  environment,  that  trafficking  in  human  beings  remains 
pervasive despite efforts made, with no indications that this serious crime is decreasing.  

In this respect, a foundation for any decisive deterrent action for trafficking in human beings is 
accountability of the perpetrators. This is also reflected in other key international and European 
legal  instruments.12  It  was  further  touched  upon  by  the  European  Parliament13  and  the 
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,14 and by the civil society.15  

9 Such as the Commission studies i.e. on prevention initiatives on trafficking in human beings and on gender dimension 
of trafficking in human beings, which were deliverables of the EU Anti-Trafficking Strategy. 
10  Communication  on  The  EU  Strategy  towards  the  Eradication  of  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  2012–2016, 
(COM(2012) 286 final).  
11  Such  as  the  European  Agenda  on  Security,  the  European  Agenda  on  Migration,  the  EU  Strategic  Engagement  on 
Gender Equality, the EU Human Rights and Democracy Action Plan.  
12 For example, the 2000 United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially 
Women and Children (Art. 9) and   the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human 
Beings (Art. 6 and 19).  
13 European Parliament resolution of 12 May 2016 on implementation of the Directive 2011/36/EU of 5 April 2011 on 
preventing  and  combating  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  protecting  its  victims  from  a  gender  perspective 
(2015/2118(INI)), European Parliament resolution of 5 July 2016 on the fight against trafficking in human beings in the 
EU’s external relations (2015/2340(INI)), European Parliament Resolution of 26 February 2014 on sexual exploitation 
and  prostitution and its impact on gender equality (2013/2103(INI).  
14  Council  of  Europe  Parliamentary  Assembly  Resolution  Prostitution,  Trafficking  and  Modern  Slavery  in  Europe 
Resolution 1983 (2014).  
Available at: http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewPDF.asp?FileID=20716&lang=en  
15 Organisations participating in the EU civil society platform against trafficking in human beings note that legislation is 
the  most  important  measure  that  Member  States  should  take  in  order  to  ensure  prevention  and  demand  reduction. 
Commission Staff Working Document  Accompanying the document Report on the progress made in the fight against 

8 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
The Commission has stipulated in the European Agenda on Security and repeatedly stressed in its 
reports and studies that trafficking in human beings, as a serious, cross-border and organised crime, 
has huge human social and economic costs.16 It is driven by demand for all forms of exploitation 
and  by  high  profits.  The  profits,  in  both  the  legal  and  illegal  economies,  result  in  a  complex 
interplay  between  supply  and  demand  that  must  be  addressed  if  the  crime  is  to  be  eradicated17. 
Addressing this demand and reducing it is a legal obligation in Directive 2011/36/EU and aims at 
preventing the harm from happening, by changing the wider environment so as to reduce incentives 
for trafficking in human beings.  

3.1. Identifying the user of services exacted by victims of trafficking in human beings 

In this context, demand encompasses all those individuals, groups or legal persons, that are driven 
by the objective of exploiting victims in order to make a profit on many levels, those who directly 
use and abuse the victims, as well as those who act as promoters or facilitators and generally those 
who create and contribute to creating an enabling environment for this.  

Businesses using trafficking victims and taking profits from trafficking are not restricted to criminal 
organisations  and  trafficking  often  involves  a  chain  of  legitimate  businesses.  Profit-takers  range 
from relatives of victims, to informal or formal recruitment agencies, labour market intermediaries 
supplying  labour  in  specific  sectors  or  sub-contractors  in  global  supply  chains,  as  well  as  travel 
agencies  and  transport  enterprises,  as  well  as  information  and  communication  technologies 
companies.  

Another  source  of  demand  is  consumers,  who  may  be  individuals  purchasing  products 
manufactured by victims but with no knowledge of how they have been produced, or knowing users 
of  victims  of  trafficking,  who  ignore  obvious  signs  of  trafficking  and  labour/sexual  exploitation, 
such  as  very  low  prices  or  signs  of  violence  and  intimidation.  In  this  respect,  this  report  refrains 
from using terms such as "client" in the context of trafficking for sexual exploitation of either adult 
or  child  victims,  since  such  terminology  would  obscure  the  suffering,  abuse  and  violations  that 
victims of trafficking have endured. 

