Study in support of the evaluation of Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism : executive summary.
Date: 2021-11-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs
Subjects: common security and defence policy, directive (EU), human rights, information analysis, international cooperation, international criminal law, international sanctions, international security, mutual assistance, offence, support policy, terrorism

Study in support of the 
evaluation of Directive (EU) 
2017/541 on combating 
terrorism 
Executive summary (EN) 

Written by ICF S.A. in collaboration with 
the Centre for the Study of Democracy 
(CSD) and Victim Support Europe (VSE) 

July 2021 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME) 

B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Study in support of the 
evaluation of Directive (EU) 
2017/541 on combating 
terrorism 
Executive summary (EN) 

Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME) 

July, 2021 

 
 
 
 
 
Study in support of the evaluation of Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism 

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

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 
may charge you). 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document should not be considered as representative of the European Commission’s official position.  

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 

© European Union, 2021 

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU 
of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise 
noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-
BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided 
appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. 

ISBN 978-92-76-41125-3 

DOI 10.2837/0947 

DR-06-21-058-EN-N 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study in support of the evaluation of Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism 

Table of Contents 

Executive summary (DE) 

Executive summary ......................................................................................... 1 

Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 
Methodological challenges and limitations ....................................................... 2 
Evaluation findings ....................................................................................... 2 
Recommendations ........................................................................................ 6 

 
 
 
 
Study in support of the evaluation of Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism 

Executive summary (EN) 

Executive summary 

Introduction 

Directive  (EU)  2017/541  on  combating  terrorism  (‘Counter-Terrorism  Directive’  or 
‘CTD’)  entered  into  force  in  April  2017,  replacing  Council  Framework  Decision 
2002/475/JHA  (as  amended  in  2008)  and  amending  parts  of  Decision  2005/671/JHA 
(on  the  sharing  of  information  and  cooperation  concerning  terrorist  offences).  The 
Directive  sets  minimum  rules  on  the  definition  of  terrorism-related  offences,  their 
investigation and prosecution, sanctions applicable to these offences, cooperation and 
exchanges  of  information  between  Member  States  in  the  context  of  criminal 
proceedings, and the provision of assistance and protection to victims of terrorism. More 
specifically, it seeks to combat terrorism through criminal law and to facilitate a common 
EU-wide  understanding  of  terrorism  by:  i)  approximating  the  definition  of  terrorism-
related offences (i.e. terrorist offences, offences related to a terrorist group and offences 
related  to  terrorist  activities),  serving  as  a  benchmark  for  information  exchange  and 
cooperation  between  competent  national  authorities,  ii)  establish  minimum  rules  for 
defining definition of terrorism-related criminal offences and related sanctions; and iii) 
enhancing  measures  of  protection  of,  and  support  and  assistance  to,  victims  of 
terrorism. 

In line with Article 29 of the Directive, the Commission has prepared a report assessing 
the  added  value  of  the  CTD  in  combating  terrorism,  which  will  be  submitted  to  the 
European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  in  September  2021.  This  study  provided 
qualitative and quantitative evidence allowing the Commission to prepare the evaluation 
of the CTD. 

The study was carried out between December 2020 and July 2021 and covered the EU-
25 Member States bound by the Directive. It assessed the performance of the Directive 
in terms of its relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value, as 
well as its impact on fundamental rights and freedoms (including non-discrimination), 
the rule of law and the level of protection and assistance provided to victims of terrorism. 
It  also  provided  conclusions  and  recommendations  for  potential  EU-level  action  to 
address the shortcomings identified. 

To gather and analyse the evidence, the study adopted a mixed-method approach which 
included: 

  The review of over 100 documents of different nature from a broad catalogue of 

sources at EU and Member State level; 

  The development of the baseline, which analysed the context in which the CTD 
was  adopted  and  the  evolution  of  relevant  trends  since  2017,  serving  as  a 
reference point to analyse the performance of the CTD; 

  Consultations  with  stakeholders  to  collect  information  and  feedback  on  the 
implementation of the CTD at national level and the evaluation criteria, through 
online and email surveys, semi-structured interviews, webinars, workshops and 
a public consultation launched by the Commission. Stakeholder groups targeted 
transposition  and 
included:  national  authorities 
implementation  of  the  Directive,  counter-terrorism  (CT)  units  within  law 
enforcement  agencies,  judges  and  prosecutors  dealing  with  terrorism-related 
cases,  national  human  right  watchdog  organisations,  national  organisations 
representing the interests of victims (of terrorism), EU bodies and stakeholders, 
international  organisations,  other  relevant  organisations  (e.g.  humanitarian 
organisations), academics and researchers, relevant NGOs and citizens; 

responsible 

the 

for 

  Assessment of how the CTD is implemented at national level, which included a 
high-level  mapping  of  its  transposition  and  application  issues  for  all  EU-25 
Member States bound by the Directive, and a more detailed overview of how it 

July, 2021 

1 

 
Study in support of the evaluation of Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism 

Executive summary (EN) 

is being implemented in practice in eight selected Member States (BE, BG, DE, 
EL, ES, FR, IT, NL). 

