REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL based on Article 29(1) of Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, criminal law, fight against crime, help for victims, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, national implementing measure, offence, penalty, terrorism

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2020  COM(2020) 619 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL based on Article 29(1) of Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1.  Objectives and main elements of Directive (EU) 2017/541  

On 15 March 2017, the Parliament and the Council adopted Directive (EU) 2017/541 on 
combating  terrorism1  (“the  Directive”).  The  Directive  was  adopted  to  strengthen 
Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA2 by extending the crimes related to terrorism and to 
include measures  that respond more precisely to  the needs of victims  of terrorism.  The 
co-legislator  adopted  the  Directive  on  15  March  2017.  Member  States  bound  by  the 
Directive3 are to criminalise conduct such as training and travelling for terrorism, as well 
as  terrorist  financing.  These  harmonised  definitions  of  terrorist  offences  serve  as  a 
benchmark for cooperation and information exchange between national authorities.   

The Directive also complements legislation on the rights for victims of terrorism4. They 
are  entitled  to  access  to  professional,  specialist  support  services,  immediately  after  an 
attack and for as  long as necessary. Member States  should have in  place  protocols and 
mechanisms  to  provide  for  efficient  emergency  response,  including  access  to  reliable 
information, thereby avoiding any additional suffering for victims of terrorism and their 
families.  

The deadline for incorporating the rules into national law was 8 September 2018.   

1.2.  Purpose  and  structure  of  the  report,  information  gathering  and 

methodology 

In accordance with Article 29(1) of the Directive, this report assesses the extent to which 
Member States have taken the necessary measures to comply with the Directive. It first 
outlines  the  general  level  of  transposition  of  the  Directive  by  the  Member  States,  and 
then highlights certain transposition issues. 

The  description  and  analysis  in  this  report  are  primarily  based  on  the  information  that 
Member  States  have  provided  to  the  Commission  through  notification  of  national 
measures transposing the Directive by April 2020. Notifications received after that date 
have  not  been  taken  into  account.  In  its  analysis  of  the  information  received  from  the 
Member States, the Commission was supported by an external contractor. Member States 
also  submitted  comments  to  the  preliminary  findings  of  the  contractor,  which  is  an 

1   OJ L 88/6, 31.03.2017. 

2   OJ L 164/3, 22.6.2002. 

3   From this point onwards, ‘Member States’ or ‘all Member States’ refer to the Member States bound by 
the  Directive  (i.e.  all  EU  Member  States  except  Denmark,  Ireland  and  the  United  Kingdom).  In 
accordance  with  Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol 22 on the Position of Denmark, Denmark did not take 
part in the adoption of the Directive, nor does the Directive apply to it. In accordance with Article 3 of 
Protocol 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, both did not take part in the adoption 
of  the  Directive  and  are  not  bound  by  it.  However,  Council  Framework  Decision  2002/475/JHA 
continues to be applicable to and binding upon Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. 

4    Directive 2012/29/EU (OJ L 315/57, 14.11.2012) establishes minimum standards on the rights, support 
and protection of victims of crime. This includes rights, support and protection of victims of terrorism, 
as Member States should take particular account of the needs of victims of terrorism. Directive (EU) 
2017/541 further qualifies the specific needs of victims of terrorism. 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
additional source of information. The report also takes into account information provided 
by  the  Member  States  during  the  five  transposition  workshops  organised  by  the 
Commission  between  June  2017  and  September  2018,  as  well  as  publicly  available 
information.  In  addition,  the  Commission  has  taken  into  account  the  findings  of  the 
Commission 
implementation  of  Council  Framework  Decision 
2008/919/JHA of 28 November 2008 amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on 
combating terrorism5.  

report  on 

the 

Beyond  the  analysis  provided  by  this  report,  there  may  be  further  challenges  in 
transposition and other provisions not reported to the Commission or further legislative 
and  non-legislative  developments.  Therefore, 
the 
Commission  from  further  evaluating  some  provisions  in  order  to  continue  supporting 
Member States in the transposition and implementation of the Directive.  

this  report  does  not  prevent 

2.  ASSESSMENT OF THE TRANSPOSITION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

2.1.  General  assessment  and  impact  of  the  Directive  on  the  national  legal 

systems 

The  deadline  for  transposition  of  the  Directive  expired  on  8  September  2018.  Seven 
Member States  –  France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Slovakia and Sweden – 
notified  transposition  of  the  Directive  by  the  deadline,  and  two  (Finland  and  The 
Netherlands) did so shortly after. 

The  Commission  launched  infringement  procedures  on  22  November  2018  against 
sixteen  Member  States  for  failing  to  communicate  the  adoption  of  national  legislation 
which fully transposes the Directive6.  

By  the  end  of  July  2020,  fifteen  out  of  those  sixteen  Member  States  have  declared  the 
transposition to be completed.  

Almost  all Member States adopted,  at  least  in  part, specific legislation to transpose the 
Directive. The exceptions were France and Italy, which considered that its pre-existing 
legislation was sufficient to transpose the Directive.  

Where legislation was adopted for the purpose of the transposition of the Directive, this 
was  almost  always  to  introduce  amendments  to  pre-existing  legislation,  normally  the 
Criminal  Code  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  or  other,  more 
specific,  legislation.  The  exception  was  Cyprus,  where  new,  separate,  legislation  was 
adopted.  

Overall, the transposition of the Directive appears to be satisfactory. However, a number 
of transposition issues encountered by the Commission in one or several Member States 
pose a particular concern:  

5   COM(2014) 554 final, 5.9.2014. 

6   Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, 

Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Spain. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 

 

 

the incomplete or incorrect transposition of one or more of the terrorist offences 
listed in Article 3 of the Directive, including not qualifying the listed offences as 
terrorist offences, which impacts on the transposition of several other provisions; 
the  lack  of  transposition  of  the  element  “contribute  to  the  commission”  in 
Articles 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the Directive; 
the  incomplete  or  incorrect  transposition  of  Article  9  on  travelling  for  the 
purposes  of  terrorism  and  Article  11  on  terrorism  financing,  two  of  the  new 
provisions introduced by the Directive, and; 

  shortcomings in the transposition of specific provisions for victims of terrorism. 

2.2.  Specific assessment of the transposing measures in the Member States  

2.2.1.  Subject matter (Article 1) 

This provision explains what the Directive is about and notes that it sets minimum rules. 
Accordingly, Member States are allowed to  go beyond the obligations of the Directive. 
This provision does not require transposition.  

2.2.2.  Definitions (Article 2) 

Article 2 of the Directive lists the definitions of the terms used in the Directive, namely: 
“funds”,  “legal  person”,  “terrorist  group”  and  “structured  group”.  In  some  Member 
States, some definitions are not explicitly transposed but rather established through case 
law. Overall, the transposition of this article is satisfactory. 

