REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL based on Article 29(2) 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: 2021-11-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU police cooperation, 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, 18.11.2021  COM(2021) 701 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL based on Article 29(2) 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 {SWD(2021) 324 final}  
 
 
INTRODUCTION   

1. 
On  15  March  2017,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  adopted  Directive  (EU) 
2017/541  on  combating  terrorism1  (hereafter  “the  Directive”).  The  Directive  replaced 
Framework  Decision  2002/475/JHA2  (hereafter  “the  Framework  Decision”)  and  was 
adopted  to  strengthen  the  EU  legal  framework  by  extending  the  crimes  related  to 
terrorism, providing police and prosecutors with the tools to prevent and combat terrorist 
offences and by better responding to  the specific needs of victims of terrorism.  For the 
Member States bound by the Directive3 (hereafter “Member States”), the Directive sets 
harmonised definitions of terrorist offences, and minimum rules concerning sanctions in 
the area of terrorist offences, offences related to a terrorist group and offences related to 
terrorist activities. This serves as a benchmark for cooperation and information exchange 
between  national  authorities.  A  common  baseline  within  the  EU  also  prevents  the 
existence  of  legal  loopholes  that  may  be  exploited  by  terrorists.  The  recent  events  in 
Afghanistan underlined once again the importance of having a robust framework to fight 
terrorism, including through criminal law. 

The  deadline  for  incorporating  the  rules  into  national  law  was  8  September  2018.  In 
September  2020,  the  Commission  concluded  that  the  transposition  of  the  Directive  has 
led  to  a  substantive  strengthening  of  the  Member  States’  criminal  justice  approach  to 
terrorism  and  the  rights  afforded  to  victims  of  terrorism4.  However,  the  Commission 
encountered  a  number  of  transposition  issues  (please  see  Section  2  for  more  detail).  

Article 29(2) of the Directive requires the Commission to submit a report to the European 
Parliament  and  the  Council,  assessing  the  added  value  of  the  Directive  with  regard  to 
combating  terrorism.  The  report  shall  also  cover  the  impact  of  the  Directive  on 
fundamental  rights  and freedoms, including on non-discrimination,  the rule of law, and 
the  level  of  protection  and  assistance  provided  to  victims  of  terrorism.  In  line  with  the 
Better Regulation  guidelines5, the Commission  has  also  taken the opportunity to assess 
the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the Directive. 
These evaluation criteria are assessed from the date of entry into force of the Directive, 
i.e. 20 April 2017, until June 2021. As the Commission put forward its proposal for the 
Directive in 2015, this is the reference point used to assess the baseline situation.    

The detailed findings of the evaluation, as well as the methodology used, is presented in a 
Commission Staff Working Document. The Regulatory Scrutiny Board was consulted on 
this Commission Staff Working Document on 14 July 2021. On 16 July 2021, it gave a 
positive opinion with recommendations for improvement, which were used to revise the 
document.  The  main  findings  of  the  evaluation  are  summarised  in  Section  3  of  this 
report. On 1 July 2021,  the Commission organised a dedicated workshop with Member 
States to  discuss the next  steps, which was also  attended by Europol,  Eurojust,  and the 
EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator’s office. 

1 Directive (EU) 2017/541 of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism, OJ L 88/6, 15.3.2017. 
2  Council  Framework  Decision  2002/475/JHA  of  13  June  2002  on  combating  terrorism,  OJ  L  164, 
13.6.2002. 
3 All EU Member States, except Denmark and Ireland.  
4 COM(2020) 619 final, 30.9.2020. 
5 SWD(2017) 350, 7.7.2017. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.  BACKGROUND 
The  Directive is  the  cornerstone  of  the  Member  States’  criminal  justice  response  to 
terrorism.  It  is  a  legal  framework  common  to  the  Member  States  and  serves  as  a 
benchmark for information exchange and cooperation. The Directive was, among others, 
adopted  to  take  account  of  the  evolution  of  the  terrorist  threat  in  the  EU,  and  to  fulfil 
legal obligations of the EU and Member States under international law6, in particular in 
relation to the phenomena of foreign terrorist fighters and terrorist financing. Initially, the 
Commission  planned  to  conduct  an  impact  assessment  in  2015  and,  if  warranted,  to 
present  a  legislative  proposal  in  2016.  However,  a  series  of  terrorist  attacks  across 
France,  Belgium,  Denmark  and  Germany  underlined  the  need  to  act  without  delay. 
Therefore,  due  to  the  urgency  to  adopt  the  Directive,  an  impact  assessment  was  not 
carried out and the Commission proposal was published on 2 December 2015. 

