COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA
Date: 2022-06-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: access to the courts, application of EU law, area of freedom, security and justice, crime against individuals, criminal procedure, help for victims, right to information, right to justice, rights of the defence

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 28.6.2022  SWD(2022) 179 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of    Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA {SWD(2022) 180 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 

1.1 

1.2 

General introduction ........................................................................................................ 4 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation ............................................................................... 6 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ....................................... 6 

2.1 Policy/Context ....................................................................................................................... 7 

2.2 Evaluation logic and objectives of the Directive ................................................................... 8 

2.3 Points of comparison ............................................................................................................. 9 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ....................... 11 

Current state of play .................................................................................................................. 11 

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ....................................................................... 13 

4.1.  TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND WHY? .......................... 13 

4.1.1  Effective application of the Directive ........................................................................ 13 

Victims’ right to information ................................................................................................ 13 

Victims’ access to support services ....................................................................................... 15 

Victims’ access to justice ...................................................................................................... 17 

Right to protection ................................................................................................................. 20 

Provision of training .............................................................................................................. 22 

4.1.2  Efficiency .................................................................................................................. 23 

Costs and benefits linked to the implementation of the Directive ......................................... 24 

Possible cost savings ............................................................................................................. 25 

4.1.3  Coherence .................................................................................................................. 25 

Internal coherence ................................................................................................................. 26 

Coherence and complementarity with other policy interventions ......................................... 27 

Coherence with Member State legislative frameworks ......................................................... 27 

Coherence with relevant EU level interventions ................................................................... 27 

4.2.  HOW DID THE EU INTERVENTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE? .................................................. 30 

EU added value ..................................................................................................................... 30 

Improvement in the situation of victims ................................................................................ 30 

Added value compared to national interventions .................................................................. 31 

4.3.  IS THE INTERVENTION STILL RELEVANT? .............................................................................. 33 

4.3.1.  Relevance of scope and definitions ........................................................................... 33 

4.3.2.  Relevance of the provisions about the treatment of victims ...................................... 35 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................................. 38 

 
 
 
 
5.1.  CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 38 

5.2.  LESSONS LEARNED ........................................................................................................................ 40 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................... 44 

1. 

LEAD  DG,  DECIDE 
PLANNING/COMMISSION  WORK 
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 44 

PROGRAMME 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING ...................................................................................................... 44 

3. 

4. 

EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES .................................................. 44 

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY ......................................................................................... 44 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ................................................... 49 

1. 

2. 

METHODS AND SOURCES ................................................................................... 49 

LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................... 50 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS 

TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ............................................................. 53 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS [AND, WHERE RELEVANT, TABLE 

ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION] .................................................................. 56 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................................. 60 

1. Consultation objectives ..................................................................................................... 60 

2. 

3. 

Description of the consultation methods and tools by group of stakeholders ........... 60 

Targeted consultations ............................................................................................... 61 

3.1. Results of the targeted consultations in relation to the relevance criterion .................... 62 

3.1.1. Relevance of objectives ............................................................................................... 62 

3.1.2. Relevance of definitions and scope ............................................................................. 63 

3.2. Results of the targeted consultations in relation to the effectiveness criterion............... 65 

3.2.1. General findings on effectiveness ............................................................................... 65 

3.2.2. Right to information .................................................................................................... 66 

3.2.3. Access to victim support services................................................................................ 67 

3.2.4. Access to justice .......................................................................................................... 68 

3.2.5. Right to protection ....................................................................................................... 69 

3.2.6. Cross-cutting issues ..................................................................................................... 70 

3.3. Results of the targeted consultations in relation to the efficiency criterion ................... 71 

3.4. Results of the targeted consultations in relation to the coherence criterion ................... 72 

3.5. Results of the targeted consultations in relation to the EU added value criterion .......... 73 

4. 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

4.4 

4.5 

Results of the public consultation.............................................................................. 74 

Results of the public consultation in relation to the relevance criterion .................... 74 

Results of the public consultation in relation to the effectiveness criterion .............. 75 

Results of the public consultation in relation to the efficiency criterion ................... 76 

Results of the public consultation in relation to the coherence criterion ................... 76 

Results of the public consultation in relation to the EU added value criterion ......... 77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Term or 
abbreviation/acronym 

Anti-trafficking Directive 

Child Sexual Abuse Directive 

Counter-terrorism Directive 

Combating Fraud Directive 

EU 

FRA 

Member States 

NGO 

TFEU 

Glossary 

Meaning or definition 

Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking 
in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council 
Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA 

Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and 
sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and 
replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA 

Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing 
Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending 
Council Decision 2005/671/JHA 

Directive (EU) 2019/713 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 17 April 2019 on combating fraud and counterfeiting of 
non-cash means of payment and replacing Council Framework 
Decision 2001/413/JHA 

The European Union 

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 

Member States bound by the Directive, i.e. all Member States 
except Denmark 

Non-governmental organisation 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

The Victims’ Rights Directive/The 
Directive 

Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the 
rights, support and protection of victims of crime 

Victims’ Standing Decision 

The Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 
2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings 

 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

1.1 General introduction 

On  25  October  2012,  the  Parliament  and  the  Council  adopted  Directive  2012/29/EU 
establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime 
(‘the  Victims’  Rights  Directive’  or  ‘the  Directive’).  The  Directive,  replacing  Council 
Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA1, was adopted to strengthen the rights of all victims 
of  crime  so  that  victims  of  any  crime  could  count  on  having  the  same  basic  level  of 
rights, whatever their nationality and wherever in the EU the crime took place. It brought 
about major changes in the EU legal framework for victims’ rights. 

The  Victims’  Rights  Directive  is  the  core  EU  level  instrument  that  lays  down  a  set  of 
rights  for  all  victims  of  all  crimes  and  imposes  corresponding  obligations  on  Member 
States. The Directive states that all victims of crime and their family members are to be 
recognised  and  treated  in  a  respectful  and  non-discriminatory  manner  based  on  an 
individual approach tailored to the victim’s needs.  

The Directive, adopted under Article 82(2) TFEU, is binding on all EU Member States 
with  the  exception  of  Denmark2.  To  facilitate  timely  and  correct  transposition  of  the 
Directive  by  the  Member  States,  in  December  2013  the  Commission  published  a 
Guidance  Document3.  Member  States  had  to  transpose  the  provisions  of  the  Directive 
into their national laws by 16 November 2015. 

Other  EU  acts  in  the  area  of  victims’  rights  include  the  Compensation  Directive4, 
Regulation (EU) 606/2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters5 
and Directive 2011/99/EU on the European protection order6. The EU has also adopted 
several  instruments  that  deal  with  the  specific  needs  of  victims  of  particular  types  of 
crime  (such  as  victims  of  terrorism7,  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings8,  child 

DG 

European 

Commission, 

1 Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, OJ L 
82, 22.3.2001, p. 1 – 4.  
2  Denmark  is  bound  by  Council  Framework  Decision  of  15  March  2001  on  the  standing  of  victims  in 
criminal proceedings. 
3  DG  Justice  Guidance  Document  related  to  the  transposition  and  the  implementation  of  Directive 
2012/29/EU, 
2013, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/13_12_19_3763804_guidance_victims_rights_directive_eu_en.pdf. 
4  Council  Directive  2004/80/EC  of  29  April  2004  relating  to  compensation  to  crime  victims  (the 
‘Compensation Directive’), OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 15 – 18. 
5 Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on mutual 
recognition of protection measures in civil matters, OJ L 181, 29.6.2013, p. 4. 
6  Directive  2011/99/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  December  2011  on  the 
European protection order, OJ L 338, 21.12.2011, p. 2. 
7 Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating 
terrorism  and  replacing  Council  Framework  Decision  2002/475/JHA  and  amending  Council  Decision 
2005/671/JHA, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32017L0541. 
8 Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and 
combating  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  protecting  its  victims,  and  replacing  Council  Framework 

December 

Justice, 

4 

 
 
                                                           
 
victims  of  sexual  exploitation9  or  victims  of  non-cash  payment  fraud10).  On  8  March 
2022,  the  Commission  presented  a  proposal  for  a  Directive  on  combating  violence 
against women and domestic violence11. These instruments complement and build on the 
Victims’ Rights Directive. 