As regards Article 2(1), Czechia’s legislation does not appear to provide for a definition 
of “funds”. 

As regards Article 2(3), several Member States appear to have transposed the definition 
of “terrorist group” in a more limited way, which may limit the scope of application of 
the crime of participation in a terrorist group (Article 4).  

Cyprus’ legislation appears to add a limitation to the definition – terrorist groups must 
be on the lists of natural or legal persons or other groups which have been subject to anti-
terrorism  sanctions  or  other  measures,  created  in  compliance  with  resolutions  of  the 
United Nations Security Council or restrictive measures by the Council of the European 
Union,  and  updated  by  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs.  In  Lithuania,  terrorist  groups 
that do not have formally defined roles for its members or continuity of its membership 
do not seem to qualify as terrorist groups in its national legislation.  

2.2.3.  Scope (Article 3)   

Article 3(1) of the Directive provides that Member States ensure that the intentional acts 
listed  within  its  sub-paragraphs  are  criminalised  as  terrorist  offences  where  committed 
with one of the aims listed in its paragraph 2.  

Article 3(1) does  not  just entail  a requirement to criminalise specific acts, but  also  that 
such acts are labelled as terrorist offences in national legislation. However, in Germany, 
there seems to be no provision that qualifies any of the listed offences in Article 3(1) as 
‘terrorist offences’ if they are committed with any of the aims of Article 3(2). The only 
offences  explicitly  defined  as  terrorist  offences  are  terrorist  financing  and  offences 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
related  to  a  terrorist  group.  This  seems  to  preclude  that  a  person  acting  alone  that 
commits  a  listed  offence  with  a  terrorist  aim,  without  participating  in  or  supporting  a 
terrorist group, is indicted for a terrorist offence, except for terrorist financing, which is 
defined  as  a  terrorist  offence  in  German  law.  In  addition,  a  common  qualification  of 
terrorist  offences  is  important  as  it  allows  for  effective  use  of  law  enforcement 
cooperation instruments, such as Council Decision 2005/671/JHA7. 

In  comparison  to  Framework  Decision  2002/475/JHA,  which  already  included  the 
obligation to criminalise a list of acts as terrorist offences, this Directive introduces a new 
terrorist  offence  related  to  illegal  system  and  data  interference  (Article  3(1)(i))  as 
referred  to  in  Directive  2013/40/EU8.  This  is  transposed  by  all  Member  States,  but  in 
Croatia, the legislation seems to concern only critical infrastructure. 

Secondly,  the  Directive  extends  the  manufacture,  possession,  acquisition,  transport, 
supply or use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (Article 3(1)(f)) to cover also 
radiological  weapons.  Legislation  in  certain  Member  States  does  not  seem  to  include 
certain types of weapons, such as radiological (Czechia, France and Malta) and nuclear 
weapons  (France  and  Malta).  In  addition,  with  Directive  2017/541,  the  crime  of 
research  and  development  into  such  weapons  now  covers  all  four  types  of  weapons 
(whereas  previously  it  only  covered  biological  and  chemical  weapons).  In  Austria, 
Bulgaria,  France,  Malta,  and  Poland,  the  legislation  does  not  appear  to  include 
research  into,  and  France’s  and  Malta’s  legislation  does  not  seem  to  include  the 
development  of  certain  weapons.  More  generally,  Germany’s  transposing  legislation 
does  not  seem  to  contain  an  explicit  reference  to  research  into  certain  weapons  as 
stipulated by Article 3(1)(f). 

In  relation  to  those  parts  of  the  offence  that  were  already  introduced  by  Framework 
Decision 2002/475/JHA, several issues still exist. 

As  regards  Article  3(1)(c)  of  the  Directive,  on  kidnapping  or  hostage-taking, 
Lithuania’s legislation does not seem to cover the situation in which the kidnapping or 
hostage-taking  was  performed  with  the  aim  to  seriously  intimidate  a  population  or  to 
seriously  destabilise  or  destroy  the  fundamental  political,  constitutional,  economic  or 
social structures of a country or an international organisation. Finland’s legislation does 
not appear to explicitly cover all cases of kidnapping, only aggravated human trafficking. 

As regards Article 3(1)(e) of the Directive, on seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of 
public  or  goods  transport,  five  Member  States  (Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg and Poland) do not appear to cover the seizure of other means of public or 
goods transport. 

As  regards  Article  3(1)(g)  on  the  release  of  dangerous  substances,  or  causing  fires, 
floods or explosions, Luxembourg’s legislation appears to cover the intentional delivery, 
placement or detonation of an explosive or other lethal device only when the offence is 
committed  in  a  public  place,  a  government  or  other  public  facility,  a  public  transport 
system  or  infrastructure.  Causing  floods  seems  covered  only  in  cases  of  intentional 
flooding of mines. 

7   OJ L 253, 29.9.2005. 

8   OJ L 218/8, 14.08.2013. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
As regards Article 3(1)(h) of the Directive, on interfering with or disrupting the supply 
of  water,  power  or  any  other  fundamental  natural  resource,  the  effect  of  which  is  to 
endanger human life,  Bulgaria’s  legislation does not  seem  to  refer to  water and power 
supply disturbance. Luxembourg’s legislation only appears to cover the alteration of the 
conditions of the water or groundwater. 

As regards Article 3(1)(i) of the Directive, on illegal system interference and illegal data 
interference, Croatia’s legislation seems to cover only interference with the operation of 
the  computer  system  of  critical  infrastructure.  This  does  not  cover  illegal  system 
interference  not  committed  against  a  critical  infrastructure  information  system  which 
causes  serious  damage  or  in  which  a  significant  number  of  information  systems  have 
been affected through the use of a tool designed or adapted primarily for that purpose (as 
referred to in Directive 2013/40/EU9). 

As  regards  Article  3(1)(j)  of  the  Directive,  on  threatening  to  commit  a  terrorist  act, 
Greece’s  legislation  requires  that  the  threat  is  made  publicly.  Germany’s  legislation 
does not appear to cover the threat to commit the offences of Article 3(1)(d) and Article 
3(1)(f).  Portugal’s  legislation  also  does  not  seem  to  cover  the  threat  to  commit  the 
offence  of  Article  3(1)(f)  of  the  Directive.  In  Luxembourg,  if  the  threat  is  not 
accompanied by an order or certain conditions, it does not constitute a terrorist offence. 

Bulgaria does not appear to have transposed the aim of Article 3(2)(c) of the Directive, 
on  seriously  destabilising  or  destroying  the  fundamental  political,  constitutional, 
economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation.  

2.2.4.  Offences related to a terrorist group (Article 4)  

Article  4  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  take  the  necessary  measures  to 
ensure  that  directing  a  terrorist  group  and  participating  in  the  activities  of  a  terrorist 
group are punishable as a criminal offence. In general, the measures that Member States 
have taken to comply with this article are satisfactory. 

