COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Follow-up to the second opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and additional information Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on combating violence against women and domestic violence
Date: 2022-03-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: access to the courts, domestic violence, fight against crime, gender equality, help for victims, human rights, sexual discrimination, sexual violence, woman, women's rights

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 8.3.2022  SWD(2022) 61 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Follow-up to the second opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and additional information Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on combating violence against women and domestic violence {COM(2022) 105 final} - {SEC(2022) 150 final} - {SWD(2022) 60 final} - {SWD(2022) 62 final} - {SWD(2022) 63 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2 

2.  FINDINGS  OF  THE  SECOND  OPINION  OF  THE  REGULATORY 

SCRUTINY BOARD ..................................................................................................... 3 

3.  BASELINE – WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED AT MEMBER STATE LEVEL 

SO FAR .......................................................................................................................... 4 

4.  THE  OBJECTIVES  AND  THE  NEED  FOR  A  COMPREHENSIVE 

APPROACH................................................................................................................... 1 

5.  EXPECTED  IMPACTS,  COSTS  AND  BENEFITS,  SUBSIDIARITY,  AND 

PROPORTIONALITY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................... 5 

ANNEX 1 

DETAILED 

PROPOSED 
MEASURES COMPARE WITH THE RESULTS OF THE GAP ANALYSIS OF 
EXISTING MEMBER STATES’ AND EU LEGISLATION ....................................... 9 

COMPARISON  HOW 

THE 

ANNEX 2 

NEW TABLES ON COSTS AND BENEFITS, INCLUDING THE 

OI-OO VIEW ............................................................................................................... 23 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The present document has been compiled to ensure an optimal transparency and tractability of 
the lawmaking process preparing the proposal for the Directive on combating violence against 
women and domestic violence. It presents and explains additional evidence and clarifications 
and thus demonstrates that the comments and observations of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, 
hereafter  “the  Board”,  on  the  impact  assessment  of  the  proposal  have  been  adequately 
addressed.   

The impact  assessment supporting the legal  proposal  for the Directive was submitted to  the 
Board on 15 September 2021. A hearing of the Board took place on 13 October 2021. On 18 
October 2021, the Board issued a negative opinion on the draft impact assessment. A revised 
version  of  the  impact  assessment  was  submitted  on  1  December  2021.  The  Board  issued  a 
second negative opinion on 12 January 2022, based mainly on the insufficient quality of the 
evidence base as presented in this second submission. 

This document complements the regular and standard documents that are submitted with the 
Commission  proposal  to  the  co-legislators,  namely  the  Impact  assessment  report1,  the 
subsidiarity  grid2,  and  the  Explanatory  Memorandum3.  With  the  same  aim  of  ensuring  the 
highest  possible  level  of  transparency  and  tractability,  the  Impact  assessment  report  has  not 
been changed compared to the version that was re-submitted for scrutiny by the Board. In this 
manner,  the  Impact  assessment  report  is  preserved,  as  a  document,  in  the  form  that  has 
triggered  the  observations  and  comments  by  the  Board  in  its  final  opinion  of  12  January 
20224.  

It is important to note that the opinions of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board are an assessment of 
the quality of the impact assessment and not an assessment of the related legislative proposal, 
which was presented for adoption at a later stage.   

The  presented  proposal  has  benefited  from  the  further  substantiated  evidence,  presented  in 
this document. Reflections on the issues raised by the Board and changes that have been made 
to the proposal are also explained below.  

The remainder of the document is structured as follows: Section 2 summarises the outcomes 
of the scrutiny by the Board. Section 3 presents additional evidence in the form of a head-to-
head  comparison  of  the  main  structural  elements  of  the  proposed  directive  with  the  gap 
analysis  carried  out  for  existing  rules  in  this  important  policy  area  at  both  the  level  of  EU 
Member  States  and  EU  level.  Section  4  recalls  the  objectives  and  provides  additional 
clarifications  as  to  why,  as  also  confirmed  by  the  additional  gap  analysis,  a  comprehensive 
approach was retained for legislating in this policy area. Section 5 groups a number of replies 
to  the more technical  observations of the Board  on the dimensions of the expected impacts, 
estimated  costs  and  benefits,  subsidiarity  and  proportionality  considerations.  The  latter  two 
aspects of subsidiarity and proportionality are also presented in the so-called subsidiarity grid 

1 Which includes the opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board [Reference to be added] 
2 [Reference to be added] 
3 The Explanatory Memorandum is an extensive cover note of the Commission legislative proposal; while it has 
no legal value and is not published with the legal act in the Official Journal, it remains available as a document 
on the Eur-lex website. 
4 The  Board’s opinion published at the same time as the Commission’s proposal carries the standard  warning: 
“This opinion concerns a draft impact assessment which may differ from the final version.” In the present case 
the published impact assessment is the document submitted to the Board with minor editorial changes.  

EN 

  EN 

 
 
                                                           
that  is  published  as  a  separate  staff  working  document  accompanying  the  directive.  The 
document  also  contains  two  annexes:  Annex  1  compares  the  proposed  legislative  measures 
(provision by provision) with the findings of the gap analysis. Annex 2 contains the detailed 
data on estimated costs and benefits.   

2. 

FINDINGS OF THE SECOND OPINION OF THE REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD 

After  submission  of  the  first  impact  assessment  to  the  Board,  a  hearing  took  place  on  13 
October 2021. On 18 October 2021, the Board issued a negative opinion on the draft impact 
assessment. A revised version of the impact assessment was submitted on 1 December 2021, 
that  responded  to  the  comments  given  by  the  Board.  In  particular,  the  revised  impact 
assessment clarified the scope of the initiative, presented a more focused problem description 
showing the specificities related to violence against women and domestic violence, inserted a 
gap analysis at EU and at Member State level and highlighted the limitations in the evidence 
concerning  the  impact  of  the  existing  measures  taken  at  Member  State  and  EU  level.  The 
revised impact assessment also clarified the content of the policy options, inserted options that 
were  discarded  at  an  early  stage,  and  presented  the  expected  impacts  in  a  clearer  manner 
(going  from  prevalence  reduction  to  strengthening  of  victims’  rights).  It  also  contained 
detailed information on the estimated costs and benefits of the options discussed.  

While noting the efforts made to improve the draft impact assessment in response to its initial 
comments, the Board nevertheless maintained its negative final opinion on 12 January 2022, 
referring to the following significant shortcomings: 

1.  the baseline not sufficiently reflecting the impact of several actions at EU and Member 

State level; 

2.  the  overall  objective  of  the  proposal  not  being  sufficiently  clear,  and  the  need  for  a 

comprehensive approach not sufficiently justified; 

3.  the  concrete  measures,  as  well  as  the  combination  of  specific  measures  in  different 
options being unclear; as a result, an uncertainty whether the structure of the options 
ensures that the best possible set of measures is selected as the preferred option; 

4.  the  revised  analysis  of  costs  and  benefits  not  fully  incorporating  the  revised  set  of  
options;  comparison  of  options  being  unclear  including  in  terms  of  the  criteria  and 
scoring methods used; 

5.  proportionality of the preferred option, including the chosen lex specialis approach. 

In  addition  to  these  five  negative  comments,  the  Board  provided  thirteen  suggestions  for 
improvement that are summarised in the following:  

- 

In addition to the gap analysis, to bring out more clearly where individual Member States 
still lack measures to comply with the standards of the Council of Europe Convention on 
preventing  and  combating  violence  against  women  and  domestic  violence  (Istanbul 
Convention),  including  the  6  Member  States  that  have  not  yet  ratified  the  Istanbul 
Convention.  In  addition,  the  Board  asked  to  identify  best  practices  observed  in  some 
Member  States  and  going  beyond  the  Istanbul  Convention’s  requirements  to  allow  a 
proper assessment of the scale of the problem and its evolution under the baseline. Also in 
relation  to  the  baseline,  the  future  impacts  of  recent  measures  at  Member  State  level 
should be better taken into account, both in terms of known time lags of expected impacts 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
and in terms of cost estimates. These suggestions are addressed in section 3 and in Annex 
1.  

-  A  number  of  other  points  in  the  opinion  recommend  using  more  precise  language  and 
clarifications  with  regard  to  the  instrument  of  minimum  harmonisation  and  the  precise 
content  of  options.  The  opinion  also  points  out  that  additional  options  could  have  been 
developed, including by  combining selective soft and hard law measures.  In response to 
this,  the  questioned  reasoning  of  the  impact  assessment  that  only  a  comprehensive 
approach can deliver on the stated policy objectives is revisited and made more precise in 
section 4 below.  

-  The remainder of the recommendations for improvement tackle a number of diverse and 
technical methodological issues. These include the request to increase the SMARTness5 of 
objectives, to reconsider the scoring methodology used and to better explain the data used 
(including  its  limitations),  missing  dimensions  in  the  cost  tables,  missing  stakeholder 
views  at  the  Member  State  level,  and  a  better  link  of  evidence  with  the  dimensions  of 
proportionality and subsidiarity. These shortcomings identified by the Board are addressed 
in section 5 below, together with the improved cost table in the annex and the subsidiarity 
grid,  submitted  as  a  staff  working  document,  published  at  the  same  time  as  the  legal 
proposal. 

3. 