Methodological challenges and limitations 

The main limitations encountered in this study relate to: i) limited evidence on practical 
implementation of the CTD in a small number of Member States, notably those where 
counter-terrorism is not considered a priority, ii) limited or fragmented evidence on the 
costs of implementation, iii) low response rate from key stakeholders targeted by the 
consultation, with the exception of national authorities; and iv) fragmented or lack of 
data  for  certain  aspects  of  the  evaluation  (i.e.  baseline,  extent  to  which  the  CTD  is 
applied  equally  to  all  types  and  forms  of  terrorism,  and  the  extent  to  which  it  has 
impacted fundamental rights). 

Evaluation findings 

On  the  relevance  of  the  CTD,  the  evaluation  found  that  the  criminal  law  provisions 
(Titles I – IV CTD) remain overall suitable and fit for purpose in light of current terrorist 
trends  observed  across  the  EU.  Despite  this,  certain  room  for  improvement  was 
identified, mostly relating to: 

  The definitions of ‘terrorist groups’ and of the offence related to them, which do 
not  fully  capture  the  progressively  loosening  structure  of  terrorist  groups  and 
does  not  provide  enough  clarity  on  the  level  of  participation  required,  overly 
restricting its applicability and relevance in the current context. 

  The definition of ‘terrorist offences’, with some authors and stakeholders (mostly 
NGOs)  which  consider  it  too  broad  and  vague,  while  others  noted  that  by 
requiring that the attack seriously damage or intimidate a population, Article 3 
may lead to interpretational issues and to certain smaller attacks falling outside 
its scope of application. 

  Gaps potentially limiting the relevance of the minimum rules of the CTD, such as 
the  fact  that  it  does  not  address  the  links  between  terrorism  and  human 
trafficking. 

In  the  area  of  victims’  rights,  the  evaluation  found  that  the  CTD  addresses,  either 
directly  or  indirectly  by  referring  to  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive  (VRD),  most  of  the 
needs of victims of terrorism.1 Nonetheless, some gaps and challenges signalling that 
the Directive could more adequately address their needs were identified. The main gaps 
revolve  around  the  need  for  victims  to  be  recognised  and  respected  as  victims  of 
terrorism,  which  is  not  explicitly  regulated  by  the  CTD  (i.e.  lack  of  provisions  on  the 
organisation of memorials, and unclarity on whether indirect victims who are not family 
members of direct victims fall within the scope of the definition of ‘victims’ established 
in  the  VRD).  Similarly,  fact  that  the  CTD  does  not  explicitly  address  secondary 
victimisation  was  considered  a  gap  by  some  victims’  associations.  More  broadly,  the 
approach taken to regulate the rights of victims of terrorism  – with obligations being 
laid  down  in  two  different  Directives  –  is  not  considered  best  suited  to  ensuring  that 
information  on  the  rights  of  victims  of  terrorism  is  clear  and  easily  accessible  for  all 
stakeholders involved in the provision of services to this group. To conclude, the CTD 
obligations on cross-border victims are considered relevant but insufficient to ensure an 
adequate  level  of  protection  of  these  victims  in  all  Member  States,  as  they  do  not 
consider the specific needs of these groups of people. 