As regards Article 4(a), Hungary’s legislation appears to refer to persons who organise 
a terrorist  group, rather than persons who direct  a terrorist  group.  Sweden’s legislation 
does  not  contain  a  self-standing  offence  in  relation  to  directing  a  terrorist  group  as 
provided for in Article 4(a), but instead transposes it through criminal responsibility for 
ancillary offences.  As for participation in  a terrorist  group (Article 4(b)),  Sweden also 
relies  on  ancillary  offences.  Since  the  offences  in  Article  4(a)  and  (b)  do  not  require  a 
link  to  a  specific  terrorist  offence,  criminalisation  by  ancillary  liability  risks  that 
participation  in  the  activities  of  a  terrorist  group  remains  unpunished.  Sweden  has 
recently criminalised collaboration with a terrorist group as a self-standing offence. The 
provision  only  seems  to  cover  the  supply  of  certain  material  resources,  and  does  not 
appear to cover the supply of information. 

In  relation  to  recital  38  excluding  humanitarian  activities  by  impartial  humanitarian 
organisations recognised by international law, including international humanitarian law, 
from  the  scope  of  the  Directive,  four  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium,  Italy  and 
Lithuania)  have  legislation  that  provides  limitations  to  the  application  of  counter-

9   OJ L 218/8, 14.08.2013. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
terrorism  legislation  in  case  of  humanitarian  or  other  activities.  In  other  Member 
States10,) generic legislation (such as the Criminal Code) can be interpreted to this effect, 
or the national authorities indicated that this is followed in practice.  

2.2.5.  Public provocation to commit a terrorist offence (Article 5) 

Article  5  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  criminalise  the  intentional 
distribution,  or  otherwise  making  available  by  any  means,  of  a  message  to  the  public, 
with the intent to incite the commission of a terrorist offence, where such conduct, either 
directly  or  indirectly  advocates  the  commission  of  terrorist  offences,  thereby  causing  a 
danger that one or more such offences may be committed. Overall, the transposition of 
this article is satisfactory. 

Legislation in Lithuania does not appear to cover cases in which a person distributes or 
otherwise  makes  available  a  message  to  the  public  with  the  intent  to  incite  the 
commission or contribution of a terrorist offence, without this actually leading to another 
person following up on that incitement. 

2.2.6.  Recruitment for terrorism (Article 6) 

Article 6 of the Directive requires Member States to criminalise soliciting another person 
to commit or contribute to the commission of one of the offences listed in points (a) to (i) 
of Article 3(1), or in Article 4. 

In  France,  the  transposing  measure  covers  “soliciting”  as  making  offers  or  promises, 
offering gifts, presents or other benefits, threatening or exerting pressure on a person to 
commit a terrorist offence. Article 6 also requires criminalising recruitment to contribute 
to  a  terrorist  offence,  an  element  which  does  not  appear  to  be  explicitly  covered  by 
Bulgaria’s,  Greece’s,  Portugal’s  and  Spain’s  legislation.  In  Latvia,  Malta,  Poland 
and Slovenia, this element appears to be covered by ancillary  offences, e.g. aiding and 
abetting. However, in transposing several other offences of the Directive, the legislation 
of these Member States does explicitly refer to the element of “contribution”.  

In addition, in Portugal, recruitment for offences relating to a terrorist group (Article 4) 
is not covered. In Germany, Article 6 has been transposed by several provisions, which 
together do not appear to cover all the required offences of the Directive. 

2.2.7.  Providing training for terrorism (Article 7)  

Article 7 of the Directive requires Member States to criminalise intentionally providing 
instruction on the making or use of explosives, firearms or other weapons or noxious or 
hazardous  substances,  or  on  other  specific  methods  or  techniques,  for  the  purpose  of 
committing, or contributing to the commission of, one of the offences listed in points (a) 
to  (i)  of  Article  3(1),  knowing  that  the  skills  provided  are  intended  to  be  used  for  this 
purpose. 

Just  as  Article  6  on  recruitment,  Article  7  on  providing  training  also  covers  training  to 
contribute  to  a  terrorist  offence,  an  element  which  does  not  appear  to  be  explicitly 
covered  by  Bulgaria’s,  Portugal’s  and  Spain’s  legislation.  In  Latvia,  Malta,  Poland 

10  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czechia,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Latvia,  The 

Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
and  Slovakia,  this  element  appears  to  be  covered  by  ancillary  offences  like  aiding  and 
abetting, whereas other offences of the Directive are transposed with an explicit reference 
to the element of “contribution”.  

In  Germany,  Article  7  has  not  been  transposed  by  a  specific  provision  but  by  several 
provisions, which together do not appear to cover all terrorist offences of the Directive. 

2.2.8.  Receiving training for terrorism (Article 8) 

Article 8 of the Directive requires Member State to criminalise receiving instruction on 
the  making  or  use  of  explosives,  firearms  or  other  weapons  or  noxious  or  hazardous 
substances, or on other specific methods or techniques, for the purpose of committing, or 
contributing to the commission of, one of the offences listed in points (a) to (i) of Article 
3(1).  

The offence also covers receiving training to contribute to a terrorist offence, an element 
which  does  not  appear  to  be  explicitly  covered  by  Bulgaria’s,  Portugal’s  and  Spain’s 
legislation,  as  is  the  case  for  Articles  6  and  7.  In  Slovakia,  this  element  appears  to  be 
covered  by  ancillary  offences  like  aiding  and  abetting,  whereas  other  offences  of  the 
Directive  are  transposed  with  an  explicit  reference  to  the  element  of  “contribution”. 
Equally,  Germany’s  legislation  transposes  this  provision  through  several  provisions, 
which together do not appear to cover all terrorist offences of the Directive. 

In  Cyprus,  Malta,  Slovakia  and  Slovenia,  the  legislation  does  not  appear  to  include 
self-study.  

2.2.9.  Travelling for the purpose of terrorism (Article 9)  

Article 9 of the Directive requires Member States to criminalise the intentional travelling 
for the purposes of committing, or contributing to the commission of, a terrorist offence, 
for the purpose of the participation in the activities of a terrorist group with knowledge of 
the fact that such participation will contribute to the criminal activities of such a group, 
or for the purpose of the providing or receiving of training for terrorism. Member States 
are given two options for transposition, through Article 9(2)(a) or Article 9(2)(b). 

Article  9(1)  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  criminalise  travelling  to  a 
country  other  than  the  Member  State  in  question.  In  Germany,  there  appears  to  be  no 
explicit reference to the purpose of participating in the activities of a terrorist group. In 
Bulgaria,  Portugal,  Romania  and  Slovenia,  the  scope  of  the  offence  seems  narrower 
than  in  the  Directive  because  the  legislation  contains  a  more  limited  definition  of  the 
persons that travel or the territories they travel to. Article 9(2) of the Directive refers to 
travelling  to  that  Member  State,  giving  Member  States  two  options  for  transposition. 
Poland does not appear to transpose this provision at all. 