BASELINE – WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED AT MEMBER STATE LEVEL SO FAR 

As  suggested  in  the  Board’s  opinion,  this  section  highlights  the  findings  of  what  has  been 
achieved  in  this  policy  area  at  Member  State  level  so  far  and  is  therefore  taken  up  in  the 
baseline6. In doing so, the section responds also to the Board’s recommendation to present a 
more comprehensive analysis of the gaps in Member States’ implementation of the Istanbul 
Convention  and  the  lack  of  response  to  the  evolution  stemming  –  among  others  -  from 
developments in the digital sphere. 

The  following  elements  have  been  developed  to  address  the  comments  on  the  baseline  and 
comprehensiveness  of  assessing  the  level  of  achievements  in  this  policy  area  before 
introducing the proposed new set of measures: 

An  additional  analysis  summarises  the  main  gaps  in  implementation  at  EU  and  Member 
States  level  (Annex  1)7.  It  further  demonstrates  the  intended  impact  and  added  value  at  EU 
level  for  each  of  the  draft  directive’s  provisions  and  explains  how  the  draft  directive  adds 
value  to  the  already  existing  rules  at  national  level  (both  in  those  Member  States  that  have 
ratified the Convention and those that have not) and at EU level. By means of a comparison 
table, the additional analysis makes it easier to see and understand how the draft directive (i) 
responds  with  more  targeted  actions  where  the  current  rules  have  proven  to  be  insufficient 
(such as in the area of victims’ support), (ii) adds consistency to the currently uneven level of 
prevention  and  access  to  justice  at  national  level  (including  via  criminalization  of  certain 
forms  of  crime),  and  (iii)  strengthens  coordination  at  national  and  EU  level.  It  further 
demonstrates how the provisions of the draft directive reflect best practices gathered through 
the monitoring of the Istanbul Convention.  

5 S.M.A.R.T. standing for “specific”, “measureable”, “achievable”, “realistic”, and “time-bound”. 
6 Pt. 1 of the summary points, (1) of the detailed points. 
7 Addressing pt. 1 of the summary comments, pt. (1) and (3) of the specific comments. 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
                                                           
In relation to the Board’s comment that the it has not been justified why the problem analysis 
has not followed an all victims’ inclusive approach (including men and non-binary people)8, 
the  text  of  the  proposal  explains  that  the  initiative  focuses  on  the  specificity  of  women’s 
experiences  of  violence  as  distinct  from  those  of  men  and  proposes  measures  to  respond  to 
these specific experiences9. It also takes into account that women present the vast majority of 
victims of these types of violent acts. At the same time, it clarifies that the draft directive does 
not  exclude  men  and  non-binary  people  from  its  scope.  The  only  exception  is  the 
criminalisation  of  female  genital  mutilation  and  rape,  which  had  to  be  limited  to  women 
because  the  legal  basis  only  refers  to  women.  All  other  criminal  offences  apply  to  all 
victims,  not  only  women.  Moreover,  the  provisions  concerning  victim  support  and 
protection, access to justice, prevention and coordination, while being tailored to this kind of 
violence which mainly affects women, do not exclude men and non-binary people, who can 
also  become  victims  of  the  forms  of  violence  covered  by  the  Directive.  This  choice  also 
reflects  the  outcomes  of  comprehensive  targeted  consultations  among  the  Member  States, 
non-governmental and international organizations, in support of the impact assessment and of 
the gap analysis of the existing legislative framework.  

In relation to the Board’s request to better demonstrate why the existing problems cannot be 
tackled  by  amending  the  existing  EU  instruments  (e.g.  Victims’  Rights  Directive,  Gender 
Equality Directives, etc.)10, further explanations are provided in section 4 below. 

In  relation  to  the  Board’s  specific  comments  about  the  insufficient  consideration  of  the 
development of the baseline scenario11, it is important to note that the present estimates have 
taken  into  account  lower  costs  for  Member  States  that  have  already  introduced  measures  at 
national  level.  Even  if  very  little  data  are  available  on  the  efficiency  of  the  measures  at 
national level, whether for the implementation of the Istanbul Convention or otherwise, it may 
be anticipated that these, and any further measures Member States would take, will continue 
to produce a positive long-term impact at the national level. It has to be acknowledged though 
that  difficulties  in  the  comparability  of  data  available  at  national  level  continue,  and  will 
continue, to cause problems in the quantification of estimates. The measures relating to data 
gathering  and  the  production  of  official  statistics  by  Eurostat  in  the  proposed  directive  are 
important to address this in the longer term. 

Table 112 provides a summary overview of the gap analysis at EU level, whereas the detailed 
comparison between the proposed Directive  and  the existing measures in  this policy area at 
EU  Member  State  level  is  provided  in  Annex  1.  Table  1  summarises  to  what  extent  the  14 
instruments at EU level containing legally binding provisions have addressed the five relevant 
policy areas - prevention, protection, access to justice, victim support and policy coordination. 
The new analysis in Annex 1 draws a much more comprehensive picture, also addressing the 
Board’s  observations  of  not  having  documented  the  status  quo  at  Member  State  level 
sufficiently. 

8 Pt. (2) of the specific comments.  
9 Explanations as to the proposed measures are provided in section 4 and Annex I. 
10 Pt. (2) of the specific comments. 
11 Pt. (3) of the specific comments.  
12 This table was already submitted as part of the revised impact assessment of 1 December in its Annex 8.  

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
Table 1: mapping 14 instruments at EU level onto the relevant policy areas 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
As this overview table indicates visibly, and as is even clearer from the detailed analysis that 
has  additionally  been  provided  in  Annex  1,  the  existing  measures  have  overall  proven 
insufficient to achieve the objectives of an adequate protection of victims of violence against 
women  and  domestic  violence  (see  also  next  section).  In  this  regard,  the  gap  analysis  has 
clearly demonstrated the need for action and potential for the comprehensive approach that is 
further explained in the next section.  

4. 

THE OBJECTIVES AND THE NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH 

The  main  objective  of  the  proposed  initiative  is  to  prevent  and  combat  violence  against 
women and domestic violence, which are a daily reality in the EU. Concretely, the initiative 
aims to incorporate and enhance the standards of the Istanbul Convention13 in the existing EU 
policy  framework  on  violence  against  women  and  domestic  violence,  thus  pursuing  the 
objectives of the Istanbul Convention within the area of EU competences. 

This is achieved by doing two things: first, by filling legislative gaps at the EU and national 
levels,  and  second,  by  updating  EU  law  in  comparison  to  the  standards  of  the  Istanbul 
Convention in the areas of digital transformation (in relation to cyber violence) and to those 
of more recent international developments (in relation to sexual harassment at work). 

On  the  Board’s  specific  comments  regarding  the  lack  of  clear  objectives14,  this  document 
clarifies the objective of the proposal, which is to prevent and combat violence against women 
and domestic violence as criminal  acts and as forms of discrimination. The text of the draft 
directive further clearly outlines its main objectives, explaining that these objectives shall be 
achieved  by  criminalising  certain  forms  of  violence  against  women  (including  rape  and 
offences concerning various forms of cyber violence) and by strengthening protection, access 
to justice and support of victims of violence, as well as violence prevention and coordination. 

In  response  to  the  suggestion  of  the  Board  to  justify  why  a  comprehensive  approach15  is 
necessary,  the  additional  analysis  in  this  document  provides  further  evidence  of  the 
weaknesses  of  the  current  framework  (including  the  gaps  in  legislation  and  practice  at  the 
national level) and of the patchwork of standards that only selectively responds to the specific 
needs  of  victims  of  violence  against  women  and  domestic  violence  at  the  EU  level16.  This 
additional  analysis  further  corroborates  the  conclusion  that  such  selective  standards  are 
insufficient to ensure adequate support and protection of victims of such forms of violence. It 
better explains that each of the measures envisaged by the directive responds to a gap in the 
national legal and policy framework, thereby justifying that comprehensive action in all these 

13  The  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  Preventing  and  Combating  Violence  against  Women  and  Domestic 
Violence (“Istanbul Convention”) is recognized as  the  most far-reaching international  legal instrument to set 
out binding obligations to prevent and combat violence against women. Thirty-four member states of the Council 
of Europe have ratified it. While the EU has signed it, the ratification process has only been concluded by 21 of 
its Member States, which leads to the situation that the Convention’s standards are not binding for six Member 
States. 
14 Pt. 2 of the summary points, (4) of the specific comments. 
15 Pt. 2 of the summary points. 
16  This  conclusion  was  already  drawn  from  the  evaluation  of  all  14  EU  acts  relevant  for  combating  violence 
against women and domestic violence, supported by an external study, the results of which have been integrated 
into the Impact Assessment. 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
areas is indispensable to tackle effectively the complexity and prevalence of violence against 
women and domestic violence. The directive entails provisions which: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

criminalise certain forms violence,  

lay down preventive measures, 

strengthen the protection of and support to victims,  

ensure better access to justice, and 

improve  coordination  among  the  relevant  actors  including  police,  judiciary,  support 
services  and  other  services  that  come  into  contact  with  victims  (such  as  health  and 
social service staff). 

The  comprehensive  approach  is  characterised,  on  the  one  hand,  by  the  EU  level 
criminalisation  and,  on  the  other  hand,  by  the  provision  of  specific  protection,  access  to 
justice, support, prevention and coordination measures. It has been inspired by the EU rules in 
the  areas  of  trafficking  in  human  beings,  sexual  exploitation  of  children  and  countering 
terrorism.  Implementation  reports  of  the  directives17  in  the  above-mentioned  areas 
demonstrate  that  comprehensive  approaches  taken  by  the  EU  legislator  in  these  areas  have 
proven their effectiveness with regard to this group of crime victims. 