In  May  2020,  the  Commission  adopted  a  report  assessing  the  extent  to  which  Member 
States have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with the Directive, pursuant 
to Article 2912. This implementation report concludes that the Victims’ Rights Directive 
contains  ambitious  rules  capable  of  improving  the  situation  of  victims  in  the  EU. 
However,  the  assessment  shows  that  the  full  potential  of  the  Directive  has  not  been 
reached  yet13.  The  report  raises  numerous  concerns  about  the  Directive’s  practical 
implementation.  This  is  particularly  the  case  for  victims’  access  to  information  and 
victims’  access  to  support  and  protection  in  accordance  with  their  individual  needs. 
Several  infringement  proceedings  have  been  launched  against  some  Member  States  for 
incomplete transposition of the Directive into their national laws. 

Since  the  adoption  of  the  report  in  May  2020,  good  progress  has  been  made  in  the 
implementation  of  the  Directive.  The  Commission  has  been  closely  working  with 
Member States on a bilateral basis and been able to progressively keep closing almost all 
the infringement proceedings for incomplete transposition14. 

In  2020,  the  Commission  also  published  the  first  ever  EU  Strategy  on  victims’  rights 
(2020-2025)15.  The  main  objective  of  the  strategy  is  to  ensure  that  all  victims  of  all 
crime,  no  matter  where  in  the  EU  or  in  what  circumstances  the  crime  takes  place,  can 
fully rely on their rights. 

The  pandemic  situation  became  a  worsening  factor  for  victims  with  special  needs. 
Seeking  assistance  in  the  event  of  domestic  violence  was  already  difficult  before  the 

Decision 

Decision  2002/629/JHA,  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011L0036. 
On its implementation, please refer to the ‘Transposition report’ (COM(2016) 722 final); the ‘Users report’ 
(COM(2016)  719  final)  and  the  European  Commission’s  progress  reports  (COM(2016)  267  final  and 
COM(2018)  777  final).  On  the  victim-centred,  gender-specific  and  child-sensitive  actions,  see: 
https://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/publications/eu-antitrafficking-action-2012-2016-glance_en 
and 
https://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/eu_antitrafficking_action_2017-
2019_at_a_glance.pdf.  
9 Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating 
the  sexual  abuse  and  sexual  exploitation  of  children  and  child  pornography,  and  replacing  Council 
Framework 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32011L0093. 
10 Directive (EU) 2019/713 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on combating 
fraud  and  counterfeiting  of  non-cash  means  of  payment  and  replacing  Council  Framework  Decision 
2001/413/JHA, PE/89/2018/REV/3, OJ L 123, 10.5.2019, p. 18. 
11 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating violence against 
women and domestic violence, COM/2022/105 final. 
12 COM(2020) 188 final, 11.5.2020.  
13  As  of  the  date  of  publication  of  the  implementation  report  –  11  May  2020  –  the  Commission  had  21 
ongoing infringement proceedings for incomplete transposition of the Victims’ Rights Directive. 
14  As  of  January  2022,  the  Commission  has  one  ongoing  infringement  proceeding  against  Bulgaria  for 
incomplete transposition of the Victims’ Rights Directive. 
15 COM(2020) 258 final, 24.6.2020. 

2004/68/JHA, 

5 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
pandemic,  but  confinement  measures  put  victims  of  domestic  violence  at  even  greater 
risk.  Another  worsening  factor  is  terrorism  that  is  still  a  major  concern  for  some 
countries in the EU.  

Further,  migrants  arriving  in  the  EU  from  third  countries  at  war  are  particularly 
vulnerable to crime and face difficulties in accessing justice and support services. Their 
situation,  as  well  as  the  rise  in  hate  crimes,  all  point  to  the  importance  of  effective 
legislation covering victims’ needs16. 

An  aggravating  factor  that  needs  to  be  taken  into  account  is  the  Russian  war  of 
aggression  against  Ukraine.  The  war  has  destroyed  people’s  lives,  leaving  death  and 
victims  behind.  EU  legislation  on  victims’  rights  will  ensure  that  the  specific  needs  of 
victims who are fleeing from war, such as the right to assistance, support and protection, 
are met. 

1.2 Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

In line with the Better Regulation guidelines, the Commission is assessing the relevance, 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  Victims’  Rights 
Directive. The evaluation also assesses the Directive’s incidence on fundamental rights. 
Annex 4 lists in detail the evaluation criteria and questions. 

The evaluation criteria are assessed from the date of entry into force of the Directive, i.e. 
15  November  2012,  until  October  2021  and  cover  the  entirety  of  the  Directive  and  all 
Member States  that  are  bound by it. An external evaluation  study was carried out  by  a 
contractor  to  support  the  Commission’s  work,  following  a  call  for  services  under  a 
framework contract (see Section 2 for more information). 

This  Staff  Working  Document  aims  to  provide  the  Commission  with  a  qualitative  and 
quantitative analysis of the Directive’s incidence as well as the lessons learned from its 
implementation. On the basis of the evaluation, the Commission will, if necessary, decide 
on appropriate follow-up actions. These could range from non-legislative measures, such 
as  providing  additional  guidance  on  implementing  the  Directive,  to  putting  forward 
legislative  proposals.  This  evaluation  will  form  the  basis  for  an  impact  assessment17  of 
any future action by the Commission.  

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

The  Victims’  Rights  Directive  provides  victims  with  a  right  to  information,  a  right  to 
understand  and  be  understood,  a  right  to  access  support  and  protection  in  accordance 
with  their  individual  needs,  as  well  as  with  a  set  of  procedural  rights.  The  Directive  is 

16 ICF (2021), ‘Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime’, final report, p. 30. 
17https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13096-Criminal-justice-EU-
rules-on-victims%E2%80%99-rights-update-_en  

6 

 
 
                                                           
aimed  at  Member  State  authorities,  who  need  to  ensure  full  transposition  and 
implementation of the Directive in their national framework. 

2.1 Policy/Context 

Every year, millions of people in the EU fall victim to crime18. 

The Council  Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of 
victims in criminal proceedings (the ‘Victims’ Standing Decision’) was adopted with the 
aim of securing minimum rights for victims of crime.  

The Lisbon Treaty marked a milestone in the development of victims’ rights in the EU as 
it created an  enhanced  competence  for the  EU to intervene in  matters related to justice 
and  home  affairs.  Article  82  of  the  Treaty  sets  out  an  explicit  legal  basis  for  setting 
minimum standards on the rights of both individuals in criminal proceedings and victims 
of crime19. 

An impact assessment accompanying the proposal to the Victims’ Rights Directive was 
conducted in 2011. The impact assessment assessed the quality of treatment that victims 
received  after  a  crime  and  during  criminal  proceedings.  It  also  assessed  their  right  to 
receive  a  minimum  standard  of  treatment  in  all  EU  Member  States  regardless  of  their 
nationality  or  place  of  residence.  The  impact  assessment  identified  a  general  lack  of 
attention to victims as one of the main issues. Despite the growing awareness of victims 
needs in general from national policy makers, the lack of knowledge about their specific 
needs explains the absence of  sufficient  consideration given to  victims. The absence of 
enforcement  rules  was  also  identified  as  contributing  to  the  system’s  shortcomings. 
Victims’ rights were found to be generally not enforceable. While all Member States had 
domestic  legal  provisions  in  place,  the  extent  to  which  those  would  result  in  meeting 
victims’  needs  and  safeguarding  their  interests  varied  from  one  jurisdiction  to  another. 
Without further action from the EU, the likelihood of victims’ situations improving were 
considered minimum. 