Under Article 9(2)(a) Member States may criminalise travelling to that Member State for 
the abovementioned terrorist purposes. This option was transposed by eighteen Member 
States11.  

11  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czechia,  Estonia,  Finland,  Greece,  Hungary,  Latvia, 

Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In Bulgaria, there seems to be no reference to the purpose to participate in the activities 
of a terrorist  group.  In  Portugal, travelling to  contribute to  the commission  of terrorist 
offences appears not to be covered, and the national provision would not cover persons 
travelling to Portugal if they are Portuguese nationals or have their residence in Portugal. 
Similarly, in Romania, it is unclear if a resident of a state travelling back to the state of 
his or her citizenship in order to commit (or contribute to the commission of) a terrorist 
offence would be covered.  

Alternatively,  Member  States  under  Article  9(2)(b)  may  criminalise  preparatory  acts 
undertaken  by  a  person  entering  that  Member  State  with  the  intention  to  commit,  or 
contribute  to  the  commission  of,  a  terrorist  offence  under  Article  3.  This  option  was 
transposed  by  fourteen  Member  States12.  Indeed,  eight  Member  States  (Belgium, 
Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Slovakia and Sweden) transposed both 
options.  

In  Germany, 
the 
transposition  of  Article  9(2)(b)  has  been  ensured 
criminalisation of conspiracy, but this appears to be narrower than the preparatory acts of 
Article  9(2)(b).  As  to  the  element  of  “contributing”  to  the  commission  of  terrorist 
offences,  some  Member  States  do  not  appear  to  have  explicitly  transposed  this.  This 
concerns  Poland  in  relation  to  Article  9(1),  Slovenia  in  relation  to  Article  9(2)(a), 
Bulgaria  and  Spain  in  relation  to  Article  9(2)(b),  and  Slovakia  in  relation  to  all 
paragraphs.    

through 

2.2.10.  Organising or otherwise facilitating travelling for the purpose of 

terrorism (Article 10)  

Article  10  requires  Member  State  to  criminalise  any  intentional  act  of  organisation  or 
facilitation that assists any person in travelling for the purpose of terrorism, as referred to 
in Article 9(1) and point (a) of Article 9(2), knowing that the assistance thus rendered is 
for that purpose. In general, the measures that Member States have taken to comply with 
this article are satisfactory. 

In Bulgaria and Lithuania, the legislation appears to require that the crime of travelling 
for  terrorist  purposes  is  actually  committed  for  the  facilitation  or  organisation  of 
travelling  to  be  criminalised.  In  Slovakia,  the  transposing  provision  seems  to  limit  the 
geographical scope of the travel.  

2.2.11.  Terrorist financing (Article 11) 

Article  11  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  punish  terrorist  financing  as  a 
criminal  offence  when  committed  intentionally.  It  also  specifies  that  where  terrorist 
financing concerns any of the offences laid down in Articles 3, 4 and 9 of the Directive, it 
is  not  necessary  that  the  funds  be  in  fact  used  nor  that  the  offender  knows  for  which 
specific offence or offences the funds are to be used. 

In Bulgaria, Germany, Malta, Poland and Portugal, terrorist financing does not appear 
to cover the financing of all offences in Articles 3 to 10 as required by the Directive. In 
Bulgaria, Latvia, Portugal and Spain the element “contribute to the commission” does 

12  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia  Cyprus,  Czechia,  Estonia,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  The 

Netherlands, Slovakia, Spain, and Sweden. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
not seem to be reflected in national law. In Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, the approach 
to  the  transposition  of  the  element  “contribute  to  the  commission”  is  not  consistent 
throughout  the  transposing  legislation.  In  Luxembourg,  national  legislation  adds  the 
condition that the funds were unlawfully collected.  

2.2.12.  Other offences related to terrorist activities (Article 12) 

Article 12 of the Directive requires Member States to criminalise as offences related to 
terrorist activities, aggravated theft  and  extortion with  a view to  committing one of the 
offences listed in Article 3 of the Directive, and drawing up or using false administrative 
documents  with  a  view  to  committing  one  of  the  offences  listed  in  points  (a)  to  (i)  of 
Article 3(1), point (b) of Article 4, and Article 9 of the Directive. 

Croatia’s and Greece’s legislation does not appear to criminalise the intentional acts of 
aggravated  theft,  extortion  and  drawing  up  or  using  false  administrative  documents  as 
offences  related  to  terrorist  activities.  In  Finland,  only  aggravated  theft  with  a  view  to 
committing  a  terrorist  offence,  and  not  extortion  or  drawing  up  or  using  false 
administrative  documents,  seems  to  be  covered  as  an  offence  related  to  terrorist 
activities.  

2.2.13.  Relationship to terrorist offences (Article 13) 

Article 13 of the Directive provides that for an offence referred to in Article 4 or Title III 
to be punishable, it shall not be necessary that a terrorist offence be actually committed, 
nor shall it be necessary, insofar as the offences referred to in Articles 5 to 10 and 12 of 
the Directive are concerned, to establish a link to another specific offence laid down in 
the Directive. 

In  Bulgaria,  the  transposition  of  the  offence  in  Article  10  of  the  Directive  and  the 
contribution  to  the  commission  of  certain  offences  related  to  terrorist  activities  is  done 
via  the  criminalisation  of  aiding  and  abetting.  Under  their  national  law,  aiding  and 
abetting  only  seems  to  be  penalised  when  the  main  offence  is  actually  committed.  In 
Greece, the offence of Article 10 is not a self-standing offence, and therefore it appears 
necessary  to  establish  a  link  to  another  specific  offence  in  the  Directive  (Article  9).  In 
Lithuania, the preparation to commit a crime that is not classified as “serious”, such as 
those  transposing  Articles  5,  9  and  10  of  the  Directive,  does  not  appear  to  be 
criminalised.  Therefore,  if  the  offence  is  discontinued  at  the  stage  of  preparation, 
preparatory actions would not be criminalised. 

2.2.14.  Aiding and abetting, inciting and attempting (Article 14) 

Article 14 of the Directive requires Member States to ensure that aiding and abetting an 
offence  referred  to  in  Articles  3  to  8,  11  and  12  of  the  Directive,  inciting  an  offence 
referred  to  in  Articles  3  to  12  of  the  Directive,  and  attempting  to  commit  an  offence 
referred to in Articles 3, 6, 7, Article 9(1), point (a) of Article 9(2), and Articles 11 and 
12  of  the  Directive,  with  the  exception  of  possession  as  provided  for  in  point  (f)  of 
Article 3(1) and the offence referred to in point (j) of Article 3(1), is punishable. Overall, 
the transposition of this article is satisfactory. 