The proposed draft directive introduces targeted minimum rules18, allowing Member States 
to  provide  higher  standards  under  national  law.  The  minimum  rules  are  based  on  the  best 
practices  of  those  Member  State  that  have  transposed  particular  provisions  of  the  Istanbul 
Convention effectively (thus directly addressing a recommendation by the Board). They take 
into account the requirements of the Istanbul Convention in the area of the EU competences 
and include them as benchmarks.  

When it comes to those aspects of the draft proposal that are not  explicitly regulated by the 
Istanbul  Convention,  such  as  cyber-crime  and  support  for  victims  of  sexual  harassment  at 
work,  the  minimum  standards  are  built  on  the  best  practices  stemming  from  the  public 
consultations,  other  international  standards  and  the  gap  analysis  of  the  national  and  EU 
legislation that is documented here.  

All  the  measures  have  been  assessed  against  the  overall  objective  of  preventing  and 
combating violence against women and domestic violence, as well as the other objectives that 
are intended to ensure: 

  that  victims  and  potential  victims  of  violence  against  women  and  domestic  violence 

are effectively protected from (further) violence, 

17  European  Commission,  Third  report  on  the  progress  made  in  the  fight  against  trafficking  in  human  beings  (2020)  as 
required under Article 20 of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting 
its victims, COM(2020) 661 final {SWD(2020) 226 final}, 20 October 2020; European Commission,  Communication from 
the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee 
of Regions: EU strategy for a more effective fight against child sexual abuse, COM(2020) 607 final, 24 July 2020; European 
Commission,  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  assessing  the  extent  to  which  the 
Member States have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with Directive 2011/93/EU of 13 December 2011 on 
combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, COM(2016) 871 final, 16 December 
2016. 
18 Pt. (4) of the specific comments.  

EN 

  EN 

 
 
                                                           
  the effective access to justice for victims of all forms of violence against women and 

domestic violence, 

  the effective availability of support for victims of all forms of violence against women 

and domestic violence,  

  that sexual harassment at work is effectively addressed, and 
  a  more  effective  coordination  in  relation  to  violence  against  women  and  domestic 

violence, including gaps in data collection. 

The impacts of the measures have been assessed in terms of their social dimension as well as 
how  they  ensure  the  respect  of  fundamental  rights.  The  detailed  findings of this  assessment 
had  already  been  included  as  Annex  5  of  the  revised  Impact  Assessment  submitted  on  1 
December, which has not been changed and is published together with the legal proposal and 
the present document.   

In response to the Board’s suggestion to clarify why existing horizontal instrument cannot 
tackle the specific problems, it should be flagged that the Victims’ Rights Directive and the 
EU  rules  on  protection  orders  provide  for  general  rules  applicable  to  all  victims  of  crime, 
including victims of gender-based violence and victims of domestic violence. In total, 14 EU 
instruments  are  relevant  to  various  aspects  of  combating  violence  against  women  and 
domestic violence. However, the selective standards contained in these acts are insufficient to 
ensure adequate protection of and support to victims of violence against women and domestic 
violence,  which  is  of  a  very  specific  nature  and  thus  requires  a  specific  approach.  This  is 
illustrated by the following Table 2, which provides a traffic  light overview visualisation of 
how these instruments compare across the various dimensions used for the better law-making 
assessment. 

Table 2. 

Good  To 

some 
extent 

Poor 

To 
a 
limited 
extent 

the  perspective  of 

From 
GBV/DV 

n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f

E

s
s
e

Victims’  Rights  Directive 
(2012)  
EPO instruments  

to  Crime 

Compensation 
Victims Directive (2004)  
Child 
Sexual 
Directive (2011) 
Anti-Trafficking  Directive 
(2011) 

Abuse 

e
c
n
e
r
e
h
o
C

e
c
n
a
v
e
l
e
R

d
e
d
d
a

U
E

e
u
l
a
v

y
c
n
e
i
c
i
f
f

E

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  perspective  of 

From 
GBV/DV 

n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f

E

s
s
e

Conditions 

Reception 
Directive (2013) (recast) 
Asylum 
Directive (2013) 
Return Directive (2008) 

Procedures 

Qualification 
(2011)  
Equality Directives 

Directive 

Article 16 of the UNCRPD 

e
c
n
e
r
e
h
o
C

e
c
n
a
v
e
l
e
R

d
e
d
d
a

U
E

e
u
l
a
v

y
c
n
e
i
c
i
f
f

E

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Only  the  comprehensive  approach  of  the  present  initiative  effectively  addresses  the 
weaknesses  of the current  patchwork of measures, which are  characterised by the identified 
gaps  in  legislation  and  practice  at  the  national  level  (listed  in  the  previous  section  and  in 
Annex 1) and that only selectively respond to the specific needs of victims of violence against 
women and domestic violence at EU level. 

Moreover,  the  mentioned  acts  do  not  criminalise  offences  of  violence  against  women  and 
domestic violence in general. The directives targeting specific criminal offences – such as the 
Anti-Trafficking Directive and the Child Sexual Abuse Directive – protect selective groups of 
victims from very specific forms of crimes. This results in the current situation where all EU 
acts,  relevant  for preventing and combating violence against women and  domestic violence, 
as  separate  acts  together  do  not  provide  the  necessary  basis  for  monitoring  their 
implementation in a comprehensive and coherent  manner from the perspective of victims of 
violence against women  and domestic violence.  At the level  of Member  States, this  is  even 
more  hindered  by  a  lack  of  uniform  definitions  that  hamper  the  comparability  of  data 
collected for the purpose of monitoring. To allow a better monitoring and implementation of 
actions  it  is  again  a  comprehensive  approach  with  a  targeted  single  EU  act  that  can  best 
deliver on this objective – rather than following an alternative option, such as amending all of 
the existing EU rules (e.g. Victims’ Rights Directive, European Protection Order instruments, 
Gender Equality Directives).  

Policy options  

When addressing the Board’s specific comments on the comparison of policy options19, it is 
important to recall that four alternative options20 have been considered:  

- 

- 

a recommendation (non-legislative option) ensuring a gender-sensitive application of 
the existing EU law to this group of victims; 
an instrument covering only one specific problem area, e.g. prevention; 

19 Pts. (5), (6), (8) of the specific comments. 
20 I.e. options which were not retained and evaluated in the impact assessment. 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
- 

- 

an amendment of the 14 existing instruments of EU law that are considered relevant to 
combat violence against women; and 
the addition of Gender-based violence to the list of “EU crimes” in Art. 83 (1) of the 
TFEU. 

The analysis contained in the resubmitted impact assessment aimed to demonstrate that none 
of  these  alternatives  could  achieve  the  objectives  sought  by  the  initiative.  The  additional 
analysis  provided  in  this  document,  based  on  the  evaluation  of  relevant  EU  acts  and  the 
mapping and gap analysis of Member State legislation, aims to further support this. It should 
have become much clearer why a comprehensive approach – a specific directive on violence 
against  women  and  domestic  violence  –  was  chosen  rather  than  an  amendment  of  existing 
horizontal instruments.  

In  particular,  a  core  measure,  such  as  the  criminalisation  of  certain  behaviours,  cannot  be 
achieved  by  mere  amendments  of  the  existing  EU  rules,  including  those  on  victims’  rights. 
The  evaluation  and  the  stakeholder  consultations  have  shown  support  for  combining 
criminalisation  with  specific  protection,  prevention,  access 
justice,  support  and 
coordination measures that respond more directly to the specific needs of victims of violence 
against women and domestic violence. The rules will apply in addition to the rules laid down 
in the Victims’ Rights Directive, thus constituting a so-called lex specialis to that directive. 

to 

As regards the  choice of the preferred policy option,  and more specifically  how it has been 
brought  more  in  line  with  the  principle  of  proportionality,  the  next  section  provides  more 
details.. 

5. 

EXPECTED IMPACTS, COSTS AND BENEFITS, SUBSIDIARITY, AND PROPORTIONALITY 
CONSIDERATIONS 

On  the  Board’s  specific  comments  on  the  analysis  of  impacts21,  the  additional  analysis  in 
Annex I better acknowledges that some measures at Member State level may have an impact 
only  in  the  years  to  come,  and  clarifies  that  this  future  impact  has  indeed  been  taken  into 
account.  

In addition, a revised version of the cost table is attached in annex 2 of this document (as an 
update  of  Annex  3  of  the  impact  assessment),  which  now  clearly  separates  the  costs  for 
businesses and public authorities.  

The  impact  on  national  budgets  and  administrations  is  expected  to  amount  to  €4.9  –  €6.5 
billion per year. Nonetheless, the positive economic impacts regarding the reduced prevalence 
of violence against women and domestic violence, would bring benefits of €8.2 - €10.6 billion 
per year, clearly outweighing the costs. No special measures are provided for SMEs22, but the 
potential costs for employers are limited to the participation of managers to a two-hour online 
training,  estimated  at  €55  per  SME  and  €5.750  per  large  company  per  year  (the  EU-27 
average recurring cost of attending training for managers).  

21 Pt. (7). 
22 See annex 5 section 4.7 of the Impact Assessment.  

EN 

  EN 

 
 
                                                           
On  the  comparison  methodology  applied  to  options23,  it  is  acknowledged  that  the  scoring 
method  assigns  different  weighs  to  the  better  regulation  criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
and coherence. The effectiveness criterion was considered particularly important, considering 
that the main impact of the draft directive is linked to better safeguarding fundamental rights. 
As  regards  the  Board’s  criticism  regarding  assigning  the  comprehensive  approach  option  a 
higher qualitative score for total net benefits than for the moderate option, it should be noted 
that it is not a cardinal scoring method, i.e., it puts the focus on the order of the scoring of the 
options  and  does  not  allow  the  comparison  of  ratios  which  precludes  a  standard  cost 
efficiency approach.  