The  Directive’s  general  objective  is  to  combat  terrorism  through  criminal  law.  More 
specifically, the Directive aims to: 

  approximate  the  definition  of  terrorist  offences,  offences  related  to  a  terrorist 
group and to terrorist activities, serving as a benchmark for information exchange 
and cooperation between competent national authorities; 

  establish  minimum  rules  concerning  the  definition  of  criminal  offences  and 
sanctions in the area of terrorist offences, offences related to a terrorist group and 
offences related to terrorist activities; and 

  enhance  measures  of  protection  of,  and  support  and  assistance  to,  victims  of 

terrorism. 

In 2020, the Commission assessed the transposition of the Directive in a report7, in which 
it identified some shortcomings. The Commission notably assessed that the functioning 
of  the  Directive  would  be  enhanced  by  correct  transposition  at  the  national  level.  As 
mentioned in  Section 1, several  transposition issues were identified  in the transposition 
report. Some key issues are: 

  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,  i.e.  two  of  the  new  provisions 
introduced by the Directive; and 

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

The  current  evaluation  presents  a  wider  analysis  of  the  functioning  of  the  Directive, 
beyond mere transposition. The methodology used for the evaluation was a combination 
of desk research and field research. A wide range of stakeholders were consulted. These 

6  In  particular,  obligations  in  relation  to  foreign  terrorist  fighters  and  terrorist  financing:  United  Nations 
Council  Security  Resolution  2178,  on  foreign  terrorist  fighters  (2014),  the  Additional  Protocol  to  the 
Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (2015) and the Financial Action Task Force 
standards on terrorist financing. 
7 COM(2020) 619 final, 30.9.2020. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
included Member States’ authorities responsible for the implementation of the Directive, 
different  Directorates-General  within  the  Commission,  the  European  External  Action 
Service,  the  Fundamental  Rights  Agency  (hereafter  “the  FRA”),  the  European  Union 
Agency  for  Law  Enforcement  Cooperation  (hereafter  “Europol”),  the  European  Union 
Agency  for  Criminal  Justice  Cooperation  (hereafter  “Eurojust”),  civil  society  including 
human rights organisations, academia and think tanks, and the general public. An external 
evaluation  study  was  carried  out  to  support  the  evaluation  (hereafter  “external  study”). 
The  external  evaluation  study  was  carried  out  by  ICF  Consulting  Services  Limited, 
following a call for services under a framework contract. The evaluation was conducted 
through a mixed methods approach and was informed by the triangulation of a variety of 
sources.  In addition, on the request of the Commission, in April 2021 the FRA submitted 
a contribution  to  the Commission  on the impact  of the Directive on fundamental  rights 
and  freedoms.  The  FRA  conducted  interviews  with  107  practitioners  (defence  lawyers, 
judges  and  investigative  judges,  law  enforcement,  public  prosecutors,  NGOs,  and 
academia) for its research project.  In the autumn of 2021, the FRA will publish a more 
detailed  report  that  includes  key  findings  and  FRA  opinions.  Moreover,  Eurojust 
provided  a  contribution  focusing  on  provisions  of  the  Directive  used  in  recent 
prosecutions and convictions. The Commission had requested such a contribution to take 
into account the information provided by Member States under Decision 2005/671/JHA, 
as required by Article 29(2) of the Directive. Finally, at their own initiative, the European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  (hereafter  “EESC”)  conducted  an  independent 
evaluation of the Directive and produced an information report, which was also used as a 
source for the current evaluation8. 

3.  MAIN FINDINGS 
In general, the assessment of the functioning of the Directive is positive. The Directive 
has  functioned  and  largely  achieved  its  objectives  in  the  way  that  was  expected.  More 
specifically, on the basis of the aforementioned sources, the evaluation finds that: 

i.  The  scope  and  definitions  of  the  Directive,  as  well  as  its  minimum  rules,  are 
overall highly relevant. The evaluation also finds that the Directive is expected to 
remain relevant in the next years. 

ii.  The  Directive  has  achieved  its  objectives  to  a  satisfactory  extent.  Nevertheless, 
there are certain factors that limit the effectiveness of the Directive, for example 
in relation to combating extreme right-wing terrorism. 

iii.  There is no conclusive evidence on the exact costs for achieving the results of the 
Directive.  Nevertheless,  the  costs  associated  with  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive  appear  to  be  low,  whereas  the  majority  of  the  stakeholders  consulted 
indicated that the Directive generated some or significant improvements, such as 
enhanced legal clarity and enhanced cooperation.  

iv.  The  Directive  is  overall  internally  coherent.  The  evaluation  also  finds  that  the 
Directive is largely coherent with other relevant interventions, at national, EU and 
international level. 

v. 