Poland  has  transposed  Article  6  by  the  same  measure  as  Article  14(1)  and  14(2).  It  is 
therefore  unclear  whether  aiding  and  abetting  or  inciting  the  offence  of  Article  6  is 
criminalised. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
In Greece, inciting the offence of Article 10 does not seem punishable, as Article 10 is 
not transposed as a self-standing offence. 

As  regards  Article  14(3),  referring  to  attempting,  in  Malta,  the  attempt  of  certain 
offences covered under Article 3, and the attempt of offences mentioned under Articles 6, 
7, 11 and 12 of the Directive does not seem criminalised. 

2.2.15.  Penalties for natural persons (Article 15) 

Article 15 of the Directive requires Member States to ensure that the offences referred to 
in Articles 3 to 12 and 14 of the Directive are punishable by effective, proportionate and 
dissuasive  criminal  penalties.  Specifically,  it  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  that  the 
terrorist offences referred to in Article 3 and aiding and abetting, inciting and attempting 
such offences, are punishable by custodial sentences heavier than those imposable under 
national  law  for  such  offences  in  the  absence  of  the  special  intent  (except  where  the 
sentences imposable are already the maximum possible sentences under national law).  

Regarding Article 15(2), in Bulgaria the penalty for the offence in Article 3(1)(j) of the 
Directive (threatening to commit a terrorist offence) seems to be lighter than the penalty 
for  threatening  to  commit  a  crime.  In  Czechia,  the  national  law  does  not  appear  to 
stipulate heavier punishments for the acts of gaining control over means of air transport, 
civilian vessels and fixed platforms committed with the terrorist intent required pursuant 
to Article 3 of the Directive.  

Article  15(3)  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  provide  in  their  national 
legislation  for  custodial  sentences  with  a  maximum  penalty  for  the  offences  in  Article 
4(a) and (b) of the Directive, as well as for the offence referred to in point (j) of Article 
3(1) when committed by a person directing a terrorist group, at least at the level set out in 
Article 15(3).  

In Bulgaria, if the terrorist offence referred to in point (j) of Article 3(1) is committed by 
a  person  directing  a  terrorist  group  the  maximum  sanction  appears  lower  than  the  one 
envisaged in Article 15(3). In Finland, the maximum sentence for the offence in Article 
4(a) of the Directive if not committed in combination with another offence, seems lower 
than stipulated by Article 15(3). In Hungary, some of the activities concerning directing 
a  terrorist  group  appear  to  be  punishable  with  lower  sanctions  than  stipulated  in  the 
Directive. In Luxembourg, depending on the extent to which a person participated in a 
terrorist  group  (Article  4(b)),  the  maximum  sanction  could  be  a  fine  rather  than  a 
custodial  sentence.  In  Sweden,  some  of  the  activities  concerning  the  participation  in  a 
terrorist  group  appear  to  be  punishable  with  a  maximum  sanction  that  is  lower  than 
stipulated in the Directive. 

2.2.16.  Mitigating circumstances (Article 16) 

Article  16  of  the  Directive  gives  Member  States  the  option  to  reduce  the  penalties 
referred  to  in  Article  15  if  the  offender  renounces  terrorist  activity  and  if  the  offender 
provides the administrative or judicial authorities with information which they would not 
otherwise have been able to obtain, helping them to prevent or mitigate the effects of the 
offence; identify or bring to justice the other offenders; find evidence; or prevent further 
offences referred to in Articles 3 to 12 and 14. 

11 

 
 
 
Twenty-three  Member  States13  have  made  use  (or  partial  use)  of  this  option.  Two 
Member  States  (Estonia  and  Slovenia)  have  not  used  the  option  in  Article  16  of  the 
Directive at all.  

The  option  in  Article  16(1)(a)  –  renouncement  of  terrorist  activity  –  has  been  used  by 
seventeen Member States14.  

The  option  in  Article  16(1)(b)  –  provision  of  information  to  the  competent  authorities 
which they would not otherwise have been able to obtain – has been used by twenty-two 
Member  States15,  although  ten  of  these16  have  not  used  all  the  options  listed  in  sub 
paragraphs (i) to (iv). 

2.2.17.  Liability of legal persons (Article 17) 

Article 17 of the Directive establishes that Member States must ensure that legal persons 
can  be  held  liable  for  offences  referred  to  in  Articles  3  to  12  and  14  of  the  Directive 
committed  for  their  benefit  by  any  person,  acting  either  individually  or  as  part  of  an 
organ of the legal person, and having a leading position within the legal person, as well 
as where the lack of supervision or control of such a person has made the commission of 
such an offence possible. It also determines that where legal persons are held liable, this 
does not exclude the possibility of bringing criminal proceedings against natural persons 
who  are  involved  as  perpetrators,  inciters  or  accessories.  In  general,  the  measures  that 
Member States have taken to comply with this article are satisfactory. 

In Bulgaria, it appears that legal persons cannot be held liable for the offence in Article 
10 of the Directive, and in Poland, it seems that legal persons cannot be held liable for 
the offence in Article 9 of the Directive. In Croatia and France there appears to be no 
explicit  reference  to  the  lack  of  supervision  or  control  (Article  17(2)).  In  Croatia, 
however, legal persons can be held liable whenever a legal person’s responsible person 
commits a crime for the benefit of the legal person.  

2.2.18.  Sanctions for legal persons (Article 18) 

Article  18  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  that  a  legal  person  held 
liable  pursuant  to  Article  17  is  punishable  by  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive 
sanctions,  which  shall  include  criminal  or  non-criminal  fines  and  may  include  other 
sanctions. It also includes a list of optional other sanctions. 

13  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czechia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary, 
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The  Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, 
Spain, and Sweden. 

14  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czechia,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Latvia,  

Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain. 

15  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czechia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary, 
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, and 
Sweden. 

16  Finland,  France,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  The  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal  and 

Romania. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
Twenty-one  out  of  twenty-five  Member  States17  have  made  use  (or  partial  use)  of  the 
options listed under Article 18 of the Directive. Four Member States (Estonia, Finland, 
The Netherlands and Sweden) have not used those options at all.  

The option under Article 18(a) – exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid – 
has been used by thirteen Member States18.  

The  option  under  Article  18(b)  –  temporary  or  permanent  disqualification  from  the 
practice of commercial activities – has been used by eighteen Member States19.  

The option under Article 18(c) – placing under judicial supervision – has been used by 
five Member States (Cyprus, France, Malta, Romania and Spain).  

The  option  under  Article  18(d)  –  a  judicial  winding-up  order  –  has  been  used  by 
seventeen Member States20.  

The  option  under  Article  18(e)  –  temporary  or  permanent  closure  of  establishments 
which have been used for committing the offence – has been used by nine Member States 
(Belgium,  Cyprus,  France,  Greece,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Portugal,  Romania  and 
Spain). 