The  comparison  of  costs  and  benefits  of  the  preferred  option24  underlying  the  proposed 
directive  has  been  complemented  by  the  approach  required  since  January  2022  under  the 
revised Better Regulation Guidelines. This includes the overview of the administrative burden 
that  needs  to  be  offset  in  line  with  the  one  in  –  one  out  principle  (OI-OO).  The  additional 
tables are included in Annex 2 to this document. However, the headline figures calculated for 
total  estimated  costs  and  benefits  for  the  preferred  policy  option  that  underlies  the  proposal 
have  not  changed.25  This  lack  of  change  stems  from  the  fact  that  adjustments  made  to  the 
preferred options have emerged from the additional subsidiarity analysis that has been carried 
out  by  Commission  services  (and  that  is  reflected  in  a  detailed  manner  in  the  separate 
subsidiarity  grid).  This  analysis  has  identified  that  in  light  of  existing  measures  at  Member 
State  level,  the  directive  could  be  less  prescriptive  and  leave  more  flexibility  to  Member 
States in the implementation of the new rules. The changes are also quite marginal in terms of 
costs and did not trigger a revision of the costing of options. 

A subsidiarity assessment grid has been completed and is published as a separate document 
with  the  legal  proposal.  It  explains  in  detail  how  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  has  been 
respected.  

On the principle of proportionality, it is important to clarify that the proposal presents a lex 
specialis to the Victims’ Rights Directive. It has been carefully drafted in order to ensure that 
the proposed measures do not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives and to leave 
a maximum of flexibility to the Member States, allowing them to adjust the minimum rules to 
the specificities of their national judicial schemes. For instance:  

- 

- 

- 

A separate provision specifies that the draft directive provides for minimum rules which 
can be surpassed by the Member States;  

The proposal limits criminalisation at EU level to those acts where gaps or deficiencies 
have  been  identified  at  the  national  level  (rape,  female  genital  mutilation  and  certain 
forms  of  cyber  violence).  It  otherwise  leaves  it  to  Member  States  to  criminalise  at 
national  level  most  types  of  crimes  or  offences  falling  within  the  remit  of  violence 
against women and domestic violence as defined in the directive;  

The provision on limitation periods has been reduced to focus on the specific problems 
that were highlighted in the studies and consultations, while leaving other elements to 
national law; 

23 Pt. (8). 
24 Pts. (8), (11). 
25  The  full  details  on  those  calculations  of  costs  and  benefits  are  in  Annex  4  of  the  impact  assessment  of  1 
December 2021. 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
                                                           
- 

- 

-  

Flexibility  has  been  granted  to  Member  States  concerning  the  organisation  of  victim 
support.  For  instance,  envisaged  obligations  to  provide  for  free  legal  representation, 
access  to  legal  aid,  the  right  to  free  trial  support,  free  psychosocial  support  during 
proceedings,  the  right  to  specific  accessibility  solutions  for  victims  with  disabilities, 
access  to  interpretation,  one-stop  shops  for  victims  and  standards  on  precise 
geographical availability and distribution of support services have been removed in the 
proposal as presented; 

A right to collective action for victims of violence against women was not included in 
order to limit the interference with existing judicial procedures in the Member States; 

The  provisions  on  protection  orders  have  been  revised,  leaving  only  the  obligation  of 
Member States to introduce emergency barring orders and long-term protection without 
setting minimum standards. 

The  draft  directive  streamlines  and  simplifies  provisions  relating  to  this  group  of  crime 
victims  to  ensure a smooth  interplay with  the Victims’ Rights  Directive, and better clarifies 
(compared to the impact assessment) where new obligations come on top of those provided by 
the Victims’ Rights Directive: 

-  With  regard  to  sexual  harassment,  the  obligation  for  Member  States  to  criminalise 
sexual harassment was not included, leaving only the obligation to provide support and 
protection; 

- 

The  role  of  labour  inspectorates  has  been  highlighted  while  refraining  from  defining 
specific tasks and powers, thus leaving flexibility to Member States. 

On the Board’s specific comments on data and evidence26, it can be clarified (as also done in 
the Explanatory Memorandum)  that the existing EU acquis was evaluated to assess its impact 
on  violence  against  women  and  domestic  violence,  and  that  the  results  of  this  analysis  are 
included in the gap analysis. While no additional new data is available in comparison to what 
is  included  in  the  impact  assessment  report,  the  Commission  services  performed  additional 
analyses  to  show  how  the  measures  presented  in  the  draft  directive  address  the  established 
gaps in prevention, protection, victim support, access to justice, and coordination. The result 
of this analysis is presented in Annex 1 of this document. In order to provide for more robust 
data in the future, the draft directive also lays down the grounds for more convergence in the 
administration of data and survey data collection in the future.   

the  stakeholder  views27, 

the  Board’s  specific  comments  on 

the  Explanatory 
On 
Memorandum summarises these views in a succinct manner, including the contributions from 
the Member States. All 24 Member States that contributed in the consultations highlighted the 
need  for  further  measures.  In  addition,  during  the  workshop  with  Member  States  on  1  July 
2021, during which all Member States participated, no particular concerns on the subsidiarity 
were expressed. Member States have repeatedly called for action at EU level, for instance, in 
the  2014  Council  conclusions  on  "Preventing  and  combating  all  forms  of  violence  against 
women and girls, including female genital mutilation".  

26 Pt. (10). 
27 Pt. (12). 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
                                                           
As to the clarity of definitions and the distinction between the concepts28 of violence against 
women as a sub-category  of  gender-based violence and of domestic violence as the offence 
that affects all victims, the draft directive lays down clear definitions of the relevant concepts 
(cf. also the clarifications made above). 

28 Pt. (13). 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 1  DETAILED COMPARISON HOW THE PROPOSED 
MEASURES COMPARE WITH THE RESULTS OF THE GAP ANALYSIS 
OF EXISTING MEMBER STATES’ AND EU LEGISLATION   

EU Member States’ are referred to below with the following country abbreviations  

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czechia 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 

(BE) 
(BG) 
(CZ) 
(DK) 
(DE) 
(EE) 
(IE) 

Greece  (EL) 
Spain 
(ES) 
France  (FR) 
Croatia  (HR) 
Italy 
(IT) 
Cyprus  (CY) 
(LV) 
Latvia 

Lithuania 
(LT) 
Luxembourg  (LU) 
(HU) 
Hungary 
(MT) 
Malta 
(NL) 
Netherlands 
(AT) 
Austria 
(PL) 
Poland 

Portugal  (PT) 
Romania  (RO) 
Slovenia  (SI) 
Slovakia  (SK) 
(FI) 
Finland 
(SE) 
Sweden 

Provisions 

Gaps  at  EU  and  Member  States 
(MS) level 

Intended  impact  of  measures  / 
EU added value 

Chapter II: Offences concerning sexual  exploitation of women and computer crime 
Article 5 
Rape 

  Requiring 

all  Member 
States  to  include  lack  of 
consent in the definition of 
rape. 

  9  MS  use  definitions  of  rape 
that rely solely on the  absence 
the  victim 
of  consent  of 
without  any  reference  to  force 
or  threats,  in  line  with  the 
Istanbul  Convention  and  other 
rights 
human 
international 
norms (EELN 202129). 

  Lack  of  consent 

is  not  a 
ground  for  rape.  (CZ,  EE,  FI, 
FR,  IT,  LV,  NL,  NI,  PL,  PT, 
RO, SV, SI). 

  GREVIO  noted  that  in  some 
MS criminal offences of sexual 
violence  (including  rape)  are 
not  based  on  the  notion  of 
freely  given  consent  (FI,  FR, 
IT, NL, ES)  

  Lack 

of 

specific 

 

for 

criminalisation in 12 MS. 
remaining  MS, 
the 
In 
requirements 
criminal 
liability  differ  (e.g.  disabling 
consequences,  incitement  and 
acts) 
consent, 
(EELN 2021). 

preparatory 

Article 6 
Female  Genital 
Mutilation) 

  Recognition 

of 

female 
genital mutilation as a form 
of  violence  against  women 
at the EU level. 

29Criminalisation of gender-based violence against women in European States, including ICT-facilitated  
Violence : 
women-in-european-states-including-ict-facilitated-violence-1-97-mb 

https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5535-criminalisation-of-gender-based-violence-against-

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                           
Article 7 
Non-consensual 
sharing of 
intimate or 
manipulated 
material  

Article 8 
Cyber stalking 

Article 9 
Cyber harassment 

  Gaps 

support, 
victim 
in 
prevention 
and 
protection 
(Open  Public  Consultation30  - 
OPC-). 

  Ten MS (BE,  FR, EI,  IT, MT, 
NL,  PL,  PT,  ES,  SE)  have 
specifically  criminalised 
the 
non-consensual  dissemination/ 
of 
publication/disclosure 
intimate/private/sexual images. 
It  is  not  expressly  stated  in  all 
criminal  provisions  that  the 
images can be obtained with or 
without  the  consent  of  the 
victims. 