In  2020,  to  continue  improving  the  rights  of  victims  of  crime  across  the  EU,  the 
Commission  adopted  the  first  EU  Strategy  on  victims’  rights  (2020-2025).  The 
Strategy is based on a two-strand approach:  empowering victims of crime and working 
together  for  victims’  rights.  The  key  priorities  related  to  empowering  victims  of  crime 
reflect the findings reported above and include: (i) effective communication with victims 
and a safe environment for victims to report crime; (ii) improving support and protection 
to the most vulnerable victims; (iii) facilitating victims’ access to compensation. The key 
priorities aimed at working together on victims’ rights are: (i) strengthening cooperation 
and  coordination  among  all  relevant  actors;  and  (ii)  strengthening  the  international 
dimension of victims’ rights.  

18 According to a  FRA’s Fundamental Rights Survey on  victimisation,  over 22  million people in the EU 
experienced 
survey, 
in 
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2021-crime-safety-victims-rights_en.pdf, p. 19 
19 Article 82(2)(b)) on the rights of victims of crime.  

violence 

physical 

before 

year 

the 

the 

7 

 
                                                           
In addition to the EU Strategy on victims’ rights, the Commission and the Member States 
will continue working on the implementation of numerous strategies  and initiatives that 
are relevant for victims’ rights. These include the Gender Equality Strategy 2020-202520, 
the Strategy on the rights of the child21, the Strategy on European judicial training22, the 
LGBTI+  Equality  Strategy23,  the  EU  Anti-racism  Action  Plan  2020-202524,  the  EU 
updated framework for Roma equality, inclusion and participation25, the Strategy for the 
Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  2021-203026,  the  Security  Union  Strategy27,  the 
strategic  approach  towards  the  eradication  of  trafficking  in  human  beings28  and  the 
Strategy for a more effective fight against child sexual abuse29. 

Finally,  the  approach  to  victims’  rights  supports  a  number  of  the  UN’s  Sustainable 
Development  Goals  (SDG).  In  particular,  this  is  SDG  10,  target  10.3,  which  aims  to 
ensure  equal  opportunities  and 
inequalities,  by  eliminating 
discriminatory  laws,  policies  and  practices  and  promoting  appropriate  legislation, 
policies and action  on victims’ rights.  SDG 16, target  16.3 is also  relevant: to  promote 
the rule of law nationally and internationally and ensure equal access to justice for all. 

reduce  outcome 

2.2 Evaluation logic and objectives of the Directive 

This  subsection  describes  the  logic  of  the  Directive:  its  objectives,  all  necessary  inputs 
and actions, as  well as the outcomes  and impacts  that should be achieved, and  how all 
these aspects are linked to each other. The logic used for this evaluation is summed up in 
the figure below, showing the needs addressed. 

20 COM(2020) 152 final, 5.3.2020.  
21 COM(2021) 142 final, 24.3.2021.  
22 COM(2020) 713 final, 2.12.2020.  
23 COM(2020) 698 final, 12.11.2020.  
24 COM(2020) 565 final, 18.9.2020. 
25 COM(2020) 620 final, 7.10.2020.  
26 COM(2021) 101 final, 3.3.2021. 
27 COM(2020) 605 final, 24.7.2020.  
28 COM(2021) 171 final, 14.4.2021.  
29 COM(2020) 607 final, 24.7.2020.  

8 

 
 
                                                           
The Directive entered into force in November 2012.  

The Directive’s general objective is to strengthen victims’ rights in the EU, by ensuring 
that all victims of crime receive appropriate information, support and protection and can 
participate in criminal proceedings. According to the Directive, victims’ needs should be 
dealt with in an individual manner, based on an individual assessment and a targeted and 
participatory  approach  towards  the  provision  of  information,  support,  protection  and 
procedural rights. Specific attention is given to special support and protection for victims 
of certain crimes, due to the high risk of secondary and repeat victimisation as well as of 
intimidation and retaliation. The Directive also  puts forward a child sensitive approach, 
whereby the best interests of a child victim must be the primary consideration throughout 
their involvement in criminal proceedings. 

Victims’ needs can be put into five categories:  

1.  the need to be recognised and treated with respect and dignity;  
2 
3 
4 
5 

the need to be protected;  
the need to be supported;  
the need to access justice; and  
the need for compensation and restoration. 

2.3 Points of comparison 

During  the  baseline  period  for  the  study  carried  out  to  support  the  evaluation  of  the 
Directive,  the  Victims’  Standing  Decision  was  in  place.  Its  provisions  were  taken  as 
points of comparison for the Directive, as detailed below.  

9 

 
 
The broad scope of the Victims’ Standing Decision resulted in Member States reforming 
large  parts  of  their  criminal  procedure  codes30  and  adopting  soft  law  tools,  to  lay  the 
foundations  for the  adoption of the  Victims’ Rights  Directive.  However,  there was still 
room for improvement. 

Several victims’ rights were already enshrined in the Victims’ Standing Decision. These 
are: the right to respect and recognition, the right to information, the right to have 
access  to  support  services,  the  right  to  have  access  to  justice,  and  rights  to 
protection.  However,  the  reports  on  the  Decision’s  implementation31  have  identified 
numerous  shortcomings  and  concluded  that  EU  legislation  has  not  been  effective  in 
achieving minimum standards for victims across the EU. 

For  instance,  the  reports  show  that  the  practical  implementation  of  the  right  to 
information (Article 4 of the Victims’ Standing Decision) was fragmented throughout 
the EU32, with an obligation for police officers, prosecutors and judges to inform victims 
of most of their rights in some Member States, while in other jurisdictions, the same pre-
trial information was limited to the right to compensation33. 

Another weakness, impinging on the provision of information for victims, was that the 
Victims’  Standing  Decision  merely  obliged  Member  States  to  communicate  the 
information to victims ‘as far as possible in languages commonly understood’34. As a 
result,  some  Member  States  had  information  available  in  several  languages,  including 
English, but with no guarantee that the victim would understand the information. Other 
Member  States,  however,  had  an  obligation  to  give  victims  information  in  a  language 
they would understand35.  

On  the  right  to  protection,  previous  research  has  concluded  that  protection  tools  in 
Member  States,  partly  stemming  from  the  implementation  of  the  Victims’  Standing 

pp. 

30 Associação Portuguesa de Apoio à Vítima (APAV, Portuguese Association for Victim Support)(2009), 
Report  on  the  Implementation  of  the  EU  Framework  Decision  on  the  standing  of  victims  in  criminal 
proceedings in the Member States of the European Union, p. 13. 
31 Report from the Commission on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, COM/2004/0054 final 
and  Report  from  the  Commission  on  the  standing  of  victims  in  criminal  proceedings,  COM/2009/0166 
final. 
32  European  Commission  (2009),  Report  from  the  Commission  pursuant  to  Article  18  of  the  Council 
Framework  Decision  of  15  March  2001  on  the  standing  of  victims 
in  criminal  proceedings 
(2001/220/JHA), 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
4-6, 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0166&from=EN. 
33  European  Commission  (2009),  Report  from  the  Commission  pursuant  to  Article  18  of  the  Council 
Framework  Decision  of  15  March  2001  on  the  standing  of  victims  in  criminal  proceedings 
(2001/220/JHA), 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0166&from=EN.  
34 Council Framework Decision 2001/220 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, Article 4(1), 
available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32001F0220.  
35  European  Commission  (2009),  Report  from  the  Commission  pursuant  to  Article  18  of  the  Council 
Framework  Decision  of  15  March  2001  on  the  standing  of  victims  in  criminal  proceedings 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
(2001/220/JHA), 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0166&from=EN.  

available 

available 

available 

at: 

at: 

at: 

4, 

4, 

p. 

p. 

10 

 
                                                           
Decision are, overall, inadequate36. Victims reported that negative reactions from direct 
and  indirect  social  surroundings  (including  the  media)  were  a  major  cause  of 
psychological distress after victimisation37, equaling this to secondary victimisation. 