The CTD is expected to remain relevant in the coming years and to be able to adequately 
address  the  main  emerging  and  likely  future  trends.  Some  of  the  trends  observed  in 
recent years may, however, require minor adjustments or regular monitoring to ensure 
that the Directive is adaptive and flexible. In the area of criminal law, the points raised 

1 Namely: i) recognition and respect as victim of terrorism, ii) support and information, iii) protection 
(physical protection and protection from secondary victimisation), iv) access to justice (safe participation in 
the criminal justice process), and v) compensation and restoration (including financial compensation) 

July, 2021 

2 

 
                                           
Study in support of the evaluation of Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism 

Executive summary (EN) 

on the definition of ‘terrorist offences’ and ‘terrorist groups’, may become more relevant 
in  the  future  given  the  increasingly  looser  and  more  flexible  structure  of  terrorist 
networks and the growing unpredictability of attacks carried  out by individual actors. 
Among the trends that will require regular monitoring, the increasing use of online tools 
and the closer links between criminal organisations and terrorist groups, and between 
terrorism and human trafficking, can be highlighted. In the area of  victim protection, 
the  gaps  with  secondary  victimisation  and  the  cross-border  element  could  gain 
importance in the coming years. Similarly, the use of online tools by terrorists may lead 
to  cyber-attacks  which  generate  larger  numbers  of  victims,  a  situation  in  which  the 
current obligations may be difficult to implement. 

To  assess  the  effectiveness  of  the  CTD,  the  evaluation  considered  how  it  has  been 
implemented across the EU-25 Member States, finding that it varies significantly across 
the EU. Assessing the different key areas of the CTD (i.e. definition of terrorism-related 
offences,  sanctions,  prosecution  and  investigation,  cooperation  and  exchanges  of 
information and victim protection and assistance), it found that the only areas in which 
the CTD triggered changes in a majority of Member States were the definition of offences 
and  related  sanctions.  Across  the  five  topic  areas,  most  of  the  significant  changes 
required to transpose the CTD were adopted by Member States with little experience in 
facing terrorist threats, although there were some exceptions. 

More  specifically,  while a  majority  of  Member  States  had  already  introduced  the  new 
terrorist offences in their national legislation by 2017 (in some cases in response to the 
United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) 2178, 1373, 2253 and 2368), the 
Directive  prompted  19  Member  States  to  amend  the  national  provisions  defining 
terrorism-related  offences,  with  most  changes  relating  to  Articles  9  (travelling  for 
terrorist  purposes)  and  11  (terrorist  financing).  The  provisions  on  sanctions  also 
triggered  changes  in  the  majority  of  Member  States  (14),  while  those  on  the 
adjudication and investigation of terrorism-related cases and in a minority of countries. 
The partial evidence available suggests that Member States made frequent use of these 
provisions  and  that  in  the  last  years  some  of  these  provisions  seem  to  have  been 
increasingly used. The data do not, however, allow for assessing whether this is because 
of the CTD. It can also be inferred from the limited data available that the Directive has 
been  implemented  to  different  forms  of  terrorism,  despite  the  over-representation  of 
jihadist  terrorism  in  the  number  of  arrests  and  verdicts  reported  in  recent  TE-SAT 
reports. Although no major implementation issues were identified, some stakeholders 
reported  minor  challenges  to  interpret  certain  elements  of  these  provisions  when 
applying them in practice. Practical issues were also highlighted to prove terrorist intent, 
although  these  mostly  related  to  obtaining  evidence  located  in  other  countries 
(particularly battlefield evidence) rather than the interpretation of the CTD.  

Considering the above, the evaluation concluded that the CTD has achieved, to some 
extent, its specific objectives pertaining to the criminal law provisions. When it comes 
to  establishing  minimum  rules  and  approximating  national  definitions  of  terrorism-
related  offences,  the  CTD  triggered  legislative  amendments  which  led  to  further 
approximation in the definitions used across the EU-25. This study identified room for 
further alignment, mostly due to the minimum harmonisation approach adopted by the 
CTD,  but  also  as  a  result  of  the  different  interpretations  in  Member  States  of  certain 
elements  included  in  the  definitions  (e.g.  the  degree  of  intent  required  for  certain 
offences). In more practical terms, the changes in legislation and the provisions on the 
investigation and prosecution of terrorism-related offences have not had any impact on 
the  ability  of  most  Member  States  to  investigate  and  prosecute  terrorism-related 
offences. Similarly, the Directive achieved its purpose of further harmonising rules on 
sanctions and penalties, although important differences in the sanctions and penalties 
applicable in the Member States still apply. 

The CTD also aimed to serve as benchmark for information exchanges and cooperation 
between competent authorities across the EU-25 Member States. The evidence collected 
suggests that Article 22 CTD (which amends Decision 2005/671/JHA) triggered changes 

July, 2021 

3 

 
Study in support of the evaluation of Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism 

Executive summary (EN) 

only  in  a  minority  of  Member  States  and  that  it  had  little  impact  in  facilitating  the 
exchange of information between counter-terrorism organisations in different Member 
States.  The  (limited)  available  evidence  on  the  number  of  exchanges  or  requests  for 
cooperation do not reveal any changes triggered by the CTD. Nonetheless, stakeholders 
from  several  selected  countries  noted  that  by  further  approximating  the  definition  of 
terrorism-related  offences,  the  CTD  has  facilitated  the  process  to  cooperate  and 
exchange information with other Member States. 