 

  Some 

national 

definitions 
include the element of intent to 
harm 
the  dissemination 
(EELN 2021). 

in 

  Shortcomings  with  regard  to 
the constitutive elements of the 
offence 
additional 
requirements (FI, ES). 

and/or 

  GREVIO has noted inadequate 
guidance  provided  to  criminal 
justice professionals on how to 
handle  the  complex  nature  of 
stalking  and  avoid  placing  a 
disproportionate  weight  on  the 
victims’  behavior  (FI,  MT, 
NL). 

  A  report  commissioned  by 
Women’s  Aid31  shows 
that 
45%  of  women  victims  of 
domestic  violence 
reported 
experiencing  some  form  of 
abuse  online  during 
their 
reported 
relationship.  48% 
harassment  or  abuse  online 
from their ex-partner after they 
had left the relationship.  

 

 

images 

harmonised 
Introducing 
definitions and sanctions of 
non-consensual  sharing  of 
intimate 
and 
content at the EU level. 
Introducing 
harmonised 
definitions and sanctions of 
offences  concerning  non-
sharing 
consensual 
regardless  of  the  victim’s 
initial  consent  or  harm 
inflicted on the victim. 

 

harmonised 
Introducing 
definitions and sanctions of 
offences  concerning  cyber 
stalking at EU level. 

 

Introducing harmonised 
definitions and sanctions of 
offences concerning cyber 
harassment at EU level. 

  Chapter III: Protection of victims and access to justice  
Article 15 
 
Reporting of 
violence against 

  Reporting acts of violence and 
is 
for 

seeking 
particularly  problematic 

assistance 

Introducing rules on the way 
victims can report criminal 
offences to the competent 

30  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12472-Violence-against-women-and-
domestic-violence-fitness-check-of-EU-legislation_en. 
31 4. Laxton C. and Women’s Aid (2014), “Virtual World, Real Fear  – Women’s Aid report into online abuse, 
harassment  and  stalking”,  available  at  https://1q7dqy2unor827bqjls0c4rn-wpengine.netdna-ssl.  com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/Women_s_Aid_Virtual_World_Real_Fear_Feb_2014-3.pdf. 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
                                                           
women or 
domestic violence 

authorities: in an easy and 
accessible manner, including 
online or through other 
information and 
communications technologies, 
including the possibility to 
provide evidence concerning 
offences of cyber violence. 
  Confidentiality rules imposed 

by national law on 
professionals, such as 
healthcare professionals and 
teachers cannot constitute an 
obstacle to reporting situation 
where they have reasonable 
grounds to believe that there is 
an imminent risk of serious 
harm. 

  Child- friendly procedures for 
children (safe, confidential, 
designed and accessible in a 
child-friendly manner and 
language, age-appropriate and 
corresponding to their level of 
maturity). 

women  with  disabilities  and 
children  with 
mothers  of 
disabilities  (BE,  FI,  IT,  MT, 
NL, ES, SE). Response of law 
enforcement 
deeply 
inadequate  (EIGE  contribution 
to  open  public  consultation; 
FRA 2021). 

is 

  Several  MS  consider  lack  of 
reporting  as  a  serious  problem 
in  addressing  violence  against 
women  and  domestic  violence 
the  MS 
(Question  43  of 
targeted consultation (BE, BG, 
CY, DE, IE, RO)). 

(interview 

  Reporting  should  be  child-
friendly 
with 
Victim Support Europe). There 
should  be  a  possibility  for 
visits  with  family  members 
suspected  of 
this  kind  of 
violence to take place in a safe, 
surveyed  place  and  in  the  best 
the  child  (best 
interest  of 
practice  in  ES,  FI,  DE  and 
MT). 

  EU  acquis  does  not  include 
obligations  on  reporting  of 
violence  against  women  and 
domestic  violence.  It  does  not 
oblige  MS  to  ensure  reporting 
by 
the 
third  parties,  with 
exception  of  the  Child  Sexual 
Abuse Directive32. 

retaliation, 

  Underreporting  affects  victims 
of  sex-based  harassment  at 
work,  due  to  fear  of  career-
high 
related 
for  sex-
societal 
tolerance 
lack  of 
based  harassment, 
reporting 
information 
lack  of 
mechanisms, 
employers 
awareness 
(European 
Law 
Review, Vol. 2, 2019, p. 19). 
  The  CSA  Directive  provides 
for  protection  of  child  victims 
and 
of 

of 
Equality 

on 
and 

sexual 

abuse 

Article 16 
Investigation  and 
prosecution 

  Ensured expertise for those 

investigating and prosecuting 
these crimes, including in the 

32 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011L0093 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
exploitation  in  the  course  of 
investigations  and 
criminal 
proceedings.  The  Directive  is 
limited to this specific form of 
violence. 

online sphere and reported 
offences are processed and 
transferred without delay to the 
competent authorities for 
investigation. 

  Ensuring that competent 
authorities promptly refer 
victims to relevant health care 
providers or support services. 

in 

(EPRS 

  Absence  of  a  harmonised 
evidence 
the  online 
in  cross-
investigations 
Study 
gender-based 

definition  makes 
assessment 
environment  and 
border 
challenging 
“Combating 
violence: Cyber violence”). 
  Guidance  to  prosecutors  on 
how  to  approach  and  handle 
against 
cases  of  violence 
women  and  domestic  violence 
with 
the 
difficulties  in  gathering  and 
assessing  evidence  would  be 
welcomed 
many 
stakeholders 

regard 

also 

by 

to 

  Only 

the  CSA  and  Anti-
Trafficking  Directives  ensure 
that 
not 
dependent  on  the  cooperation 
of the victim. 

prosecution 

is 

Article 17 
Individual 
assessment to 
identify victims’ 
protection needs 

  Risk  assessment  protocols  are 
not sufficiently integrated with 
other  protection  measures, 
namely  protection  orders  or 
temporary  restraining  orders 
(FR, NL). 

Article 18 
Individual 
assessment of 
victims’ support 
needs 

 

Individual  assessments  are  not 
performed  in  seven  Member 
States  (CZ,  BE,  EE,  LU,  RO, 
SI and SK). 

  Lack 

of 

standardised 

  With 

to 

procedures (IT, MT). 
regard 

sex-based 
harassment  at  work,  few  risk 
assessments are carried out and 
do  not  include  psychosocial 
risks  (workshops  with  social 
partners). 

 

Introduction  of  a  specific  risk 
assessment  to  this  group  of 
victims  to  be  conducted  from 
first contact with authorities. 
  The  assessment  to  contain  an 
assessment of the lethality risk 
alleged 
posed 
perpetrator  on  the  victim  and 
dependents.  
Introducing 
individual 
assessment to identify victims’ 
and  dependents’ 
individual 
support needs. 

the 

by 

 

Article 19 
Referral to 

  Referral  mechanisms  in  place 
only  for  cases  of  domestic 

  Obligatory  referrals  between 
domestic  authorities  and  non-

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
support services 

violence (in particular FI, MT, 
ES33).  

Article 20 
Emergency 
barring, 
restraining and 
protection orders 

 

  Lack  of  effective  multiagency 
approach to  the protection and 
support of victims of domestic 
violence (IT, DK, PT, SE). 
Inefficiencies  in  referrals  to 
support 
(interview 
services 
with Victim Support Europe). 
  Uneven  implementation  of  the 
co-
and 
the 

existing  multi-agency 
ordination 
structures 
referral  mechanisms  at 
local level (FR, ES). 
  Mutual recognition of 

protection orders pursuant to 
Directive 2011/99 or 
Regulation 606/2013 
insufficient (COM/2020/187). 

  Lack of effective and 

immediate protection after 
reporting (AT, FE, DE, NL, 
PL, PT). 

  Lack  of  continuity  between 
emergency  barring  orders  and 
protection 
the 
orders 
protection  afforded  to  victims 
and 
and 
lack  monitoring 
analysis  of  protection  orders 
(ES, MT, IT, SE, NL). 

in 

governmental  organisations  to 
ensure that victims of all forms 
of  Violence  against  Women 
and  Domestic  Violence  are 
immediately 
by 
support services. 

contacted 

  Referrals  to  cover  also  child 
victims  and  child  witnesses 
without the prior consent of the 
holder 
parental 
of 
responsibility. 

  Member  States  to  ensure  that 
competent authorities can issue 
orders  for  the  protection  of 
victims  or  their  dependents  in 
situations of immediate danger. 
  MS  to  ensure  that  competent 
authorities  can  issue  orders  to 
provide  long-term  protection 
by  prohibiting,  restraining  or 
prescribing 
dangerous 
behaviour of the offender. 
  Minimum  rules  on  the  content 
of the national orders facilitate 
their  mutual  recognition 
in 
cases  where  one  of  the  parties 
moves between MS. 

Article 21 
Protection 
of 
victim’s  private 
life  

  Gaps identified in the attitudes 
and / or knowledge of the 
judicial authorities and 
demonstrated by the high rate 
of secondary victimization34. 

  Evidence relating to the sexual 
history  and  conduct  of  the 
victim  or  their  private  life  not 
permitted 
strictly 
relevant. 

unless 

  Protection from secondary 
victimization through 
limitations to unnecessary 
questioning on sexual history 
included in the Istanbul 
Convention (explanatory 
report, §§ 278-279). 