2.2.19.  Jurisdiction and prosecution (Article 19) 

Article  19  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  establish  jurisdiction  over  the 
offences referred to in Articles 3 to 12 and 14 in certain cases, allowing them, at the same 
time, to extend that jurisdiction to other specified cases. Article 19 also requires Member 
States to cooperate in cases of conflicting jurisdiction. It also requires Member States to 
establish  jurisdiction  over  the  offences  referred  to  in  Articles  3  to  12  and  14  in  cases 
where a Member State refuses to surrender or extradite a person, as well as to cover cases 
in which any of the offences referred to in Articles 4 and 14 has been committed in whole 
or in part within its territory, regardless of where the terrorist group is based or pursues 
its criminal activities. 

The cases in which jurisdiction has to be established are referred to in point (a) to (e) of 
Article 19(1).  

As regards point (c) on jurisdiction where the offender is one of its nationals or residents, 
Germany’s legislation does not seem to contain a general rule establishing the domicile 

17 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Spain, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, 

Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia. 

18  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czechia,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Poland,  Portugal, 

Slovakia and Spain. 

19 Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 

Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. 

20  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czechia,  France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 

Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain. 

13 

 
 
                                                 
principle21, and in Portugal, there seems to be no general rule establishing the nationality 
principle22. 

As regards point (d) on jurisdiction where the offence is committed for the benefit of a 
legal  person  established  in  its  territory,  this  appears  not  to  have  been  transposed  by 
Germany, France, The Netherlands, Poland and Portugal.   

As  regards  point  (e)  on  jurisdiction  where  the  offence  is  committed  against  the 
institutions  or  people  of  the  Member  State  in  question  or  against  an  institution,  body, 
office  or  agency  of  the  Union  based  in  that  Member  State,  in  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  
Hungary, Romania and Spain legislation does not appear to cover residents who are not 
nationals. In Germany, neither residents nor EU institutions seem explicitly covered. In 
Poland, the national law does not expressly cover institutions, bodies, offices or agencies 
of the Union. Portugal’s law only seems to cover situations in which “the institutions or 
people” are in Portugal or have their domicile there.  

Seventeen  Member  States23  have  made  use  (or  partial  use)  of  the  option  under  Article 
19(1)  second  sub  paragraph  allowing  a  Member  State  to  extend  its  jurisdiction  if  the 
offence is committed in the territory of another Member State.  

Six  Member  States  (Belgium,  Finland,  Germany,  Lithuania,  The  Netherlands  and 
Spain)  have  made  use  of  the  option  under  Article  19(2)  allowing  a  Member  State  to 
extend jurisdiction over providing training for terrorism as referred to in Article 7, where 
the  offender  provides  training  to  its  nationals  or  residents,  in  cases  where  the  rules  on 
jurisdiction established under Article 19(1) of the Directive are not applicable. 

Article 19(4) of the Directive, requiring Member States to establish its jurisdiction over 
the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 12 and 14 in cases where it refuses to surrender or 
extradite  a  person,  does  not  appear  to  be  explicitly  transposed  by  Germany,  Italy  and 
Poland. In Cyprus, the transposing provisions for Article 19(4) and Article 19(5) of the 
Directive do not seem to apply to all the offences covered by the Directive.  

2.2.20.  Investigative tools and confiscation (Article 20) 

Article 20 of the Directive requires Member States to ensure effective investigative tools, 
such as those used in  organised crime or other serious crime cases, for investigating or 
prosecuting  terrorism.  It  also  requires  that  Member  States  ensure  that  their  competent 
authorities  freeze  or  confiscate,  as  appropriate, 
in  accordance  with  Directive 
2014/42/EU24,  the  proceeds  derived  from  and  instrumentalities  used  or  intended  to  be 
used  in  the  commission  or  contribution  to  terrorism.  Overall,  the  transposition  of  this 
article is satisfactory. 

21   Which would allow it to exercise criminal jurisdiction over its residents. 

22   Which would allow it to exercise criminal jurisdiction over its nationals. 

23 Belgium,  Czechia, Finland,  France, Germany, Hungary, Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg, Poland, 

Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. 

24   OJ L 127/39, 29.04.2014. 

14 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
As regards Article 20(1), in Germany, effective investigative tools such as those used in 
organised crime or other serious crime cases do not seem available for the investigation 
of  all  offences  required  by  the  Directive.  For  example,  they  are  not  available  for  the 
terrorist  offence  of  attacks  upon  the  physical  integrity  of  a  person  with  a  terrorist  aim 
(Article  3(1)(b)).  In  Lithuania,  not  all  investigative  tools  appear  to  be  available  to 
investigate the travelling for the purpose of terrorism. In the case of Poland, it does not 
seem  possible  to  use  interception  of  communications  to  investigate  or  prosecute  all 
terrorist offences.  

As regards Article 20(2), in Czechia, Estonia, The Netherlands, Slovakia and Sweden, 
legislation does not impose a mandatory requirement to apply freezing and  confiscation 
measures  in  relation  to  the  offences  covered  under  this  Directive.  Typically,  national 
provisions enable the use of these measures, as mandated by Directive 2014/42/EU, but 
do  not  contain  a  strictly  formulated  obligation  to  apply  them  in  relation  to  offences  of 
terrorism. 

2.2.21.  Measures against public provocation content online (Article 21) 

Article  21  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  the  prompt  removal  of 
online  content  hosted  in  their  territory  constituting  a  public  provocation  to  commit  a 
terrorist offence. When removal of the content is not feasible, Member States may take 
measures  to  block  access  to  such  content.  These  measures  must  be  transparent  and 
provide adequate safeguards (including judicial redress) to  ensure that they  are limited, 
proportionate and that users are informed of the reason for those measures.  Overall, the 
transposition  of  this  article  is  uneven  across  Member  States.  In  September  2018,  the 
Commission  has  proposed  a  dedicated  regulation  on  preventing  the  dissemination  of 
terrorist  content  online,  with  specific  obligations  on  hosting  service  providers.  This 
proposal is currently being negotiated by co-legislators. 

Greece did not transpose this article. Its legislation only covers the seizing of digital data 
in the context of criminal investigations, but not removal or blocking of online content. 
The  first  sentence  of  Article  21(1)  of  the  Directive,  with  regard  to  removal  of  online 
content, does not seem to be transposed by two Member States (Bulgaria and Poland) as 
their laws only  refer to  blocking of content.  Croatia  and  Latvia  provide measures  that 
may result in the removal of content, but there appears to be no explicit obligation to this 
end. In Czechia, the law allows the national authorities to request the removal of online 
content, but it does not provide for the relevant procedure. 