In the area of victims’ rights, the obligations established in Title V of the CTD led to the 
adoption of measures in a large proportion of Member States. The evidence also shows 
that,  despite  some  challenges  and  gaps  in  the  transposition  of  the  provisions,  most 
Member States comply with the obligations contained in Articles 24–26 CTD, albeit in 
different  ways.  Good  or  innovative  practices  –  adopted  both  before  and  after  2017  - 
usually stem from countries that have experienced terrorist attacks, either historically 
or more recently. 

The extent to which CTD has led to strengthened protection and assistance measures 
for victims of terrorism varies across  countries.  In some, mostly those countries that 
have historically or recently suffered terrorist attacks, the CTD has not played a key role 
in the strengthening of the mechanisms to support victims that has been observed in 
the last years. It has, however, led other countries with little or no experience in dealing 
with  victims  of  terrorism  to  adopt  measures  that  have  proved  to  work  well  in  other 
countries, therefore potentially contributing to an increased level of preparedness in the 
event of a terrorist attack in the future. The majority of stakeholders indicated that the 
CTD was effective in enhancing the level of protection, support and assistance provided 
to victims and their family members as well as in improving victim access to information 
on their rights. Despite this, shortcomings remain that limit effective access to available 
services, especially for cross-border victims.  

Several internal and external factors have played a role in the effectiveness of the CTD. 
Among the internal factors, the fact that the CTD only sets minimum rules has limited 
its ability to ensure a higher degree of harmonisation. Furthermore, the interpretation 
issues  and  gaps  highlighted  above  have  also  reduced  its  clarity  and  ability  to  further 
approximate the rules across the EU-25 Member States, both in the area of criminal law 
and victims’ rights. External factors have contributed or limited the effectiveness of the 
Directive.  Among  the  first  group,  the  attacks  that  several  EU  Member  States  have 
suffered since 2015, coupled with the increasingly cross-border nature of the attacks, 
has helped develop a cooperation mindset and shed light on the need to increase the 
level of preparedness across the EU. Other EU-level instruments have also helped foster 
this mindset and contributed to the effectiveness of the CTD, such as the existence and 
adoption  of  mutual  recognition  tools  and  other  mechanisms  to  improve  judicial  and 
police cooperation and some of the recent initiatives seeking to facilitate the exchange 
of  information  and  knowledge  between  countries  in  relation  to  victim  protection. 
Hindering  external  factors  were  also  identified,  such  as  the  use  by  terrorists  of 
increasingly  sophisticated  and  innovative  methods  to  perpetrate  their  offences  or  the 
changes in the structure of terrorist groups and networks, which make it more difficult 
to detect and investigate these cases. 

The evaluation also tried to gather qualitative and quantitative evidence  on the costs 
and  benefits  generated  by  the  CTD  in  order  to  assess  its  efficiency.  However,  the 
limited  data  on  costs  prevented  a  detailed  cost-benefit  analysis.  Based  on  anecdotal 
evidence  and  estimations  of  costs  linked  to  legislative  compliance,  investigation  and 
prosecution,  removal  /  blocking  of  online  content,  cooperation  and  information 
exchange, and protection and support to victims, the evaluation concluded that, in many 
Member States, medium to low effort was  required to implement the Directive, while 
the remaining countries required low or high effort. The qualitative assessment found 
that  the  main  benefits  were  enhanced  legal  clarity,  improved  support  to  victims  of 
terrorism and enhanced cooperation (albeit to a lower degree). The costs are deemed 

July, 2021 

4 

 
Study in support of the evaluation of Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism 

Executive summary (EN) 

to be justified and proportionate to the benefits, and the evaluation identified no scope 
for simplification and burden reduction based on the limited data available. 