In terms of EU added value, the evaluation finds that the Directive has generated 
added  value  beyond  what  could  have  been  achieved  unilaterally  by  Member 

8 European Economic and Social Committee, Information report, Evaluation of the Directive on combating 
terrorism, SOC/675, 2021. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
States or at the international level. It has also provided added value compared to 
the Framework Decision. The Directive has had clear added value with regard to 
combating  terrorism.  For  the  articles  covering  the  rights  of  victims  of  terrorism 
(Articles 24 to 26), in relation to their EU added value stakeholders’ views were 
slightly more divided, although their assessment was overall positive. 

vi.  While the Directive has had an impact  on fundamental  rights  and freedoms,  the 
limitations  largely  meet  the  requirements  of  necessity  and  proportionality. 
Overall,  most  stakeholders  consulted  for  the  external  study  did  not  consider  the 
implementation  of  the  Directive  to  be  problematic  from  a  fundamental  rights 
perspective. However, some issues have been identified as having the potential to 
create  tension  with  the  requirements  of  necessity  and  proportionality,  of  which 
some  are  linked  directly  to  the  scope  of  the  Directive,  while  others  are  only 
indirectly  linked  to  it  (e.g.  procedural  rights  of  terrorist  suspects).  Despite 
safeguard  measures  in  place  in  the  Member  States  to  prevent  discrimination, 
some stakeholders criticised counter-terrorism measures, including those covered 
by the Directive, for  potentially leading to  adverse effects  for groups  that are at 
heightened risk of facing discrimination and racism.  

vii.  Likewise,  the  Directive  has  had  a  limited  impact  on  the  rule  of  law  and  has 
overall not had a problematic impact in this regard. Nevertheless, some concerns 
have  been  raised  in  relation  to  the  process  for  adoption  of  the  Directive  (i.e. 
without  impact  assessment)  and  its  legal  clarity,  as  well  as  on  proving  terrorist 
intent and foreseeability, and impact on lawful activities. Despite these concerns, 
the overall negative impact of these issues was found to be limited.  

viii.  Overall,  the  Directive  had  a  positive  impact  on  the  level  of  assistance  and 
protection  provided  to  victims  of  terrorism.  The  obligations  established  in 
Articles 24 to 26 of the Directive have led to the adoption of measures concerning 
the protection, support and rights of victims of terrorism in many of the Member 
States.  However,  in  the  practical  implementation  of  these  articles,  several 
stakeholders  identified  issues  with  regard  to  the  provision  of  assistance  and 
protection to cross-border victims. These issues with the practical implementation 
reduce the positive impact the Directive overall has on the level of assistance and 
protection provided to victims of terrorism. 

Despite the overall positive assessment, there are several issues limiting the functioning 
of the Directive: 

Firstly, several national authorities and judges reported difficulties in proving terrorist 
intent.  Intent  is  an  important  element  for  the  provisions  of  the  Directive.  The  main 
challenge is linked to factual circumstances rather than a need for further clarification of 
the term ‘intentional act’ contained in the Directive. More specifically, the issues relate 
mostly to the gathering of evidence, especially when that evidence is located outside the 
national  territory,  a  circumstance  which  is  common  in  the  context  of  the  Directive. 
Likewise, in relation to the offences on travelling for the purpose of terrorism (Articles 9-
10), national authorities and representatives from the judiciary and prosecutors reported 
difficulties to establish the subjective element of terrorist intent, as well as that collecting 
evidence to prove such intent is difficult in practice.  