As stated in the Commission Staff Working Document  accompanying the document Report on the 
progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims: “The final 
objective  of  eradication  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  can  only  be  achieved  if  the  crime  is 
prevented from happening in the first place and using the wide range of available tools at EU 
and national level […] This means not only addressing the root causes that make people more 
vulnerable to trafficking – such as poverty, gender inequality and violence against women, ethnic 

trafficking in human beings trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, COM(2016) 267 final,  SWD(2016) 
159 final, p. 64. 
16 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions, "The European Agenda on Security", COM (2015) 185 final. 
17Progress Report. 

9 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                     
discrimination,  societal  marginalisation,  irregular  migration  –  but  also  ensuring  that  those  who 
profit from the crime and exploit the victims are brought to justice”.18   

It  is  clear  that  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  any  aspect  of  it  is  always  illicit.  There  is  nothing 
legitimate  about  trafficking  in  human  beings.  Exploitation  of  a  person  in  coercive  circumstances 
from another person is reprehensible conduct in every criminal justice system. Trafficking in human 
beings has no legal or moral face. It is a serious crime and a grave violation of human dignity, as 
per the prohibition in Article 5(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The 
lack of criminalisation of the use of services of a trafficked person, especially with the knowledge 
that  she  or  he  is  a  victim  of  human  trafficking,  renders  the  overall  fight  against  trafficking  in 
human beings less effective and hinders the attainment of the objectives of Directive 2011/36/EU. 
Even if national legislations do not establish as a criminal offence the use of services which are the 
objects of exploitation of trafficking in human beings, the fact of the matter remains:  victims often 
have  been  repeatedly  raped,  mentally  and  psychically  abused,  suffered  offences  against  not  least 
their freedom, dignity, sexual self-determination, bodily integrity.  

4. Concluding remarks and way forward 

As  stipulated  in  Article  18(4)  of  the  Directive  2011/36/EU,  in  order  to  make  the  preventing  and 
combating  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  more  effective,  Member  States  shall  consider  taking 
measures to establish as a criminal offence the use of services which are the objects of exploitation 
of victims of trafficking. The analysis made in this Report, in the context of assessing the impact of 
existing relevant  national  legislation, as  per Article  23(2) of the Directive, demonstrates  a rather 
diverse  legal  landscape  which  fails  to  effectively  contribute  to  discouraging  demand  of  such 
services.  

In the complete absence or inadequate criminalisation of the use of such services in the context of 
trafficking in human beings, the activity of traffickers which by definition includes exploitation 
of  their  victims,  may  not  only  be  less  discouraged,  but  adversely  may  be  even  fostered 
including  through  a  culture  of  impunity.  Obviously,  the  challenge  of  discouraging  demand 
implies to focus more on those who actually use the services of different forms of trafficking 
with the knowledge that the person is victim of an offence.  

Currently, several Member States' legal systems do not, or only partially, outlaw those who make 
use of such services with relevant knowledge,  impacting on legal uncertainty with regards, for 
example, the criminal liability linked to the relation of the user with the victim, the legal treatment 
of those who profit from or enable and facilitate such exploitation, the distinction between a user 
and an exploiter, the liability of intermediaries, as well as the broader supply chains.     

Member States should step up their efforts to ensure a more unified and dissuasive action against 
this  element  of  the  cross-border  crime  of  trafficking  in  human  beings.  The  ultimate  aim  of  this 
Report is to contribute to meeting the objectives of the Directive 2011/36/EU on reducing demand 

18 Commission Staff Working Document  Accompanying the document Report on the progress made in the fight against 
trafficking in human beings trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, COM(2016) 267 final,  SWD(2016) 
159 final, p. 39 

10 

 
 
                                                            
and prevent trafficking in human beings, in order to ensure that criminal groups are not benefiting 
from the diverse legal treatment of users of victims of trafficking. In this respect, the Commission 
draws  important  conclusions  from  monitoring  the  situation in  the  Member  States  and  will  further 
examine potential options and consider in the future, if necessary, appropriate legislative proposals, 
as per Article 23 (2) of the Directive 2011/36/EU. 

11