The evaluation found a satisfactory degree of internal and external coherence of the 
CTD. Internally, no major inconsistencies were identified between its provisions or the 
way  that  Member  States  are  implementing  it  at  national  level,  despite  the  different 
approaches adopted. Externally, the Directive is coherent with and complementary to 
other relevant policy interventions in the field of counter-terrorism, as well as judicial 
and  police  cooperation,  including  the  Fifth  Anti-Money  Laundering  Directive,  Council 
Decision  2005/671/JHA  on  the  exchange  of  information  and  cooperation  concerning 
terrorist offences, Directive 2014/41/EU on the European Investigation Order and the 
recently adopted Regulation (EU) 2021/784 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist 
content online. In the area of victims, synergies were identified with the VRD and the 
Compensation  Directive.  At  international  level,  the  Directive  reinforces  and  develops 
UNSCR  2178  and  the  Council  of  Europe’s  Additional  Protocol  on  the  Convention  on 
Prevention of Terrorism. 

The evidence available suggests that the CTD has generated clear added value beyond 
what  could  have  been  achieved  by  Member  States.  While  the  added  value  generated 
internally in Member States that had advanced counter-terrorism systems prior to 2017 
was  limited,  the  feedback  from  stakeholders  suggests  that  the  CTD  did  contribute  to 
approximate measures across the EU-25, especially as regards the definition of criminal 
offences. Ultimately, this also contributed – to some extent – to facilitating the process 
to exchange information and cooperate with other Member States. The CTD also added 
value relative to the Framework Decision 2008/475, as it made it possible to address 
more adequately recent terrorist threats (FTFs, jihadist terrorism, fake news and online 
content),  brought  together  the  definitions  of  offences  related  to  terrorist  groups  and 
terrorist activities and provided a more comprehensive coverage of behaviour related to 
foreign  terrorist  fighters  FTFs  and  terrorist  financing.  The  added  value  in  the  area  of 
victims is less clear; the opinion among victims’ associations consulted was divided, with 
some indicating that it had generated value (including compared to the VRD) because 
it recognised the specific needs of victims of terrorism, while others disagreed, arguing 
that the CTD provisions did not add value relative to other measures at EU or national 
level. 

Considering  this,  the  evaluation  concluded  that  withdrawing  the  CTD  and  stopping 
targeted  EU  actions  to  counter  terrorism  would  have  detrimental  effects  on  different 
stakeholders despite the existence of existing international standards. Although the CTD 
does not ensure maximum harmonisation of rules, it does set a common set of minimum 
rules which has reduced, to some extent, legal fragmentation across the EU-25. Without 
these  common  set  of  rules,  it  is  likely  that  each  Member  State  would  develop  its 
legislation in line with their own needs, leading to further regulatory fragmentation. In 
the  view  of  the  majority  of  stakeholders  consulted,  this  would  represent  a  step 
backwards  and  impact  negatively  Member  States’  efforts  to  counter  terrorism  and 
ensuring  effective  support  to  victims  of  terrorism  across  the  EU-25,  especially 
considering the current context in which terrorist threats are increasingly transnational. 

With respect to the impact of the Directive on fundamental rights and freedoms as 
enshrined in the Charter and on the rule of law, the evaluation found that in the past 
years,  several  scholars  and  key  stakeholders  (mostly  NGOs)  have  raised  several 
concerns about the detrimental impact of the CTD on fundamental rights and the rule 
of law. These mostly relate to a potential lack of compliance with the legality, necessity 
and proportionality principles due to the perceived vagueness  and broadness of some 
of  the  definitions  and  the  over-criminalisation  of  preparatory  acts,  also  resulting  in 
tensions between certain CTD provisions and fundamental rights such as the freedom 
of  speech  or  the  right  to  non-discrimination  (especially  for  certain  population  groups 
such  as  Muslims  and  people  perceived  as  such).  Other  issues  raised  by  stakeholders 
consulted (mostly human rights watchdog organisations) are linked to the strengthened 
cooperation  and  exchange  of  information  between  intelligence  services  and  law 

July, 2021 

5 

 
Study in support of the evaluation of Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism 

Executive summary (EN) 

enforcement  authorities.  Despite  this,  the  evaluation  found  that  while  some  counter-
terrorism measures adopted in recent years have indeed restricted fundamental rights, 
there is no evidence to suggest that the Directive has resulted in illicit restrictions on 
individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms or challenges to the rule of law, or that it 
has had a detrimental effect on fundamental rights or freedoms relative to the situation 
before its adoption.  