In  addition,  there  are  indications  that  even  though  the  Directive  applies  to  all  forms  of 
terrorism, in reality some Member States find it challenging to classify violent extreme 

4 

 
 
 
 
right-wing acts as acts of terrorism. Eurojust facilitated discussions with the Member 
States  to  identify  the  exact  challenges.  Addressing  this  issue  is  important  not  only  to 
enhance the effectiveness of the Directive, but also crucial to ensure that the Directive is 
applied in a non-discriminatory manner. The main recurring issue relates to the difficulty 
to prove the terrorist intent of an action carried out by a right-wing extremist group or a 
lone  actor.  The  lack  of  evidentiary  information  proving  the  terrorist  intent,  which  is  a 
requirement in the Directive and national legislations for an act to qualify as a terrorist 
offence, was presented as one of the main obstacles to use counter-terrorism legislation 
in the investigation and prosecution of right-wing extremist offences.  

Another  challenge  identified  by  judicial  practitioners  participating  in  Eurojust’s 
workshops relates to the particularities of the violent right-wing extremist scene. Groups 
and movements advocating extreme right-wing views and ideology are characterised by 
the  heterogeneity  of  their  supporters  and  followers,  by  numerous  interconnections 
between  present-day  organisations  and  long-existing  extreme  right-wing  groups  and  by 
the  variety  of  potential  targets.  In  this  context  of  mixed  ideologies  and  blurred  lines 
between  movements,  judicial  authorities  may  experience  difficulties  in  considering 
prosecution  on  charges  of  participation  in  the  activities  of  a  terrorist  group,  which 
requires  that  a  clear  link  can  be  established  between  the  suspect  and  the  organisation. 

The  evaluation  identified  some  provisions  that  might  benefit  from  clarification.  For 
example,  in  relation  to  terrorist  offences  (Article  3),  some  Member  States  reported 
difficulties  in  determining  criteria  to  establish  that  an  act  “may  seriously  damage  a 
country or an international organisation” (Article 3(1)). In addition, several stakeholders 
pointed out that the definition of terrorist group in the Directive fails to take into account 
the  changing  nature  and  loosening  of  the  structure  of  terrorist  groups.  As  regards  the 
structure  of  these  groups,  the  definition  in  the  Directive  presumes  a  certain  degree  of 
organisation  that  is  not  often  the  case,  according  to  several  stakeholders.  The 
stakeholders noted primarily a lack of clarity on the level of participation required in the 
terrorist group and how such participation is defined.  

Despite the overall positive impact that the Directive has had on the level of assistance 
and  protection  provided  to  victims  of  terrorism,  several  challenges  have  been 
identified.  The  plight  of  cross-border  victims  of  terrorism  is  particularly  evident 
throughout the evaluation. Cross-border victims of terrorism rely on swift and adequate 
cooperation  between  the  Member  States.  However,  there  are  obstacles  hindering  such 
effective  cooperation  and  coordination.  For  example,  not  all  Member  States  have 
designated single contact points, which Council Conclusions have called for in 20189 and 
which would facilitate significantly the implementation of Article 26 of the Directive. In 
addition,  there  is  a  lack  of  a  secure  tool  for  exchanging  information  on  individual 
situations, both in the aftermath of the attack or during the longer-term follow-up. Such 
issues  reduce  the  positive  impact  of  the  Directive  on  the  level  of  assistance  and 
protection provided to victims of terrorism. Overall, the Directive has had a lower impact 
on the protection and assistance provided to victims of terrorism, and in particular cross-
border victims, than expected.  

9  Council  Conclusions  on  victims  of  terrorism  from  2018  (9719/18)  call  on  Member  States  to  set  up  a 
national  Single  Contact  Point  for  victims  of  terrorism.  This  call  has  been  repeated  in  the  2019  Council 
Conclusions on victims’ rights (2019/C 422/05). 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.  CONCLUSIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS  
As discussed in Section 2, the Commission identified some transposition shortcomings in 
its 2020 report10. The Commission is currently further assessing the transposition of the 
Directive into national law. If conformity issues are found and national legislation is not 
fully in line with the Directive, the Commission may launch infringement procedures. 
The  Commission  started  this  process  in  June  2021,  when  it  opened  infringement 
procedures  against  four  Member  States,  urging  these  Member  States  to  ensure  correct 
transposition of the Directive. In July 2021, the Commission opened further infringement 
procedures  against  five  Member  States.  In  September  2021,  it  opened  further 
infringement procedures against four Member States.  

In  addition  to  the  findings  of  the  transposition  report,  the  evaluation  has  identified  the 
issues that could be mitigated by the measures referred to below. 