The baseline situation that the Victims’ Rights Directive is compared to is therefore one 
in  which  a  legal  framework  was  in  place,  but  had  a  number  of  shortcomings.  The 
Framework  Decision  has,  however,  never  been  comprehensively  evaluated  in  line  with 
the Better Regulation guidelines, but was primarily assessed with respect to transposition 
requirements. 

Building  on  the  Victims’  Standing  Decision,  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive  has 
introduced  many  new  concepts  and  provisions  aimed  at  strengthening  victims’  rights. 
The  Victims’  Standing  Decision  had  already  set  down  a  right  to  information  and 
protection, as well as a right to specific assistance for victims and measures to facilitate 
access to justice. The Victims’ Rights Directive has expanded and strengthened victims’ 
right and Member States’ obligations in order to make the respectful treatment of victims 
and access to their rights a priority. 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

Current state of play 

EU Member States had to transpose the Directive into their national legal systems by 16 
November  2015.  In  January  2016,  the  Commission  launched  infringement  proceedings 
against  16  Member  States  that  had  not  communicated  their  transposition  measures  by 
that  date38.  As  of  the  date  of  publication  of  the  Commission’s  report  on  the 
implementation  of  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive,  most  Member  States  had  not 
completely transposed the Directive39. Due to the progress made since the adoption of the 
Report, the Commission has progressively closed almost all infringement proceedings for 
incomplete transposition of the Directive40. 

Nonetheless,  a  key  issue  that  emerges  from  the  analysis  of  the  report  on  the 
implementation of the Victims’ Rights Directive is the interpretation of certain terms 
and  the  lack  of  sufficiently  clear  criteria  for  minimum  standards.  Although  clearly 
defined  in  the  Directive,  the  definitions  of  ‘victim’  and  ‘family  member’  have  been 
interpreted differently in a number of Member States. This can impinge on certain rights 

36 APAV (2009), Report on the Implementation of the EU Framework Decision on the standing of victims 
in criminal proceedings in the Member States of the European Union, p. 101.   
37 APAV (2009), Report on the Implementation of the EU Framework Decision on the standing of victims 
in criminal proceedings in the Member States of the European Union, pp. 87-93.   
38 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the 
Victims’ 
https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2020%3A188%3AFIN 
39 Ibid. 
40  There  is  one  ongoing  infringement  proceeding  against  Bulgaria  for  incomplete  transposition  of  the 
Victims’ Rights Directive. 

COM(2020)188 

Directive, 

Rights 

final, 

see: 

11 

 
 
                                                           
of a victim. For example, Member States may use the possibility offered by the Victims’ 
Rights  Directive to  limit  the number of family  members to  discriminate against  certain 
victims/relatives (e.g. same-sex partners). The Directive gives Member States a level of 
discretion to define their minimum standards. This results in very different interpretations 
of what constitutes ‘quality’ information, support and access across Member States. The 
evaluation study highlighted the lack of criteria as an issue for Articles 3 (understand and 
be  understood),  4  (receive  information),  8  (access  to  support  services)  and  9  (victim 
support services)41.  

Victims  of  crime’s  access  to  qualified  professionals  was  also  identified  as 
problematic.  This  is  particularly  relevant  for  professionals  in  support  services  and 
professional  translators  and  interpreters.  There  is  a  lack  of  professional  translators  and 
interpreters,  especially  in  instances  where  the  requirement  to  have  professional 
interpreters has not been made mandatory (Article 5). Analysis shows that even in cases 
of complete transposition, access to certain rights – interpretation and translation (Article 
7) and the rights of victims residing in another Member State (Article 17) – is hampered 
by practical difficulties. 

The evaluation found that financial issues had a particular impact on access to adequate 
support  services  (Article  8)  and  the  right  to  legal  aid  (Article  13)42.  According  to  the 
Vociare report43, the infrastructure of courts has often hampered the ability to guarantee 
the  right  to  avoid  contact  between  victims  and  offenders  (Article  19)  and  the  rights  of 
victims with specific protection needs during criminal proceedings (Article 23). 

A  cross-cutting  issue  that  impacted  the  ability  to  guarantee  a  majority  of  rights,  is  the 
training  of  practitioners  who  work  with  victims  of  crime44.  This  seems  to  be 
particularly  relevant  for  Articles  6  (receive  information  about  a  case),  10  (right  to  be 
heard)  and  22  (individual  assessment).  Evidence  from  the  evaluation  study  shows  that 
practitioners were often found to lack the sensitivity, skills and knowledge required to do 
so. In some cases, crime victims have to search for the information they need themselves, 
as  they  cannot  rely  on  practitioners  to  inform  them.  The  Victims’  Rights  Directive 
imposed  different  obligations  on  the  different  types  of  competent  authorities.  This 
affected the extent to which the Directive’s provisions on training were implemented. 

41 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on 
the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 29 . 
42 Ibid. 
43 Victim Support Europe, Victims of  Crime Implementation Analysis of Rights in Europe (VOCIARE), 
October 2019, available at: https://victimsupport.eu/about-us/our-projects/vociare/. 
44 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on 
the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 29. 

12 

 
 
                                                           
4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1.  TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND WHY?  

4.1.1  Effective application of the Directive 

Summary findings – effectiveness: 

This  section presents  the findings on the effective application of the  core provisions of 
the Directive. They are grouped as follows: victims’ right to access information, victims’ 
right  to  access  support  services,  victims’  right  to  access  justice  and  victims’  right  to 
protection.  The  analysis  includes  cross-references  when  an  element  applies  to  several 
rights or provisions. 

Victims’ right to information 

The Directive sets out broad provisions on the right to access information. It includes a 
right to understand and to be understood (Article 3), a right to information about victims’ 
rights  (Article  4),  a  right  to  be  informed  when  making  a  complaint  and  about  the  case 
(Articles 5 and 6) and a right to interpretation and translation (Article 7). The Directive 
significantly  strengthens  the  right  to  information  compared  to  the  Victims’  Standing 
Decision. 

On  the  one  hand,  the  evaluation  study  identified  several  improvements  in  the 
implementation  of  the  right  to  information.  These  improvements  could  be  partially 
attributed to the adoption of the Victims’ Rights Directive. For instance, Member States’ 
obligation to ensure that victims are well informed contributes to the standardisation of 
the  existing  systems  of  information  provision45.  On  the  content  of  information,  the 
study also identified progress made as a result of the Directive. The Directive prompted 
Member  States  to  create  information  tailored  to  specific  groups  of  victims.  Some 
good  practices  were  also  identified  in  the  provision  of  information  to  victims  in 
additional languages. 

On the other hand, a number of factors still undermine the effective implementation of 
the right to information. Some of the main  difficulties are related to the overall lack of 
awareness  of  competent  authorities  of  certain  victims’  rights.  Victims  also  suffer  as  a 
result of a lack of knowledge  about  where they  can  find information on their rights46. 
For  instance,  evidence  from  the  evaluation  study  shows  that  neither  the  authorities  nor 
the  victims  are  aware  of  victims’  right  to  lodge  a  criminal  complaint  and  the  right  to 
receive an acknowledgment of the complaint. 

45 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on 
the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 41. 
46 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on 
the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 42. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                           
Another problem is the fragmented provision of information in certain Member States. 
Some Member States have consolidated the information on a single website,  but others 
have  several  information  channels.  This  can  be  confusing  for  victims  and  result  in 
incomplete access to information47.  

The fact that the provision of information continues to depend on the reporting of the 
crime also obstructs victims’ access to information. Evidence from the evaluation study 
shows  that  not  all  crime  victims  report  the  crimes  due  to  fear  of  deportation  or 
prosecution48.  Other  factors  limiting  access  to  information  are  online  literacy  and 
proximity to services49. 

Some  stakeholders  pointed  out  that  information  was  often  not  provided  in  a  timely 
manner  –  namely  at the first contact with the competent authorities.  These are the 
cases  where  the  first  authorities  victims  contacted  referred  them  to  another  service 
provider.  This  means  that  victims  are  not  provided  with  the  information  they  need 
upon  their  first  contact  with  the  authorities.  Another  problem  is  that  even  if 
information  is  provided  at  the  first  contact,  there  is  no  follow-up.  Authorities  often 
provide a sheet of information which victims must sign to confirm they have received it, 
and this is considered sufficient for respecting their right to information50. 