Finally, the CTD has not had a detrimental impact on the provision of humanitarian 
assistance.  While  only  four  Member  States  explicitly  transposed  the  humanitarian 
exemption contained in Recital 38 CTD, the consultations with national authorities in the 
selected Member States suggest that the exemption applies in practice, as no individual 
providing  humanitarian  assistance  has  been  or  would  be  prosecuted  for  terrorism-
related  offences  in  the  absence  of  a  terrorist  intent.  Humanitarian  organisations 
acknowledge  the  added  value  of  the  recital,  which  also  serves  as  example  at 
international  level,  while  pointing  out  that  obliging  Member  States  to  transpose  the 
humanitarian exemption would be beneficial as it would eliminate the potential for such 
organisations  to  be  prosecuted  for  terrorism-related  offences  (particularly  providing 
material  support  to  terrorist  groups)  in  the  future,  regardless  of  government  or 
legislative changes. 

Recommendations 

Based  on  the  findings  of  the  study,  possible  measures  were  suggested  to  strengthen 
the  relevance,  impact  and  added  value  of  the  CTD  or  facilitate  the  monitoring  and 
reporting by Member States. 

To strengthen the relevance and effectiveness of the CTD in the area of criminal law, 
the following measures could be adopted: 

  Non-regulatory guidance for Member States on the interpretation of Articles 1 – 
14 to clarify some of the definitions or elements that have been found to be more 
problematic  (e.g.  terrorist  intent,  proximity  to  danger  required  for  certain 
offences,  required  level  of  participation  or  structure  for  terrorist  groups)  and 
facilitate a more uniform interpretation of the CTD provisions; and 

  Continue  promoting  and  facilitating  police  and  judicial  cooperation  between 
Member  States,  as  has  been  done  in  the  last  decades,  including  through  the 
adoption  and  continued  implementation  of  mutual  recognition instruments  and 
tools,  exchanges  through  EU  agencies  and  the  support  to  networks  and  data-
sharing tools to facilitate police and judicial cooperation. 

To strengthen the relevance and effectiveness of the CTD in the area of victim protection 
and assistance, the following measures are proposed: 

  Guidance on the definition of ‘victims of terrorism’ to ensure that individuals who 
indirectly affected by terrorist attacks are also included in national definitions and 
can also access assistance and support services that they require; 

  Non-regulatory  measures,  such  as  guidance,  on  aspects  that  have  not  been 
specifically  or  sufficiently  regulated  by  the  CTD  (or  the  VRD)  and  which  are 
particularly  relevant  to  address  the  specific  needs  of  victims  of  terrorism  (e.g. 
organisation  of  memorials,  identification  and  registration  after  an  attack, 
engagement  of  victim  support  as  part  of  the  emergency  response  mechanism, 
specific  measures  to  address  the  additional  challenges  faced  by  cross-border 
victims); 

  As  a  continuation  of  the  EU  Handbook,  produce  a  short  document  that  clearly 
summarises all the rights and obligations with respect to victims of terrorism to 
ensure  that  the  information  is  centralised  and  as  clear  as  possible  for  all  key 
stakeholders;   

  Further facilitate coordination between stakeholders involved in the provisions of 
protection and assistance by ensuring a more centralised approach to exchange 
information (e.g. proposing to establish an obligation to nominate single points 

July, 2021 

6 

 
Study in support of the evaluation of Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism 

Executive summary (EN) 

of  contacts,  making use  of  existing platforms  to  exchange information such as 
the EU Justice Portal); and 

  Continue efforts to ensure further overall coordination and knowledge exchanges 
between  key  stakeholders,  including  through  the  EU  Centre  of  Expertise  on 
Victims  of  Terrorism,  the  production  of  handbooks,  reports  and  documents  to 
exchange knowledge and promoting the nomination of single points of contacts 
in all Member States. 

To  improve  the  ability  to  assess  the  implementation  and  impact  of  the  Directive  and 
other counter-terrorism measures as well as to better identify terrorist trends, Member 
States  should  further  their  efforts  to  monitor  and  report  on  the  following  aspects:  a) 
investigation,  prosecution  and  sentencing  of  terrorism-related  cases  (per  offence  and 
type  of  terrorism);  b)  assistance  and  protection  services  provided  to  victims  of 
terrorism;  c)  budget  allocated  to  these  activities;  and  d)  impact  of  counter-terrorism 
measures on fundamental rights and freedoms. To ensure that Member States collect 
such  information,  the  Commission  should  incentivise  Member  States  (e.g.  voluntary 
agreement) to collect and share information on a limited number of aspects, including 
the elements highlighted above. If failing, it could propose establishing a legal obligation 
to do so. 

July, 2021 

7 

 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations 
(http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); 
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); 
by contacting the Europe Direct service 
(http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 
(freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

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

Priced publications: 

  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
doi: 10.2837/0947