4.1.  Terrorist intent and evidence gathering 

The  first  challenge  is  reported  difficulties  in  proving  terrorist  intent.  This  is  to  a  large 
extent due to the difficulty to  gather evidence, especially when that evidence is located 
outside the national territory, a circumstance which is common in the current context. For 
these  issues  relating  to  the  gathering  of  evidence  outside  of  the  national  territory,  and 
more  particularly  in  conflict  areas,  the  Commission  and  the  EEAS  are  supporting 
Member  States’  use  of  battlefield  information  to  identify,  detect  and  prosecute 
returning  foreign  terrorists  fighters  through  the  establishment  of  best  practices,  the 
exchange  of  information  as  well  as  project  financing.  Moreover,  in  September  2020, 
Eurojust published its Memorandum on Battlefield Evidence11. The Memorandum gives 
an overview of experiences of using battlefield evidence in criminal proceedings. It also 
addresses  challenges  identified  and  ways  to  overcome  them,  as  well  as  measures  to 
strengthen information  exchange. The Commission  encourages Member  States  to  make 
full  use  of  the  information  gathered  in  this  Memorandum.  Likewise,  the  Commission 
calls on the Member States to apply the insights from the Genocide Network’s report on 
cumulative  prosecution  of  foreign  terrorist  fighters  for  core  international  crimes  and 
terrorism-related  offences12.  The  Commission  also  encourages  Member  States  to  make 
use, where appropriate,  of battlefield information on suspected terrorists, including that 
received by trusted third States, for creating alerts in the Schengen Information System 
and  to  cross-check  battlefield  information  where  appropriate  with  other  relevant 
databases  and  information  sources  (e.g.  the  Schengen  Information  System,  Passenger 
Name Record, Europol Information System, Interpol databases and EURODAC), in full 
compliance with legal provisions on the use of these databases and information systems. 
The use of battlefield evidence can be a crucial tool for ensuring that also foreign terrorist 
fighters are brought  to  justice, and do not  evade  prosecution because their crimes were 
committed in a place where it is difficult to access evidence. It is important to recall that 
the  present  Directive  was  notably  adopted  to  better  tackle  the  phenomenon  of  foreign 
terrorist fighters. The Commission finally requests the Member States to make use of the 
European  Counter-Terrorism  Register  at  Eurojust  to  identify  links  between  counter-
terrorism  cases  early  and  to  seek  Eurojust’s  support  in  the  coordination  of  parallel 
prosecutions. 

10 COM(2020) 619 final, 30.9.2020. 
11 Eurojust Memorandum on Battlefield Evidence | Eurojust | European Union Agency for Criminal Justice 

Cooperation (europa.eu) 

12  Cumulative  prosecution  of  foreign  terrorist  fighters  for  core  international  crimes  and  terrorism-related 

offences | Eurojust | European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (europa.eu) 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Moreover,  it  is  important  to  note  that  in  December  2020,  the  Commission  proposed  to 
strengthen  the  mandate  of  Europol.  Such  a  strengthened  mandate  will  help  Europol 
cooperate  more  effectively  with  private  parties,  notably  in  situations  where  private 
parties hold relevant information, but have difficulties in identifying the Member States 
concerned.  In  those  cases,  private  parties  can  share  the  relevant  information  with 
Europol,  which  will  identify  and  inform  the  Member  States  concerned.  This  will  help 
Member  States  to  access  information  that  could  be  useful  for  the  investigation, 
prosecution, adjudication or sentencing of offences covered by the Directive. 

4.2   Enhancing legal clarity 

In addition, some of the stakeholders consulted held the view that certain provisions of 
the  Directive  might  benefit  from  additional  clarifications,  without  a  need  for  any  legal 
amendments.  The  external  study  recommends  the  Commission  to  adopt  non-regulatory 
guidance for Member States on the interpretation of Articles 1 – 14 of the Directive. The 
need  for  such  guidance  was  discussed  with  Member  States  in  the  workshop  on  1  July 
2021,  which  was  also  attended  by  Europol,  Eurojust,  and  the  EU  Counter-Terrorism 
Coordinator’s office. All Member States that intervened were unanimous in their opinion 
that  the  Directive  is  sufficiently  clear  and  that  they  have  no  need  for  non-regulatory 
guidance. They also pointed out that interpreting legislation is the sole competence of the 
judiciary.  Nevertheless,  the  evaluation  showed  that  other  stakeholders,  e.g.  some 
members  of  the  judiciary  and  prosecutors,  see  scope  for  further  clarification  of  certain 
provisions.  The  Commission  therefore  notes  that  its  opening  of  infringement 
procedures (as referenced above) will also lead to enhanced legal clarity, as it clarifies 
the correct  interpretation of the Directive.  It  is  important  to  note that only the Court of 
Justice of the EU (CJEU) is competent to interpret EU law authoritatively.  