Article 22 
Guidelines for 
law enforcement 

  Lack 

of 

prosecutorial 
guidelines  to  encourage  the 
appropriate 
effective 

and 

  MSs  requested 

introduce 
guidelines  for  the  competent 
authorities  acting  in  criminal 

to 

33 GREVIO contribution to the targeted consultation.  
34  Women as victims of partner violence Justice for victims of violent crime Part IV, FRA (2019), available at: 
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2019-justice-for-victims-of-violent-crime-part-4-
women_en.pdf. 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
  These 

to 

proceedings on how to address 
all  cases  of  violence  against 
women or domestic violence. 
include 
could 
information  on  specificities  of 
VAW /DV crime, as well as on 
how 
targeted 
conduct 
individual  assessments,  avoid 
repeat 
secondary 
victimisation  and  ensure  that 
victims are treated in a trauma- 
and  gender-sensitive  manner 
support 
and 
services. 
  National  bodies 

referred 

or 

to 

to  be 
to  address  all 
mandated 
forms  of  violence  against 
women 
domestic 
and 
violence,  in  particular  to 
act  on  behalf  or  in  support 
of  victims 
in  criminal 
proceedings,  including  for 
for 
the 
application 
the 
compensation,  with 
victims’ approval. 

and judicial 
authorities 

of 

prosecution 
domestic 
violence,  (CY,  IT,  LV,  MT; 
EL  and  HU  have  police 
guidelines). 

  Gender-neutral  guidelines  on 
domestic  violence  in  all  MS 
parties to IC except of ES). 

  Lack 

of 

prosecutorial 

guidelines on FGM in all MS. 

Article 23 
Role of national 
bodies and 
equality bodies 

  National  Equality  Bodies  can 
deal  with  claims  on  cases  of 
sexual harassment but not with 
claims  on  other 
forms  of 
Violence  against  Women  and 
Domestic  Violence(BG,  HR, 
CY, CZ, DK, FI, FR, EL, HU, 
IE,  IT,  LT,  LV,  LU,  MT,  NL, 
PL, RO, SK, ES ). 

and 
which 

  Certain  equality  bodies  only 
have a mandate to work in the 
gender-based 
area 
of 
sexual 
harassment 
harassment, 
are 
explicitly  mentioned  as  forms 
of  discrimination  in  the  EU 
acquis, however, equality body 
actions  taken  to  prevent  and 
gender-based 
combat 
sexual 
harassment 
harassment  are  also  actions 
contributing  to  preventing  and 
forms  of 
combating  other 
women 
violence 
(EQUINET). 
If  equality  bodies  had  powers 
to  address  gendered  online 
be 
content, 
empowered  to  provide  legal 
advice 
to  victims  (83%  of 
respondents). 

against 

should 

they 

and 

 

Article 24                                                                                                                               
Measures to 
remove certain 
online material 

  Currently no specific measures 
on 
cyber 
gender-based 
violence  in  EU  law  ((EELN 
2021). 

  National  authorities  to  request 
illegal  gender-
removals  of 
content 
online 
based 
(criminalised  in  Articles  5-7) 

  Art.  8(2)  of 

the  upcoming 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
Digital  Services  Act  includes 
provisions  on  orders  to  act 
against illegal content from the 
perspective  of 
intermediary 
service providers. 

 

  Stakeholders  note  the  need  to 
ensure  redress  and  support  to 
individuals  in  cases  of  illegal 
(Workshop  on  cyber 
acts 
against  women, 
violence 
consultations  with 
targeted 
organisations, 
international 
social 
workshops 
partners). 

with 

Article 25 
Compensation 
from offenders 

  Restrictive time limits to apply 
from 
compensation 
for 
((EELN  2021); 
perpetrators 
Milquet 
‘From 
report 
compensation  to  reparation’, 
2019). 

of 

seriousness 

  Concerning state compensation 
in  a    case  of  sexual  violence,  
the 
the 
consequences  for  the  victims 
of  the  crime  committed  is  not 
taken  into  account    and  the  
fixed  rate  compensation  does 
not  represent  an  appropriate 
contribution  to  the  reparation 
of 
the  harm  suffered  (IT; 
CJEU  C-129/19  -  Presidenza 
del Consiglio dei Ministri). 

Chapter IV: Victim support 
Article 26 
Specialist  support 
to victims  

 

and/or 
number 
Inadequate 
distribution 
specialist 
of 
services (BE, DK, FI, FR, DK, 
IT, MT, DK, SE). 
In most MS, specialist support 
is only available for victims of 
domestic violence. 

 

  Specialist  support  services  for 
victims  of  other  forms  of 
violence 
sexual 
violence,  FGM  and  sexual 
if  at  all, 
harassment  are, 
lower 
available 

in  a  much 

such 

as 

by  addressing  legal  orders  to 
service providers. 
If the removal order cannot  be 
enforced, 
for 
domestic  authorities  to  block 
access  to  the  illegal  content 
towards 
internet  users 
within their territory. 

possibility 

the 

  Removals  and  blocking  of 
content to be limited to what is 
strictly necessary. 

  Affected  users  to  be  informed 
of  the  reason  for  the  removal 
or blocking and have access to 
judicial redress. 

  Availability 

of 

full 
compensation  from  offenders 
(covering  costs  for  healthcare, 
support services, rehabilitation, 
loss  of 
income  and  other 
reasonable costs). 

  Availability  of  effective  and 
dissuasive  compensation  from 
offenders  for  victims  of  all 
forms  of  violence  against 
women or domestic violence in 
the 
criminal 
course 
proceedings. 

of 

  Minimum  standards  for 

the 
limitation period for bringing a 
claim 
(5 
years  and  10  years  for  sexual 
violence). 

for  compensation 

  Victims of all forms of violence 
against  women  and  domestic 
violence 
to 
specialist support services. 

to  have  access 

  Victims  of 

to 

cyber  violence 
receive 
against  women 
targeted 
as 
support, 
receiving legal advice on how to 
remove  illegal  online  content 
and stalkerware. 

such 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
Article 27 
Specialist  support 
for  victims  of 
sexual violence 

Article 28 
Specialist support 
for victims of 
female genital 
mutilation 

number (AT, BE, FR, MT, PT, 
ES). 

 

  Specialist  support  services  do 
not  cater  for  the  needs  of 
specific groups of victims (AT, 
BE, IT, PT, SE). 
In  the  majority  of  the  MS,  
measures  tackling  specifically 
cyber  harassment  are  lacking 
(AT,  BE,  BG,  HR,  CY,  CZ, 
DK,  EE,  FI,DE,GR,  HU,  IR, 
IT,  LV,  LT,  MT,  NL,  PL,  PT, 
RO, SK, SL, ES, SE). 

  Lack of standardised protocols 
and  guidelines  that  set  clear 
procedures  in  the  provision  of 
treatment  and  care  to  victims 
of 
(in 
violence 
particular MT, ES, NL). 

sexual 

  The  number  of  rape  crisis 
centres  and/or  sexual  violence 
referral  centres are insufficient 
to  ensure  proper  coverage  and 
easy  access  by  victims  of 
sexual  violence  (AT,  BE,  FR, 
IT, NL, PT, ES, SE). 

to 

services 

protection 

  Multi-agency  cooperation 
strengthened 

  Different  agencies  providing 
support  to  victims  of  FGM  do 
not  cooperate  (EL,  LV,  RO); 
open public consultation 2021. 
to 
to  ensure 
be 
coordinated 
cooperation 
between the actors in charge of 
and 
prevention, 
tackle 
support 
harmful 
against 
practices 
women in 14 MS (OPC 2021); 
  Lack  of  awareness  of  FGM 
and  lack  of  cultural  sensitivity 
among  health  professionals, 
insufficient 
information  on 
available  support,  insufficient 
access  or  insurance  coverage 
surgery, 
of 
insufficient 
for 
children,  youth  and  migrants 
and 
funding 
identified  as  challenges  in  the 
EU (End FGM position paper). 

reconstructive 

insufficient 

services 

  Effective support to victims of 
sexual  violence  through  rape 
violence 
sexual 
crisis 
referral centres.  
gaps 

  Covers 

or 

in 

several 
Member  States  by  ensuring 
that  rape  crisis  and  sexual 
violence  referral  centres  are 
appropriately equipped, free of 
charge  and  easily  accessible 
every  day  of  the  week,  and 
ensure 
the  preservation  and 
documentation of evidence. 

  Member  States 

to 

ensure 
support  to  victims  of  FGM, 
including 
gynaecological, 
sexological,  psychological  and 
trauma  care  and  counselling 
tailored to the specific needs of 
such victims.  