The evaluation study also found that there is still significant room for improvement in the 
provision  of  information  about  victims’  cases.  Evidence  from  the  evaluation  study 
shows that there are different reasons why victims do not receive information about their 
case.  This  can  be  because  victims’  contact  details  are  missing  or  incorrect,  or  because 
there  is  a  lack  of  procedures  or  mechanisms  (e.g.  checklist  or  protocols)  to  provide 
information. 

With regard to the content of the information provided, the main challenge is the lack 
of  adaptation  of  the  information  according  to  the  victims’  needs  and  the  use  of  a 
standardised  information.  The  evaluation  study  found  that  in  most  Member  States, 
competent authorities do not use language tailored to the victim. This is because there are 
no  formal  procedures  for  authorities  to  assess  victims’  communication  needs. 
Another  difficulty,  related  to  linguistic  assistance  is  the  lack  of  available  interpreters 
and their lack of sensitivity towards victims’ needs and vulnerabilities51. 

In  particular,  evidence  from  the  study  shows  that  there  are  limited  capacities  and 
funding in several Member States for remunerating interpreters and translators. This may 
result  in  the  same  interpreter’s  being  assigned  to  both  the  victim  and  the  offender,  a 
situation with the potential to undermine the translator’s impartiality52. Lack of training 

47 Ibid. 
48 Ibid. 
49Ibid. 
50 Ibid., p. 41. 
51 Ibid., p. 43. 
52 Ibid. 

14 

 
                                                           
for  translators  and  interpreters  on  victims’  needs  also  affects  the  provision  of 
linguistic assistance53. 

Another shortcoming, identified by several stakeholders, is that the information is often 
incomplete54. The VOCIARE survey from 2019 shows that only 20% of victims receive 
complete  information,  whilst  38%  receive  most  information  and  26%  receive  partial 
information. A small percentage of victims receive little information (14%) or none at all 
(2%)55.  The  evaluation  study  identified  several  reasons  for  this,  such  as  the  lack  of 
cooperation  between  the  different  authorities  or  the  lack  of  a  secure  tool  for 
exchanging information about individual situations. Several stakeholders also expressed 
concerns  that  the  information  provided  to  victims  at  their  very  first  contact  with  the 
authorities was very extensive, with the result that victims were often unable to process 
the information56. 

Victims’ access to support services 

The purpose of Articles 8 and 9 of the Directive is to ensure that victims have access to 
general and specialist support services in accordance with their needs. The services must 
be confidential, free of charge and act in the interest of victims before, during and for an 
appropriate  time  after  criminal  proceedings.  Family  members  have  access  to  support 
services in accordance with their needs and the degree of harm suffered.  

The  right  to  specific  assistance  for  victims  was  included  in  the  Victims’  Standing 
Decision57,  but  the Victims’ Rights  Directive went  further by introducing an obligation 
on  Member  States  to  ensure  that  victims  have  access  to  free  and  confidential  support 
services  in  accordance  with  their  needs.  Article  9  of  the  Directive  lists  the  minimum 
services  that  victim  support  services  must  provide.  These  include:  information  on 
specialist support services; emotional and psychological support; advice on financial and 
practical issues; advice on the risk and prevention of secondary and repeat victimisation, 
intimidation and retaliation. 

The evaluation study shows that the Directive in  general has had a positive impact on 
the development and improvement of victims’ support services, and that it has helped to 
ensure that victims  and their family members have access  to  support.  Indeed,  both  the 
number  of  general  and  specialised  support  services  increased  across  the  EU  in  the 
evaluation  period.  However,  there  are  still  difficulties  with  the  establishment  of  timely 
and comprehensive support services. This problem results partly from differences in the 

53 Ibid. 
54 Ibid. 
55 Ivankovic, A., Altan, L., Carpinelli, A., Carmo, M., Valerio, M., 2019, VOCIARE Synthesis Report, pp. 
30-32. 
56 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on 
the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 44. 
57  Council  Framework  Decision  2001/220  on  the  standing  of  victims  in  criminal  proceedings,  Articles  6 
and 13.  

15 

 
                                                           
interpretation  of  the  terms  used  in  the  Directive58.  In  particular,  stakeholders  consider 
that  ‘access  to  support  services’  and  ‘sufficient  geographical  coverage’  are  not 
sufficiently  clear59.  This  results  in  differing  distribution  of  support  services  in  the 
Member States. 

Yet  another  difficulty  is  that  in  some  Member  States,  victims’  support  services  are 
located  mostly  in  urban  areas.  As  a  consequence,  rural  areas  are  deprived  of  these 
services. This leaves certain victims, such as elderly people or victims with disabilities, 
who often do not have the means to travel long distances, at a disadvantage60. 

From the effectiveness point of view, the evaluation study found that the Directive  had 
improved  the  accessibility  of  victim  support  services.  This  includes  in  particular  the 
availability  of  24-hour  victim  support  services  as  well  as  the  establishment  of  crime 
reporting  methods  tailored  to  victims’  needs.  For  instance,  identified  good  practices 
include  the  availability  of  online  reporting  or  the  establishment  of  helplines  and  ‘help 
chats’61. 

The Directive  has  also  improved victims’ access to  support services  by introducing  the 
requirement  to  facilitate  the  referral  of  victims  (Article  8).  A  few  stakeholders 
underlined  the  overall  improvement  in  referral  systems  due  to  increased  cooperation 
between  victim  support  organisations  and  law  enforcement  authorities.  An  example  of 
good  practice  is  the  introduction  of  a  duty  for  prosecutors  to  refer  victims  of  domestic 
violence to support services in a Member State62. However, other stakeholders noted that 
the  referral  of  victims  was  not  conducted  systematically63,  as  there  is  not  a  clear 
obligation for law enforcement authorities to refer victims to support services64. 

With  regard  to  the  quality  of  support  services,  the  Directive  envisages  that  a  service 
should be reliable and respond to individual victims’ needs in a respectful, professional 
and non-discriminatory manner (Recital 63). Evidence from the evaluation study shows 
that the lack of more specific quality standards in the Directive has a negative impact 
on the quality of the services provided. As a result, services vary greatly, not only across 
Member  States,  but  also  within  the  same  Member  State65.  Nonetheless,  the  study 
identified a series of good practices across different Member States. One example is the 
‘Barnahus’  model,  a  child-friendly,  interdisciplinary  and  multi-agency  centre  for  child 
victims and witnesses, where an interdisciplinary team of experts cooperates to decide on 
the most appropriate support for the children. 

58 ICF (2021). Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on 
the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 44. 
59 Ivankovic, A., Altan, L., Carpinelli, A., Carmo, M., Valerio, M., 2019 VOCIARE Synthesis Report, p. 55. 
60 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on 
the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 44. 
61 Ibid., p. 45. 
62 Ibid. 
63 Ibid. 
64 Ibid. 
65 Ibid. 

16 

 
                                                           
Finally, the evaluation study highlighted cross-cutting issues that affect victims’ access to 
support services. The Directive states that services should be free of charge, but victims 
of  crime  still  face  difficulties  with  costs,  such  as  travelling  to  the  location  of  the 
services  or  charges  for  interpretation  and  translation.  Some  Member  States  also 
impose  a  series  of  administrative  requirements.  These  may  discourage  victims.  For 
example,  service  providers  may  require  extensive  information  about  or  evidence  of  the 
crime  before  providing  support.  Furthermore,  certain  services  are  only  available  at 
specific times which may not correspond to the victims’ most immediate need66. 

Victims’ access to justice 

Several  provisions  of  the  Directive  refer  to  the  role  of  victims  in  the  criminal  justice 
system.  

Article  10  aims  to  ensure  that  all  victims  have  an  opportunity  to  provide  information, 
views or evidence throughout criminal proceedings. Article 11 lays down victims’ rights 
in the event of a decision not to prosecute. Article 13 sets out the right to legal aid.  