4.3   Combating violent right-wing extremism 

The evaluation also found that some Member States find it challenging to qualify violent 
extreme right-wing acts as acts of terrorism. Addressing this issue is important not only 
to  enhance  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive,  but  is  also  crucial  to  ensure  that  the 
Directive is applied in a non-discriminatory manner. The main recurring issue relates to 
the  difficulty  to  prove  the  terrorist  intent,  in  combination  with  the  particularities  of  the 
right-wing extremist scene. A better use of existing evidence could partially mitigate the 
difficulty  to  prove  terrorist  intent.  This  could  for  example  be  done  through  a  stronger 
mandate  of  Europol,  which  will  help  it  cooperate  more  effectively  with  private  parties 
and to get information from private parties to relevant Member States. 

There is also a need for a better understanding of the violent right-wing extremist scene, 
and in particular the specificities of violent right-wing extremist groups.  

The Commission is working on an overview of actions to address violent right-wing 
extremism in the Member States. These will be contained in a working document that 
will be shared with the Member States in the autumn of 2021. It will include an overview 
of violent extremist groups and associated symbols at national level. This overview will 
aim  to  reach  a  better  situational  understanding  of  the  phenomenon  of  right-wing 
extremism across the EU and to offer recommendations towards common approaches and 
activities.  

In  addition  the  EU  Internet  Forum,  which  brings  together  governments,  Europol  and 
technology companies to inter alia counter terrorist and violent extremist content online, 

7 

 
 
 
is working on a “knowledge package”. This  “knowledge package” consists of a list of 
violent  right-wing  extremist  and  terrorist  groups,  symbols  and  manifestos  that  aim  to 
provide guidance to tech companies in their content moderation efforts.  

All this ongoing work holds great potential in creating a better understanding of violent 
right-wing  extremism  and  terrorism,  and  should  be  brought  more  systematically  to  the 
attention  of  authorities  responsible  for  investigating,  prosecuting,  adjudicating  and 
sentencing terrorism offences. The Commission therefore proposes to hold a meeting on 
the application of counter-terrorism legislation to violent right-wing extremist acts 
at the end of 2021. The aim of such a meeting, which could potentially be organised as a 
Eurojust  meeting,  would  be  to  bring  different  stakeholders  working  on  similar  issues 
together, and explore the scope for further cooperation in the future. 

4.4   Better protection of and support to victims of terrorism 

Finally, the evaluation finds that the Directive had a lower impact on the protection and 
assistance  provided  to  victims  of  terrorism  than  expected,  in  particular  on  cross-border 
victims of terrorism. The Commission strongly urges Member States to designate single 
contact points for victims of terrorism, which the Council called for in 201813, and which 
would  significantly  facilitate  the  implementation  of  Article  26  of  the  Directive. 
Currently,  17  of  the  25  Member  States  covered  by  the  Directive  have  done  so14.  The 
European  Network  on  victims’  rights  (ENVR)15  plays  a  central  role  in  organising 
cooperation  between  the  single  contact  points.  The  network  of  single  contact  points  is 
integrated  within  the  structures  of  the  ENVR.  The  external  study  recommends  the 
Commission to consider proposing an obligation to establish such single contact points.

Generally, these issues are not newly identified by this evaluation, and there are already 
several  EU  initiatives  to  enhance  the  assistance  and  protection  provided  to  victims  of 
terrorism.  Important,  and  listed  as  a  key  action  in  the  EU  Strategy  on  victims'  rights 
(2020-2025)16, is the two year pilot project on the EU Centre of Expertise for Victims of 
Terrorism17.  The  EU  Centre  of  Expertise  for  Victims  of  Terrorism  assists  the  Member 
States  in  the  implementation  of  EU  rules  on  the  rights  of  victims  of  terrorism  by 
producing handbooks, organising training  events  and by  acting  as the EU level  Hub of 
expertise  on  all  issues  relevant  for  victims  of  terrorism.  In  particular,  it  facilitates  the 
exchange of information and knowledge between Member States in the field of rights of 
victims of terrorism. The external study recommends the continuation of the activities of 
the EU Centre of Expertise for Victims of Terrorism. 