  Provision  of  information  on 
public  hospital  units  where 
reconstructive 
is 
performed.  

surgery 

  Support service provision to be 
covered in  further detail in  the 
upcoming Recommendation on 
harmful practices. 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
Article 29 

Specialist support 
for victims of 
sexual 
harassment at 
work 

do 

  Social  partners  highlight  that 
very  few  risk  assessments  are 
carried out  and when they are, 
they 
include 
(targeted 
psychosocial 
consultation workshops). 
  Gaps  identified  in  protection, 
support and prevention of sex-
based 
(EELN  
harassment 
2021). 

not 
risks 

  Victims  of  sexual  harassment 
to  be  provided 
at  work 
effective  access 
to  gender-
responsive,  safe  and  effective 
dispute 
complaint 
mechanisms, 
resolution 
dedicated 
support 
through 
remedies, 
services 
the 
to 
workplace. 

and 
including 
external 

and 

to 

include 

  This 

  Relevant  national 

inspection 
relevant 
bodies,  or  other 
authorities 
inspect  and 
investigate  cases  of  sexual 
harassment at work. 
can 

the 
suspension  of  work  activities 
of the victim and/or offender. 
  Access  to  shelters  and  other 
interim  accommodation  to  be 
ensured  to  victims  of  violence 
against  women  and  domestic 
violence 
of 
nationality,  citizenship,  place 
of 
residence 
status. 

residence  or 

regardless 

  Shelters to address the specific 
needs  of  women  victims  and 
assist  them  in  their  recovery, 
and 
providing 
appropriate  living  conditions 
with  a  view  on  a  return  to 
independent living. 

adequate 

  Shelters 

interim 
or 
accommodations 
be 
equipped  to  accommodate  the 
specific  needs  of  children, 
including child victims. 

shall 

to 

as 

soon 

be 
protection 

  Children 
provided 
adequate 
and 
specialised and age-appropriate 
support 
the 
authorities  have 
competent 
reasonable  grounds  to  believe 
they  might  have  been 
that 
subject 
or  witnessed 
violence  against  women  and 
domestic violence. 

as 

to 

 

Article 31 
Shelters and other 
interim 
accommodations 

availability 

of 
Insufficient 
shelters  to  victims  of  violence 
against  women  and  domestic 
violence  (all  MS  reviewed  by 
GREVIO 
to 
GREVIO  contribution  to  the 
targeted consultation). 

according 

  Barriers  in  accessing  shelters 
for  women  whose  children 
include  boys  above  a  certain 
age (AT, BE, PT), or children, 
or  to  women  from  certain  risk 
(GREVIO 
backgrounds 
contribution 
targeted 
consultation). 

the 

to 

Article 32 
Support  for  child 
victims 

  Shortcomings  identified  in  the 
provision  of  specialist  support 
services catered to the needs of 
children 
women 
and 
intersectional 
experiencing 
discrimination  (AT,  BE,  IT, 
PT, SE). 

  Risk 

assessments 
for 

out 
carried 
experiencing 

are  not 
children 
domestic 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
violence (in particular IT, RO).    Children  in  need  of  temporary 
accommodation to be placed in 
permanent 
temporary 
or 
housing.  Placement  in  shelters 
to be a last resort. 

Article 33 
Safety of children 

  Lack  of  awareness  among 
professionals  (social  workers, 
legal  and  health  professionals, 
the 
and  psychologists)  of 
harmful  effects  of  witnessing 
domestic violence on children. 
to  age-
in  access 
Barriers 
appropriate  support  services 
paying  due  regard  to  the  best 
interests of the child (including 
in FR, IT). 

  Provision  of  support  services 
to  be  conducted  in  a  child-
friendly manner. 

  Establishment of safe places to 
organise 
contact 
possible 
between  a  child  and  its  parent 
offender  of  violence  against 
women  or  domestic  violence 
who  has  a  right  of  access, 
under 
needed 
where 
supervision 
trained 
by 
professionals. 

  Lack 

of 

safe 

necessary 
to 
resources/infrastructure 
supervised 
ensure 
visitation.  Meeting 
spaces 
more  equipped  to  deal  with 
conflictual  relationships  than 
cases  involving  violence  (FR, 
MT). 

  Lack  of  sufficiently  trained 
supervised 

personnel 
visitation (AT, MT, ES). 

for 

Article 34                                                                                                                                 
Targeted support 
for victims at an 
increased risk of 
violence 

women 

  Limited  support  available  for 
migrant  and  asylum  seeking 
women  to  report  violence  or 
access  services  (BE,  DK,  IT, 
MT, NL, ES, SE). 
police 
Inaccessibility 
for  women  with 
premises 
disabilities 
of 
children  with  disabilities  (BE, 
FR, IT, PT). 

/  mothers 

of 

 

  Barriers 

in  accessing 

safe 
accommodation 
for  victims 
belonging to vulnerable groups 
with 
such 
disabilities or older women. In 
AT,  PT,  women  with  mental 
health  issues  are  not  admitted 
to shelters. 

women 

as 

  Exclusion  of  migrant  and 

as 

  Specific protection and support 
to  victims  with  specific  needs, 
with 
such 
disabilities,  women  with 
dependant  residence  status  or 
permit,  women  affected  by 
homelessness,  with  a  minority 
racial  or  ethnic  background, 
living  in  rural  areas,  women 
sex  workers,  detainees,  and 
older women. 

  Possibility 

to 

report 
occurrences of violence against 
women or domestic violence in 
reception and detention centres 
to the relevant staff. 

  Support  services  available  for 
third-country  national  victims 
of violence against women and 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
domestic  violence, 
including 
for  applicants  of  international 
protection  and 
for  persons 
subject  to  return  procedures  in 
detention centres. 

the 
to 

  All  Member  States,  including 
the 6 Member States which did 
not 
Istanbul 
ratify 
develop 
Convention 
awareness-raising  campaigns, 
research 
education 
and 
programmes,  on  all  forms  of 
violence  against  women  and 
domestic  violence, 
including 
sexual harassment at work with 
the  aim to challenging harmful 
gender 
and 
promoting  equality  between 
women and men. 

stereotypes 

  This  will 

include 

targeted 
action  addressed  to  groups  at 
risk, including children. 

asylum-seeking  women  from 
sheltered accommodation (AT, 
BE  -  with  regards  to  women 
present 
country 
unlawfully,  who  have  no 
income  and  no  entitlement  to 
public assistance – FR, PT, ES, 
MT – indirectly). 

the 

in 

Chapter V:  Prevention 
Article 35 
Preventive 
measures 

  Lack 

 

of 

awareness-raising 
initiatives  to  tackle  underlying 
patriarchal  and  stereotypical 
attitudes (BE, IT, NL, PT). 
Insufficient  teaching  material 
on 
issues  such  as  equality 
between  women  and  men, 
gender  roles,  etc.  (FI,  IT,  MT, 
SE). 

  Prevention 

strategies 

and 
awareness  raising  campaigns 
are 
domestic 
to 
limited 
violence (BG, HU). 

  Absence of sustained and long-
term efforts to raise awareness 
through  regular  and  long  term 
campaigns 
awareness-raising 
to  help  all 
and  activities 
members  of  society  recognise 
violence  against  women  and 
support  its  victims  (including 
in AT, BE, FI, MT). 

  Campaigns  are 

limited 

in 
geographic  scope  instead  of 
being implemented at all levels 
of 
the  state  (i.e.,  national, 
regional,  local)  (BE,  DK,  FI, 
IT, PT). 

Article 36 
Training 
information 
professionals 

and 
for 

  Lack  of  initial  and  in-service 
trainings  for  professionals  and 
lack  of  guidelines  based  on  a 
gendered  understanding  of 
violence  against  women  and 
domestic  violence  (AT,  BE, 
DK,  FI,  FR,  IT,  MT,  NL,  PT, 
ES, SE). 
  Lack  of 

training  of  social 
workers  and  relevant  court 
appointed  professionals  (FR, 
IT, MT, PT) 

  Need  to  expand  training  on 

  Professionals  likely  to  come 
into  contact  with  victims  to 
receive  training  and  targeted 
information to identify cases of 
violence  against  women  or 
domestic  violence  and  to  treat 
victims 
in  a  gender-  and 
trauma-sensitive manner and to 
facilitate reporting. 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Article 37 
Intervention 
programmes 

different  manifestations  of 
violence  against  women,  their 
detection and root causes (AT, 
BE, FI, FR, IT, MT, PT) 
Insufficient  training  or  lack  of 
sensitivity  of  professionals 
involved  in  providing  medical 
care and forensic examinations 
in  the  area  of  sexual  violence 
(IT, MT, NL ) 
Intervention  Programmes  are 
insufficiently  available  or  the 
attendance  by  perpetrators  of 
domestic  violence  is  very  low 
(DK, IT, PT, AT, FI, MT, NL). 
perpetrator 
to 
programmes  are  not  integrated 
into the criminal justice system 
as  a  tool  to  reduce  recidivism 
(FI, MT, NL). 

  Referrals 

  Effective 

intervention 
programmes  to  be  established 
to  prevent  and  minimise  the 
risk  of  committing  offences  of 
violence  against  women  or 
or 
domestic 
reoffending. 

violence, 

Chapter VI: Coordination and cooperation 
Article 38 
Coordinated 
policies 
coordinating 
body   

  Member  States  who  did  not 
ratify  the  Istanbul  Convention 
did  not  set  up  a  national 
coordination  mechanism  for 
violence  against  women  and 
domestic  violence  (CZ,  SK, 
BG, HU, LV, LT). 

and 

  All Member States to establish 
or maintain comprehensive and 
co-ordinated  policies  approach 
to  prevent  and  combat  all 
forms  of  violence  against 
women and domestic violence. 
  Member  States  to  ensure  the 
monitoring 
policies 
a 
evaluation 
coordinated  collection  of  data 
at  central,  regional  and  local 
levels. 

and 
including 

Article 39 
Multi-agency 
coordination  and 
cooperation 

  Multiagency 

cooperation 
limited  to  cases  of  domestic 
violence (FI, MT,ES) 

  Lack  of  effective  co-operation 
and  multiagency  approach  to 
the  protection  and  support  of 
victims in the area of domestic 
violence (IT, DK, PT, SE). 