The  second  sentence  of  Article  21(1),  which  encourages  Member  States  to  obtain  the 
removal of content hosted outside their territory, is covered by sixteen Member States25. 
This includes the two Member States (Bulgaria and Poland) that cover solely blocking 
and  thus  not  removing  of  online  content.  In  the  case  of  Slovenia,  the  transposition 
measure covers service providers with their registered office in other Member States, but 
not in third countries. 

25  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Czechia,  Germany,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  The  Netherlands, 

Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The option under Article 21(2) in relation to blocking of access to content, when removal 
at its source is not feasible, is transposed by eighteen Member States26.   

Regarding Article 21(3), in Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg, Poland and Slovenia the 
legislation does not seem to require informing users on the reason for content removal.

2.2.22.  Amendments to Decision 2005/671/JHA (Article 22) 

Article  22  of  the  Directive  amends  Articles  1  and  2  of  Council  Framework  Decision 
2005/671/JHA requiring Member States to make accessible as soon as possible relevant 
information  gathered  by  its  competent  authorities  in  the  framework  of  criminal 
proceedings  in  connection  with  terrorist  offences  covered  by  this  Directive  to  the 
competent  authorities of another Member State where the information  could  be used in 
the  prevention,  detection,  investigation  or  prosecution  of  terrorist  offences.  Member 
States  must  also  ensure  that  their  competent  authorities  take  timely  measures  upon 
receiving information from other Member States.  

Belgium,  Finland,  Greece,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Slovenia,  Spain  and  Sweden 
appear not to have explicitly transposed Article 22. Where transposition of this provision 
is explicitly provided in national law27, it does not always cover all the elements of this 
provision. For instance, the Czechia law only seems to cover spontaneous transmission 
of  information,  whereas  transmission  upon  a  request  is  not  covered.  Latvia’s, 
Lithuania’s  and  Portugal’s  legislation  does  not  appear  to  cover  the  spontaneous 
exchange  of  information.  Czechia’s,  Estonia’s,  Croatia’s  and  Hungary’s  legislation 
does  not  seem  to  provide  for  an  obligation  to  share  information,  only  for  such  a 
possibility. Finally, Lithuania, The Netherlands and Portugal do not seem to have an 
explicit  requirement  in  their  legislation  to  act  in  a  timely  manner  upon  receiving 
information from another Member State.  

2.2.23.  Fundamental rights and freedoms (Article 23) 

Article 23(1) of the Directive emphasises that this Directive must not have the effect of 
modifying the obligations to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles, 
as enshrined in Article 6 TEU.  

Article  23(2)  allows  Member  States  to  establish  conditions  required  by,  and  in 
accordance  with,  fundamental  principles  relating  to  freedom  of  the  press  and  other 
media, governing the rights and responsibilities of, and the procedural guarantees for, the 
press  or  other  media  where  such  conditions  relate  to  the  determination  or  limitation  of 
liability.  

Italy  and  Sweden  make  use  of  the  option  under  Article  23(2)  of  the  Directive.  Italy’s 
Criminal Code provides specific defences associated with the right to report and the right 
to information for the press and other media. In Sweden, media covered by constitutional 

26 Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy,  Lithuania, Malta, The 

Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Spain. 

27 Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, The 

Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
rules,  such  as  the  printed  press  and  television,  are  subject  to  special  procedural  rules 
aiming to afford special protection, as allowed for under Article 23(2).  

2.2.24.  Assistance and support to victims of terrorism (Article 24) 

Article  24  of  the  Directive  contains  obligations  of  Member  States  with  regard  to  the 
provision of assistance and support to victims of terrorism.   

Article  24(1)  of  the  Directive  requires  that  investigations  and  prosecution  of  offences 
under this Directive are not dependent on a report or accusation. The transposition of this 
paragraph is satisfactory. 

Article 24(2) of the Directive requires that support services for victims of terrorism are 
in  place  in  line  with  Directive  2012/29/EU28  and  that  they  are  available  to  victims 
immediately after a terrorist attack and for as long as necessary.   

In Lithuania, general victim support services are not established, but there are services 
covering certain aspects such as legal support. Luxembourg’s, Poland’s and Slovenia’s 
legislation  does  not  seem  to  indicate  that  support  services  should  have  the  ability  to 
address  the  specific  needs  of  victims  of  terrorism.  The  requirement  that  victim  support 
services must be available for victims immediately after a terrorist attack and for as long 
as  necessary  does  not  appear  to  have  been  explicitly  transposed  by  sixteen  Member 
States29, although in many of those Member States this seems to be the case in practice.  

Article  24(3)  of  the  Directive  specifies  that  support  services  must  have  the  ability  to 
meet the specific needs of victims of terrorism. The services should be confidential, free 
of charge, easily accessible and must include: (a) emotional and psychological support; 
(b) advice and information; (c) assistance with claims for compensation. The requirement 
that  these  services  should  be  confidential  and  free  of  charge  appears  not  to  have  been 
explicitly transposed by Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Malta and Poland.   

With regard to the types of services that victim support must include, Article 24(3)(a) on 
emotional and psychological  support seems  not explicitly transposed by  Lithuania  and 
Luxembourg;  Article  24(3)(b)  regarding  the  provision  of  advice  and  information  has 
been  partially  transposed  by  Croatia,  Czechia,  Italy,  Lithuania  and  Slovenia.  The 
transposition of these Member States does not appear to cover advice and information on 
practical  or  financial  matters  in  particular.  In  Romania  and  Slovenia,  the  national 
measures  seem  not  specific  enough  to  conclude  that  actual  assistance  with  claims 
regarding compensation will be provided (Article 24(3)(c)). Despite the lack of explicit 
transposition  of  these  provisions,  the  existing  information  seems  to  indicate  that  the 
aforementioned  types  of  services  are  available  in  practice  in  several  of  those  Member 
States.  

28   OJ L 315/57, 14.11.2012. Directive 2012/29/EU establishes minimum standards on the rights, support 
and protection of victims of crime. This includes rights, support and protection of victims of terrorism, 
as Member States should take particular account of the needs of victims of terrorism. Directive (EU) 
2017/541 further qualifies the specific needs of victims of terrorism. 

29  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Czechia,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta, 

Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Article  24(4)  of  the  Directive  emphasises  that  mechanisms  or  protocols  should  be  in 
place  for  the  activation  of  the  support  services  as  part  of  national  emergency  response 
infrastructures.  A  comprehensive  response  to  the  needs  of  victims  and  their  family 
members  should  be  ensured  immediately  after  a  terrorist  attack  and  for  as  long  as 
necessary. The national measures put in place appear to largely correspond to the support 
required under this Directive.  

Similarly,  Article  24(5)  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  adequate 
medical treatment specifically to victims of terrorism immediately after a terrorist attack 
and for as long as necessary. This obligation appears to be covered by  the provision of 
general medical treatment in accordance with national healthcare systems. 