Article 14 stipulates the right to reimbursement of expenses (e.g. travel expenses and loss 
of  earnings)  by  Member  States,  so  that  victims  are  not  prevented  from  actively 
participating in criminal proceedings by financial limitations. Article 15 states that when 
property  has  been  seized  but  is  no  longer  needed  for  criminal  proceedings,  it  must  be 
returned to victims without delay.  

According to Article 16, victims have the right to obtain decision on compensation from 
the  offender  in  the  course  of  criminal  proceedings.  Article  17  sets  out  the  rights  of 
victims  resident  in  another  Member  State.  Most  of  these  are  already  in  the  Victims’ 
Standing Decision. In addition, the Victims’ Rights Directive introduced new rules in the 
event of a decision not to prosecute (Article 11).  

On  effectiveness,  the  evaluation  study  shows  that  the  Directive  has,  overall,  had  a 
positive impact on victims’ access to justice67.  

In this context, it must be pointed out that the procedural aspects of the rights related to 
access to justice are regulated by national law. Thus, the implementation of these rights 
varies  significantly  from  one  Member  State  to  another.  This  makes  the  assessment  of 
their effectiveness difficult. 

On the right to be heard (Article 10), the study identified a few similar good practices 
in  several  Member  States68.  One  example  is  the  introduction  of  a  victim  impact 
assessment69  which  allows  victims  to  reflect  on  the  evidence  and  make  a  statement,  as 
well as seek to influence the sentencing. Stakeholders also feel that the right to be heard 

66 Ibid, p. 46. 
67 Ibid. 
68 Ibid, p. 47. 
69 Ibid. 

17 

 
                                                           
was better enforced for victims in cross-border situations, with the help of translation and 
interpretation services70.  

Nonetheless,  the  evaluation  study  identified  common  challenges  that  negatively  affect 
the effective implementation of Article 10. They are related to  judicial authorities’ lack 
of sensitivity towards victims or the use of extremely legal and complex language. 

On  victims’  rights  in  the  event  of  a  decision  not  to  prosecute  (Article  11),  practical 
challenges are related to the introduction of deadlines for filling the request to review 
in some Member States, especially if these deadlines are too short71. On the other hand, 
research  shows  that,  as  good  practice,  one  Member  State  introduced  a  partnership 
between  courts  and  victim  support  services  to  help  victims  understand  the  reasons 
behind a decision not to prosecute72. 

There are some  examples of good practices  for victims’ right to legal aid  (Article 13) 
and  the  right  to  the  reimbursement  of  expenses  (Article  14).  One  Member  State 
introduced  free  or  partly  funded  legal  representation  for  particularly  vulnerable  victims 
(including  children).  Similarly,  in  another  Member  State  victims  who  are  considered 
particularly  vulnerable  (e.g.  victims  of  domestic  violence,  human  trafficking,  sexual 
coercion and rape) are exempt from the costs of proceedings73.  

Nonetheless, evidence from the evaluation study  shows that victims’ right to legal aid 
and to reimbursement of expenses are hindered in practice by different obstacles such 
as  the  significant  delays  between  the  request  for  legal  aid  and  a  final  decision  on  the 
matter74. Also, in several Member States, legal assistance depends on the circumstances 
of the crime, or on the victim’s economic circumstances. This limits access to legal aid 
to  victims  of  a  certain  type  of  crime  or  to  victims  whose  income  per  capita  or 
household  does  not  exceed  a  certain  level  of  income75.  In  cases  where  the  economic 
criterion is applied, the victim must demonstrate that they are in a situation of economic 
difficulty in  order to  benefit  from  the right to  legal  aid. However,  the evaluation  found 
that even when legal aid is ensured, there is a lack of qualified lawyers who are able to 
provide it76. 

The  study  also  shows  that  there  are  numerous  factors  obstructing  the  return  of  seized 
property (Article 15). In particular, enforcing this right is affected by the difficulties of 
establishing ownership; the deadlines for claiming the return of the properties; the 
authorities’  lack  of  sensitivity  in  returning  property;  systematic  delays  in  returning 

70 Ibid. 
71 Ibid, p. 48. 
72 Ibid. 
73 Ibid, p. 49. 
74 Ivankovic, L., Altan, A., Carpinelli, M., Carmo, M. Valerio, M. (2019), VOCIARE Synthesis Report, p. 
112, 
https://victimsupport.eu/activeapp/wp-
content/uploads/2019/08/VOCIARE_Synthesis_Report-web.pdf 
75 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on 
the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 48. 
76 Ibid. 

available 

from: 

18 

 
                                                           
property  since  its  return  is  linked  to  the  end  of  criminal  proceedings  in  many  Member 
States77. 

With  regard  to  the  right  to  a  decision  on  compensation  from  the  offender  in  the 
course of criminal proceedings (Article 16), stakeholders highlighted several obstacles, 
such as cumbersome and lengthy procedures, as well as a general lack of awareness 
of this right78. This is because victims often have to go through two sets of proceedings 
to receive both criminal and civil compensation79. 

Stakeholders  also  identified  administrative  burdens  as  one  of  the  main  issues 
competent  authorities  face  in  giving  victims  access  to  justice.  Limited  awareness  of 
victims’  rights  was  also  identified  as  the  main  obstacle  to  victims’  having  recourse  to 
justice80.  Other  obstacles  identified  are  related  to  the  lack  of  specific  procedures  for 
vulnerable victims in several Member States. For instance, victims with disabilities, or 
children,  are  not  always  provided  with  procedural  support  they  need  to  be  able  to 
participate in hearings81.  

On cross-border cases, the evaluation study highlighted the lack of information on the 
existing  cooperation  mechanisms  between  Member  States,  the  lack  of  efficient 
coordination and cooperation among Member States, and the lack of financial resources 
and/or necessary means to guarantee effective cross-border criminal proceedings82. For 
instance, some Member States do not use video-hearing tools due to a lack of resources, 
or  because  they  lack  the  legal  framework  for  using  them83.  The  lack  of  collaborative 
platforms  among  Member  States,  as  well  as  the  lack  of  sufficient  resources,  hinder 
referral, effective cross-border criminal proceedings and, generally speaking, support for 
cross-border victims of crime84. 

stakeholder  consultations 

On  digitalisation, 
for 
improvement. On the one hand, victims’ access to justice has improved, partially due to 
the digitalisation of justice, for instance through the introduction of online procedures85. 
On the other hand, several stakeholders reported that access to justice had not improved 
for all crime victims, in particular vulnerable victims. 

significant  room 

identified 

77 Ivankovic, L., Altan, A., Carpinelli, M., Carmo, M., Valerio, M. (2019), VOCIARE Synthesis Report, p. 
116. 
78 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on 
the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 49. 
79 Ibid. 
80 Ibid. 
81 Ibid. 
82 Ibid., pp. 49-50. 
83 Ivankovic, A., Altan, L., Carpinelli, A., Carmo, M., Valerio, M., (2019), VOCIARE Synthesis Report, pp. 
130-132. 
84 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on 
the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, pp. 49-50. 
85 Ibid., pp. 46-47. 

19 

 
                                                           
Right to protection 

In  addition  to  the  rights  in  the  Victims’  Standing  Decision,  the  Directive  introduced  a 
series  of  rights  aimed  at  extending  and  strengthening  the  protection  of  victims  and  the 
recognition  of  their  specific  protection  needs  (Articles  18-24).  These  rights  include  the 
right to protection during criminal investigations (Articles 18 and 20), the right to avoid 
contact  between  the  victim  and  the  offender  (Article  19),  and  the  right  to  individual 
assessment of victims to identify specific protection needs (Article 22). 

The  general  assessment  is  that  the  Directive  has  significantly  extended  and 
strengthened victims’ right to receive protection.  