  Appropriate  mechanisms 

agencies 

including 

authorities, 

to 
ensure  effective  coordination 
and cooperation at the national 
relevant 
level  between  all 
authorities, 
and 
local  and 
bodies, 
law 
regional 
enforcement 
the 
judiciary,  public  prosecutors, 
support  service  providers  as 
well 
non-governmental 
organisations,  social  services, 
including  child  protection  or 
welfare  authorities,  education 
providers, 
and 

healthcare 

agencies, 

as 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Article 40 
Cooperation with 
non-
governmental 
organisations 

in 

involvement  of 
Insufficient 
stakeholders, 
particular 
women’s  support  services  and 
non-governmental 
women’s 
organisations in the design and 
implementation  of  awareness-
raising  campaigns  and  lack  of 
financial  support  and  to  give 
them the financial means to do 
so (DK, FI, FR, IT, MT, ES). 

social  partners 
-  without 
prejudice  to  their  autonomy, 
and 
relevant 
other 
organisations and entities. 

and 

support 

  Enhanced  cooperation  among 
Member  States 
civil 
society  organisations  working 
with  victims  of  violence 
against  women  and  domestic 
violence.  The  cooperation  to 
cover 
to  victims, 
initiatives, 
policymaking 
information  and  awareness-
raising  campaigns, 
research 
and education programmes and 
training,  as  well  as  monitoring 
and  evaluating  the  impact  of 
measures 
and 
protect victims. 

support 

to 

Article 42                                                                                                                                                     
Union  level 
cooperation 

  The  Commission  organises 
Mutual  Learning  Seminars  on 
and 
Equality 
Gender 
information  with 
exchanges 
Member 
and 
stakeholders through the High-
on  Gender 
Level  Group 
Advisory 
Equality 
Committee 
Gender 
Equality. 

States 

and 

on 

  No 

specific 

coordination 
structure  on  violence  against 
women  and  domestic  violence 
exists at EU level. 

Article 43 
Data collection 
and research 

  Justice  sector  authorities  do 
not  collect  sex  disaggregated 
data  on  victims/perpetrators  of 
violence  against  women  (BE, 
DK, MT, NL). 

  Several  Member  States  do  not 
collect  and  transmit  relevant 
administrative  data  from  one 

  Member States to  cooperate to 
improve the implementation of 
law  on 
EU  and  national 
violence  against  women  and 
domestic violence  by: 

-  exchanging  best 
practices 
and 
consulting 
each 
other  in  individual 
cases; 
exchanging 
- 
information 
and 
best  practices  with 
relevant  European 
agencies; 
providing 
- 
to 
assistance 
European  networks 
working 
on 
relevant matters. 

  Administrative 

to 

data 

on 
violence  against  women  and 
be 
violence 
domestic 
published 
and 
collected 
regularly, 
data 
including 
disaggregated  at  least  by  sex, 
age  of  the  victim  and  of  the 
offender,  relationship  between 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
public  body  to  another  (AT, 
BE, DK, FI, FR, IT, MT, SE). 
  The  difficulties  in  collecting 
data  were  noted  by  several 
international 
MS, 
non-
and 
organisations 
governmental  organisations  in 
the targeted consultations. 

the victim and the offender and 
type of offence. 
  Population-based 
be 

EU-wide 
conducted 
survey 
regularly 
the 
prevalence  of  and  trends  in  all 
forms  of  violence  against 
women and domestic violence. 

assess 

to 

to 

  Lack 

of 

availability 
collection 

and 
of 
EU-wide 

regular 
comparable 
administrative data. 

  The 

only 

available, 
comparable  survey  data  at  the 
EU  level  is  the  FRA  survey 
from 2014. Currently, Eurostat 
is  coordinating  the  follow-up 
survey 
gender-based 
violence  and  other  forms  of 
violence.  
interpersonal 
Member  State  participation  is 
voluntary. 

on 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2  TABLES ON COSTS AND BENEFITS, INCLUDING THE OI-

OO VIEW 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

Description 

Amount 

Direct benefits 

Comments 

Reduction in costs of 
violence against women and 
domestic violence 
(Lost economic output) 

Cost reductions are estimated to be EUR 8.1 
billion in the shorter-term i.e. 5 years after 
implementation and EUR 12.2 billion in the 
longer-term i.e. 10 years after implementation.  

Reduction in costs of 
violence against women and 
domestic violence 
(Health services) 

Cost reductions are estimated to be EUR 2.5 
billion in the shorter-term i.e. 5 years after 
implementation and EUR 3.8 billion in the 
longer-term i.e. 10 years after implementation.  

Reduction in costs of 
violence against women and 
domestic violence 
(Criminal justice system) 

Reduction in costs of 
violence against women and 
domestic violence 
(Civil justice system) 

Cost reductions are estimated to be EUR 7.2 
billion  in the shorter-term i.e. 5 years after 
implementation and EUR 13.7 billion in the 
longer-term i.e. 10 years after implementation. 
This reduction is proportionally lower than in 
the other categories as it takes into account an 
increase workload and therefore costs for 
implementing the measures.  

Cost reductions are estimated to be EUR 0.2 
billion in the shorter-term i.e. 5 years after 
implementation and EUR 0.4 billion in the 
longer-term i.e. 10 years after implementation. 
This reduction is proportionally lower than in 
the other categories as it takes into account an 
increase workload and therefore costs for 
implementing the measures.  

These reductions in costs would accrue to 
individual victims of violence against 
women and domestic violence as a result 
of a reduction in lost earnings and 
productivity due to lower prevalence of 
GBV. 

These reduction in costs would accrue to 
national authorities as a result of a 
reduction in healthcare costs due to lower 
prevalence of violence against women and 
domestic violence and hence, cases that 
require services/treatment. 

These reductions in costs would accrue to 
national authorities as a result of a 
reduction in criminal justice system costs 
due to lower prevalence of violence against 
women and domestic violence. 

These reductions in costs would accrue to 
national authorities as a result of a 
reduction in civil justice system costs due 
to lower prevalence of violence against 
women and domestic violence. 

Reduction in costs of 
violence against women and 
domestic violence 
(Social welfare) 

Cost reductions are estimated to be EUR 2.1 
billion in the shorter-term i.e. 5 years after 
implementation and EUR 3.1 billion in the 
longer-term i.e. 10 years after implementation.  

These reductions in costs would accrue to 
national authorities as a result of a 
reduction in social welfare costs due to 
lower prevalence of violence against 
women and domestic violence 

Reduction in costs of 
Gender-based violence 
(Personal costs) 

Cost reductions are estimated to be EUR 0.6 
billion in the shorter-term i.e. 5 years after 
implementation and EUR 1.0 billion in the 

These reductions in costs would accrue to 
individual victims of violence against 
women and domestic violence as a result 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
longer-term i.e. 10 years after implementation.  

Reduction in costs of 
Gender-based violence 
(Physical/emotional 
impacts) 

Cost reductions are estimated to be EUR 32.2 
billion in the shorter-term i.e. 5 years after 
implementation and EUR 48.4 billion in the 
longer-term i.e. 10 years after implementation.  

None estimated 

Indirect benefits 

of a reduction in personal costs  due to 
lower prevalence of violence against 
women and domestic violence. 

These reductions in costs would accrue to 
individual victims of violence against 
women and domestic violence as a result 
of a reduction in physical and emotional 
harms of crime due to lower prevalence of 
violence against women and domestic 
violence. 

Administrative cost savings related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach* 

NA – administrative costs are negligible 

II. Overview of costs – Preferred option 

Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off  Recurrent  One-off  Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

1.89 
billion 

16.3 million 

4.9 – 6.5 billion 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

PREFERRED 
OPTION (Costs 
per measure are  
presented in the 
table  below) 

Direct 
adjustment 
costs 

Direct 
administrative 
costs 

Costs related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

1.89 
billion 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Direct 
adjustment 
costs  

Indirect 
adjustment 
costs 

Administrative 
costs (for 
offsetting) 

Total   

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
II. Overview of direct costs of the preferred option  

Measure 

Recurring 

One-off 

Minimum 

Maximum 

1.1 Awareness-raising, provision of information 
and training of professionals 

€29,862,000 

€34,403,000 

€1,816,000 

1.2 OVAW - Self-regulatory standards 

1.4 Work with perpetrators 

negligible 

€134,000 

negligible 

€134,000 

2.1 Protection orders, emergency barring orders 

€3,696,000 

€25,175,000 

negligible 

0 

0 

2.2 Violence reporting and transmission of 
personal data between services 

negligible 

negligible 

negligible 

2.3 Special measures for the protection of 
children in the context of domestic violence 

€718,971,000 

€1,942,604,000 

2.4 Risk assessment and management 

€46,855,000 

€46,855,000 

3.1 Criminalisation  

n/a 

n/a 

3.2 Measures against illegal gender-based 
content online 

3.3 National coordination 

4.1 Specialised support 

€326,459,000 

€326,459,000 

€2,027,000 

€2,027,000 

€117,643,000 

€117,643,000 

4.2 Support to victims of OVAW 

€1,159,566,000 

€1,159,566,000 

4.3 Support to victims of gender-based work 
harassment 

€627,091,000 

€ 627,091,000 

0 

0 

n/a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4.4 Shelters 

4.5 Helplines 

€20,486,000 

€379,746,000 

€12,630,000 

€461,000 

€4,656,000 

€ 946,000 

4.7 Coordination of measures against gender-
based work harassment 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

5.1 Monitoring, incl. data collection   

€20,769,000 

€20,769,000 

€152,000 

5.2 One-stop-shop information access  

€357,000 

€357,000 

n/a 

(Cost for employers) 
1.3 Specific prevention measures against gender-
based work harassment  

€1,893,919,000 

€1,893,919,000 

€605,000 

Total costs for preferred policy option 

€4,968,296,000 

€6,581,404,000 

€16,149,000 

EN 

  EN