Article 24(6) of the Directive requires that victims of terrorism have access to legal aid 
in  accordance  with  Directive  2012/29/EU30  where  they  have  the  status  of  parties  to 
criminal proceedings, ensuring that the severity and the circumstances of the offence are 
duly  reflected  in  the  conditions  and  procedural  rules  under  which  victims  of  terrorism 
have access to legal aid in accordance with national law. This latter part of Article 24(6) 
does  not  seem  to  be  transposed  by  Greece,  Latvia,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Poland, 
Portugal and Spain. 

2.2.25.  Protection of victims of terrorism (Article 25) 

Article 25 of the Directive requires Member States to ensure that measures are available 
to  protect  victims  of  terrorism  and  their  family  members  in  accordance  with  Directive 
2012/29/EU31.  When  determining  whether  and  to  what  extent  they  should  benefit  from 
these  measures,  particular  attention  must  be  paid  to  the  risk  of  intimidation  and 
retaliation  and  to  the  need  to  protect  the  dignity  and  physical  integrity  of  victims  of 
terrorism. Issues were identified in relation to nine Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Czechia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia). In most cases, 
these stem from issues in the transposition of Directive 2012/29/EU32. Protection is not 
fully  afforded  to  family  members  of  victims  of  terrorism.  In  Bulgaria,  the  risk  of 
intimidation and retaliation and the need to protect the dignity and physical integrity of 
victims  during  questioning  and  testifying  does  not  seem  covered.  In  Poland,  the 
transposing provision does not appear to explicitly refer to ‘the risk of intimidation and 
retaliation  and  to  the  need  to  protect  the  dignity  and  physical  integrity  of  victims  of 
terrorism’,  and  Slovenia’s  legislation  does  not  seem  to  cover  the  protection  of  the 
physical integrity and dignity of victims of terrorism. Slovakia’s legislation provides for 
measures to avoid contact between victims and offenders, but these measures only appear 
to apply to victims before the main hearing and not throughout criminal proceedings.  

30   OJ L 315/57, 14.11.2012. 

31   OJ L 315/57, 14.11.2012. 

32   See  also  the  Commission  report  on  the  implementation  of  Directive  2012/29/EU  establishing 
minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, COM(2020) 188 final, 
11.5.2020. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.2.26.  Rights of victims of terrorism resident in another Member State 

(Article 26) 

The first sentence of Article 26(1) of the Directive imposes an obligation on Member 
States to ensure that victims of terrorism, who are residents of a Member State other than 
that  where  the  terrorist  offence  was  committed,  have  access  to  information  about  their 
rights,  support  services  and  compensation  schemes  in  the  Member  State  where  the 
terrorist  offence  was  committed.  Most  Member  States  covered  in  this  report  ensure 
access to information on victims’ rights regardless of the person’s place of residence, and 
all Member States appear to meet this obligation.  

According to Article 26(2) of the Directive, Member States must ensure that all victims 
of terrorism have access to the assistance and support services as laid down in points (a) 
and (b) of Article 24(3) on the territory of the Member State of their residence, even if 
the  terrorist  offence  was  committed  in  another  Member  State.  Bulgaria’s  transposing 
measure  seems  to  apply  to  all  offences  committed  on  its  territory  as  well  as  to  those 
committed  outside  its  territory,  however,  only  when  the  victim  is  a  Bulgarian  citizen. 
Victims resident in Bulgaria who are not Bulgarian citizens are, therefore, not covered by 
the transposing measure.  

3.  CONCLUSIONS 

The  Directive  represents  a  comprehensive  legal  instrument  establishing  minimum  rules 
concerning the definitions of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of terrorist and 
terrorist-related offences, as well as measures of protection of, and support and assistance 
to,  victims  of  terrorism.  Its  transposition  has  led  to  a  substantive  strengthening  of  the 
Member States’ criminal justice approach to terrorism and the rights afforded to victims 
of  terrorism.  Of  the  25  Member  States  bound  by  the  Directive,  23  adopted  new 
legislation in order to ensure transposition of the Directive.   

The Commission acknowledges the efforts made by Member States to take measures to 
comply with the Directive. The transposition of the Directive by EU Member States can 
be  considered  satisfactory  overall.  However,  there  are  a  number  of  potential  concerns 
concerning the transposition of the terrorist offences listed in  Article 3 of the Directive 
into  national  law  in  several  Member  States,  which  also  impacts  on  the  transposition  of 
several other provisions of the Directive. There is also a concern with not qualifying the 
offences  of  Article  3(1)  when  committed  with  the  aims  of  Article  3(2)  as  terrorist 
offences.  It  is  important  that  these  offences  are  in  themselves  considered  terrorist 
offences,  to  account  for,  for  example,  the  possibility  of  charging  lone  offenders  with 
terrorist offences. In addition, a common qualification of terrorist offences is important to 
allow  for  effective  use  of  law  enforcement  cooperation  instruments,  such  as  Council 
Decision  2005/671/JHA33.  Finally,  it  is  important  for  victims  of  terrorist  offences  that 
they are recognised as such.     

Another concern is the incomplete or incorrect transposition of Article 9 on travelling for 
the purposes of terrorism, which could impact the way in which a person committing this 
offence  is  investigated  and  prosecuted,  meaning  that  certain  acts  could  remain 
unpunished.  This  could  be  the  case,  for  example,  when  national  legislation  contains  a 

33   OJ L 253, 29.9.2005. 

19 

 
 
 
                                                 
more limited definition of the persons that travel or the territories they travel to. Likewise 
and  for  similar  reasons,  the  incomplete  or  incorrect  transposition  of  Article  11  on 
terrorism financing is a concern. National legislation does not always cover the financing 
of all offences in Articles 3 to 10 as required by the Directive, thereby reducing the scope 
for prosecution of certain acts. Finally, there are deficiencies as regards the transposition 
of specific provisions for victims of terrorism, which could have the effect of victims of 
terrorism not receiving assistance or support tailored to their specific needs. 

In  order  to  ensure  full  and  correct  transposition  of  the  Directive  the  Commission  will 
continue  to  support  the  Member  States  to  address  identified  deficiencies.  This  includes 
monitoring  that  national  measures  comply  with  the  corresponding  provisions  in  the 
Directive.  Where  necessary,  the  Commission  will  make  use  of  its  enforcement  powers 
under the Treaties through infringement procedures.  

In  September  2021,  the  Commission  will  evaluate  the  Directive  more  broadly,  by 
submitting a report to the European Parliament and the Council assessing the added value 
of  the  Directive  with  regard  to  combating  terrorism,  as  required  by  Article  29(2).  This 
evaluation  will  also  assess  the  impact  of  the  Directive  on  fundamental  rights  and 
freedoms,  including  on  non-discrimination,  on  the  rule  of  law,  and  on  the  level  of 
protection and assistance provided to victims of terrorism.   

20