Nonetheless, the evaluation found that there are still difficulties limiting the effective 
implementation of this right86. Article 18 requires Member States to ensure that a wide 
range  of  protection  measures  are  in  place  to  protect  victims  and  their  family  members 
from  secondary  and  repeat  victimisation,  intimidation  and  retaliation.  It  also  requires 
Member States to protect victims and their family members from physical, emotional or 
psychological harm. Different measures are in place across Member States to address this 
provision,  such  as  a  legal  obligation  to  keep  the  number  of  victims’  interviews  and 
medical  examinations  to  a  minimum,  to  conduct  interviews  without  delay  and  to  allow 
victims to be accompanied by a person of their choice during criminal proceedings87.  

Other  good  practices  include  the  recording  of  witness  statements  to  avoid  multiple 
testimonies, interrogations of vulnerable victims being conducted by professionals of the 
same  sex,  the  introduction  of  electronic  surveillance  of  offenders,  and  other  restrictive 
measures  against  the  offender88.  Another  good  practice  is  the  introduction  of  an 
accelerated procedure to issue a protection measure when there is an imminent threat for 
a victim. However, 11 out of 20 of the victim support and NGOs surveyed as part of the 
evaluation study still consider that the Directive is not effectively ensuring that victims’ 
right to protection89. 

On  the  availability  of  different  entries  and  waiting  areas  for  victims  and  offenders 
(Article  19),  stakeholders  reported  that  the  main  problem  for  victims  is  the  lack  of 
measures  to  avoid  contact  with  the  offender,  e.g.  through  IT  solutions  or  separate 
physical  areas90.  At  the  same  time,  some  good  practices  were  identified  in  this  area, 
including  the  introduction  of  technological  tools,  such  as  videoconferencing,  to  avoid 
contact  between  the  two  parties  on  court  premises,  and  the  establishment  of  child-
friendly rooms in various courts, or a Barnahus91. 

86 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on 
the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 50 . 
87 Ibid. 
88 Ibid. 
89 Ibid. 
90 Ibid., pp.50-51. 
91 Ibid., p. 51. 

20 

 
                                                           
On  the  right  to  privacy  (Article  21),  stakeholders  reported  improvements,  such  as  the 
possibility  for  victims’  cases  to  be  heard  without  any    public  being  present  or  an 
extension  of  the  prohibition  to  take  pictures  of  the  victim  outside  the  courtroom92. 
However, the evaluation study also found that certain difficulties persist in this area. For 
instance,  in  a  few  Member  States,  privacy  protection  measures  are  only  in  place  for 
victims of certain types of crimes, such as victims of sexual abuse or child victims93.  

One of the Directive’s most significant achievements is the right to an individual needs 
assessment  (Article  22).  Its  purpose  is  to  determine  whether  a  victim  is  in  any  way 
particularly  vulnerable  to  secondary  and  repeat  victimisation,  to  intimidation  and/or  to 
retaliation, and to protect them according to their individual needs.  In addition to some 
implementation  issues,  highlighted  in  the  evaluation  study94,  stakeholders  reported  that 
the  quality  of  the  individual  assessments  could  often  be  hampered  by  practical  factors. 
These  are  the  lack  of  specific  guidelines,  protocols  and  practical  procedures  for 
conducting  the  assessments  or  the  lack  of  awareness  among  practitioners  of  the 
importance  of  the  assessments  and  what  they  should  consist  of95.  Stakeholders  also 
identified  as  a  major  flaw  the  lack  of  training  of  the  authorities  who  perform  the 
individual  assessment.  Furthermore,  the  extent  to  which  the  different  stakeholders 
who  come  into  contact  with  victims  –  support  services,  police  and  judicial 
authorities  –  cooperate  with  each  other  varies  across  Member  States96.  There  is 
therefore  no  assurance  that  the  individual  assessment  is  conducted  consistently  and 
effectively  where  cooperation  is  not  well  established.  The  evaluation  study  also 
highlighted  that  in  certain  cases,  the  lack  of  a  secure  tool  for  exchanging  information 
between  competent  authorities  prevents  the  effective  implementation  of  the  individual 
assessment when more than one authority is involved in it. 

Victims’  specific  needs  can  be  protected  only  if  there  is  an  adequate  individual 
assessment.  Therefore,  the  challenges  related  to  the  implementation  of  the  right  to  an 
individual needs assessment have a negative impact on the implementation of protective 
measures across Member States. 

However,  the  evaluation  study  did  identify  some  good  practices  by  conducting  a  case 
study  of  individual  assessments97.  These  good  practices  relate  to  the  development  of  a 
practical questionnaire to facilitate the individual assessment of victims and make it 
possible  to  identify  specific  protection  needs98.  Other  examples  are  a  follow-up 
meeting  with  victims  to  avoid  repeat  victimisation,  or  the  use  of  online  tools  to  help 
professionals assess risks in cases of domestic violence99.  

92 Ibid. 
93 Ibid. 
94 Ibid. 
95 Ibid. 
96 Ibid. 
97 Ibid., p. 52. 
98 Ibid. 
99 Ibid. 

21 

 
                                                           
Provision of training 

On effectiveness, the evaluation study found that there has been  an improvement in the 
provision  of  training  for  practitioners  by  Member  States  (Article  25).  Nonetheless, 
shortcomings were identified in terms of the type, content and level of training, as well as 
in relation to categories of stakeholders receiving training100. This is particularly true for 
judicial authorities and other relevant practitioners (e.g. victim support organisations).  

Evidence from the evaluation study shows that while training is available across Member 
States for professionals who are in contact with victims of crime at different stages, the 
level of training provided varies.  

There  is  also  still  room  for  improvement  with  regard  to  the  quantity  of  trained 
professionals and the quality of training. On the quantity of training, the evaluation 
study found that there is no systematic approach to training and that there is a low level 
of attendance. On the quality of training, it was reported that it is mostly generic victim 
support training or training on specific victims, not a combination of both. Stakeholders 
highlighted that,  in  addition  to  generic victims’ rights  training, there should  be training 
on dealing with  specific categories of victims101. At  the same time,  national authorities 
overall disagreed with making training mandatory, preferring guidance on how to prepare 
training courses and the dissemination of resources and good practices through manuals 
and networks102.  

As an example of good practice, stakeholders identified the ‘Enhancing hate crime victim 
support’  (EStAR)103  project.  The  project  provides  guidance  on  how  to  deliver  training 
and workshops in which national authorities can discuss what works and what does not. 

On  training  for  different  authorities,  it  seems  that  the  Directive  has  led  to  significant 
improvements  in  law  enforcement  training,  resulting  in  high  numbers  of  trained  law 
enforcement officials104. However, the evaluation study found that there is still room for 
improvement,  in  particular  for  the  judiciary  and  other  relevant  stakeholders  (e.g. 
victim support organisations).  

Some concerns were also raised about the overall lack of incentives to attend training, or 
follow  training  content105.  In  terms  of  training  content,  stakeholders  argued  that  more 
attention  should  be  paid  to  topics  such  as  recognising  one’s  own  bias,  empathetic 
communication or active listening106. Stakeholders believe this would help to build trust 
in the police and could lead to an increase in the number of victims who report a crime to 
the authorities or who request support. 

100 Ibid. 
101 Ibid. 
102 Ibid. 
103 https://www.osce.org/odihr/hate-crime-victim-support.  
104 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 53. 
105 Ibid. 
106 Ibid. 

22 

 
                                                           
The evaluation  found that  training for the judiciary on victims’ rights  is  available in 
most Member States. However, the level of attendance seems to be lower in comparison 
to  the  attendance  level  of  other  stakeholder  categories  in  some  Member  States107.  The 
quality of training was also sometimes found to be insufficient to meet victims’ needs. 
For instance, training for judges, more focused on formal aspects, does not include soft 
skills  training  (e.g.  communication  skills).  Stakeholders  agreed  that  more  training  on 
victims’ rights, of a higher quality, should be made available, and a system put in place, 
with  incentives  for  professionals  to  take  part  in  training  introduced  to  yield  higher 
attendance rates in this group108. 