The  external  study  identified  a  potential  need  to  produce  a  document  on  all  the 
obligations  related  to  victims  imposed  by  the  Directive  and  the  Victims’  Rights 

13  Council  Conclusions  on  victims  of  terrorism  from  2018  (9719/18)  call  on  Member  States  to  set  up  a 
national  Single  Contact  Point  for  victims  of  terrorism.  This  call  has  been  repeated  in  the  2019  Council 
Conclusions on victims’ rights (2019/C 422/05). 
14  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Czechia,  Estonia,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 

Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden. 

15  The  European  Network  on  Victims’  Rights  (ENVR)  provides  for  a  forum  of  national  experts  created 
under an EU grant who exchange best practices and discuss victims’ rights, including rights of victims 
of terrorism. For more information, see: https://envr.eu/.    

16 Communication from the Commission  – EU Strategy on victims’ rights (2020-2025), COM(2020) 258 

final, 24.6.2020. 

17 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/criminal-justice/protecting-victims-

rights/eu-centre-expertise-victims-terrorism_en  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Directive18. Such guidance should build on the already existing EU Handbook on victims 
of  terrorism19,  produced  by  the  EU  Centre  of  Expertise  for  victims  of  terrorism  and 
published by the Commission in January 202120. The external study also recommends the 
Commission  to  offer  guidance  on  e.g.  the  organisation  of  memorial  services  and  the 
identification  and  registration  of  victims  in  the  aftermath  of  an  attack.  Such  guidance 
could also cover the interpretation of victims’ rights.  

Similarly  in  the  workshop  on  1  July  2021,  Member  States  pointed  to  different  needs, 
such  as  a  further  exploration  of  good  practices  and  challenges  in  different  Member 
States,  the  development  of  a  protocol  for  steps  to  take  after  an  attack,  and  the 
development  of  a  secure  tool  to  exchange  information  on  individual  victims  in  full 
compliance  with  the  General  Data  Protection  Regulation21  and  the  Law  Enforcement 
Directive22.  Member  States  also  agreed  on  the  high  importance  of  the  single  contact 
points,  and  the  need  for  regular  meetings  within  the  European  Network  on  victims’ 
rights. The Commission will consider all these suggestions, including offering guidance, 
hold further targeted discussions with relevant stakeholders, and take swift and concrete 
action to improve the situation of victims of terrorism. 

18 Directive 2012/29/EU, OJ L 315, 14.11.2012. 
19 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/criminal-justice/protecting-victims-

rights/eu-centre-expertise-victims-terrorism_en#documents  

20 In addition, the EU Centre will produce a national handbook on rights of victims of terrorism for each 

EU Member State.   

21 Regulation (EU) 2016/679, OJ L 119/1, 4.5.2016. 
22 Directive (EU) 2016/680, OJ L 119/1, 4.5.2016. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
KEY ACTIONS 

The Commission will: 

  Continue to assess the transposition of the Directive and, where necessary, open 

infringement procedures, which will enhance legal clarity. 

  Continue to support Member States’ use of battlefield information. 

  Present  an  overview  of  actions  to  address  violent  right-wing  extremism  in  the 

Member States. 

  Hold  a  meeting  on  the  application  of  counter-terrorism  legislation  to  violent 

right-wing extremist acts, bringing all the relevant stakeholders together. 

  Present a proposal to improve the use of the European Judicial Counter-Terrorism 
Register at Eurojust, to identify links between counter-terrorism cases early and 
to seek Eurojust’s support in the coordination of parallel prosecutions. 

  Consider all proposals on better protection of and support to victims of terrorism, 
and  take  swift  and  concrete  action  to  improve  the  situation  of  victims  of 
terrorism. 

Member States are urged to: 

  Make  full  use  of  existing  sources  of 

information,  such  as  Eurojust’s 
Memorandum on Battlefield Information and  the Genocide Network’s report on 
cumulative prosecution of foreign terrorist  fighters for core international crimes 
and terrorism-related offences. 

  Cross-check  battlefield  information  on  suspected  terrorists  received  by  trusted 
third  States  as  much  as  possible  with  other  relevant  databases  and  information 
sources. 

  Establish single contact points for victims of terrorism, if not established yet. 

10