The  study  also  found  that  victim  support  organisations  received  insufficient 
national-level  training.  In  most  Member  States  training  for  lawyers  is  provided,  but 
training  for  victim  support  organisations  is  organised  mostly  by  NGOs109.  Most 
stakeholders argued that training at national level should be extended to  victim support 
organisations110. 

Stakeholders  also  pointed  out 
improve 
coordination  among  different  authorities.  Ideally,  this  should  include  civil  society 
representatives and community leaders, so that the training is comprehensive and enables 
an exchange of views on the interlinked needs of victims111. 

interdisciplinary  training  could 

that 

4.1.2  Efficiency 

Summary findings – efficiency 

There  is  no  conclusive  evidence  on  the  exact  costs  of  achieving  the  results  of  the 
Directive. A lack of quantifiable data from Member States makes it difficult to carry out 
a detailed assessment of the Directive’s regulatory burden.  

This  section  looks  at  how  cost-effective  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  has  been 
cost-effective. It aims to provide, to the extent possible, an overview of the costs incurred 
as a result of, and the benefits of, implementing the Directive. It also looks at the extent 
to  which  the  benefits  of  having  and  implementing  the  Directive  justify  the  costs.  In 
addition,  it seeks  to  identify whether there are areas  where cost  savings could  be made 
(see also Annex IV). 

107 Ibid. 
108 Ibid. 
109 Ibid., pp. 53-54. 
110 Ibid., p. 54. 
111 Ibid. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Costs and benefits linked to the implementation of the Directive 

The  impact  assessment  accompanying  the  Directive  estimated  that  its  implementation 
would  require  between  EUR  358  million  and  around  EUR  1.4  billion,  with  almost  all 
costs  falling  to  public  administrations.  These  costs  have  been  broken  down  into  five 
categories:  (1)  training  costs  (expected  to  range  from  EUR  4.61  million  to  EUR  17.28 
million);  (2)  the  costs  of  establishing,  supporting  and/or  enhancing  existing  victim 
support  services  (estimated  to  be  less  than  EUR  24  million  to  EUR  27  million);  (3) 
restorative  justice  services  (estimated  to  range  from  EUR  0  to  EUR  878  million);  (4) 
interpretation and translation costs (expected to be less than EUR 89.29 million to EUR 
205.49 million); (5) and the costs of attending trials (estimated to range from EUR 240 
million to EUR 242.9 million)112. 

The  extent  to  which  costs  have  been  incurred  to  implement  the  Directive  in  individual 
Member  States  largely  depends  on  the  situation  in  each  Member  State  before  the 
Directive was adopted. National laws and practices differ to a varying degree, requiring 
different levels of effort to meet the Directive’s requirements.  

It  was  not  possible  to  obtain  a  breakdown  of  costs  in  individual  Member  States  and 
across  the  EU  overall.  Nonetheless,  the  Directive  introduced  obligations  that  were 
expected  to  have  significant  cost  implications,  such  as  the  requirement  to  provide 
translation  services  for  victims,  the  additional  resources  needed  to  carry  out  individual 
assessments,  and  the  costs  of  capacity  building113.  In  addition,  it  is  not  possible  to 
ascertain if Member States had made additional financial resources available to help with 
the implementation of the Directive. 

On  benefits,  the  impact  assessment  had  assumed  that  meeting  the  victim’s  needs 
throughout  the  whole  criminal  proceedings  would,  in  terms  of  benefits,  considerably 
mitigate the costs of victimisation and considerably reduce the total costs of crime. Lack 
of data means it is impossible to ascertain whether such savings actually occurred.  

The  collection  of  data  on  the  number  and  types  of  crimes  reported  and  the  number  of 
victims supported is included in the Directive’s monitoring provisions. Article 28 of the 
Directive  states:  ‘Member  states  shall,  by  16  November  2017  and  every  three  years 
thereafter,  communicate  to  the  Commission  available  data  showing  how  victims  have 
accessed the rights set out in this Directive’. Recital 64 specifies what type of statistical 
data should be provided, including at least the number and type of crimes reported and, if 
known and available, the number of victims.  

Some  of  the  difficulties  encountered  by  Member  States  in  collecting,  monitoring  and 
reporting  data  can  be  related  to  the  multitude  of  national  (and  regional)  authorities 

112https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2011/05
80/COM_SEC%282011%290580_EN.pdf. 
113 The Victims’ Rights Directive: European Implementation Assessment, European Parliament, December 
2017: 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/611022/EPRS_STU(2017)611022_EN.pdf.  

24 

 
                                                           
involved  in  implementing  the  Directive’s  provisions  for  the  different  types  of  crimes. 
These difficulties concern the number and types of crimes, the number of victims and the 
overall budget allocated to the Directive’s implementation. 

The overall structural organisation of victim protection and support systems varies across 
the Member States and is also fragmented within most Member States. In most Member 
States,  responsibility  for  victim  protection  and  support  services  lies  with  several 
ministries.  This  fragmentation  within  individual  Member  States  and  the  diversity  of 
models in place across the EU often make gathering comprehensive data on the costs and 
benefits  of  implementing  the  Directive  in  individual  Member  States,  and  in  the  EU  in 
general, more difficult. 

Possible cost savings 

The Directive introduced a set of obligations for Member States that entail costs for their 
implementation. One would therefore expect an increase in Member States’ budgets for 
victim  protection  and  other  activities  related  to  the  implementation  of  the  Directive. 
Some Member States already had a victim protection framework in place in line with the 
Directive’s  provisions,  while  others  had  to  set  up  new  or  additional  structures  and 
services.  

The  analysis  of  the  Directive’s  effectiveness  has  highlighted  many  problems  with 
implementation,  many  of  them  related  to  a  lack  of  financial  and  human  resources. 
Training  for  professionals  involved  in  protecting  victims,  translation  and  interpretation 
services  for  victims,  access  to  compensation  systems  and  the  provision  of  long-term 
support services emerge as the most problematic areas. These findings seem to point to 
generalised under-funding of the victim protection system, at least from public budgets. 
Other sources of funding seem to be scarce and used sporadically. 

The  stakeholders  consulted  reported  that  the  budget  allocated  to  the  protection  and 
support of victims of crimes has either remained stable or somewhat increased since the 
Directive  entered  into  force.  In  most  Member  States,  the  entire  victim  protection  and 
support system relies heavily on public funding. Resource availability for and allocation 
to  the  support  and  protection  of  victims  of  crime  therefore  depends  on  the  economic 
situation within individual Member States and in the EU in general.  

The general fragmentation of competencies across national competent authorities has led 
to a variety of budget streams in most Member States. This can lead to inefficiencies and 
the ineffective application of victim protection measures, such as unsystematic individual 
needs’  assessments  and  disparities  in  access  to  services  across  national  territories. 
Addressing these inefficiencies is not likely to solve the problem of  a lack of resources 
for victim protection. 

4.1.3  Coherence 

25 

 
 
Summary findings – coherence 

The  Directive  is  overall  internally  coherent.  The  evaluation  also  finds  that  it  is  mostly 
coherent with other EU level relevant interventions. 

Internal coherence 

The  evaluation  study  finds  that  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  are  generally  internally 
coherent and operate well together to achieve its objectives. The different measures and 
obligations in the Directive fit well together, with minimum rules corresponding to and 
addressing victims’ different needs. 

For  them  to  work,  Directives  must  be  transposed  into  national  law.  Given  this,  the 
evaluation also examined the degree of consistency in the way that Member States have 
implemented  the  Directive.  Many  provisions  are  being  interpreted  and  applied  in 
different  ways  across  Member  States,  partly  because  the  Directive  only  sets  minimum 
rules.  However,  the  different  approaches  do  not  seem  to  be  inconsistent  or  incoherent 
with  each  other.  The  evaluation  did  not 
the 
implementation of the Directive at national level. 

inconsistencies 

identify  any 

in 

Overall,  the  different  provisions  of  the  Directive  fit  well  together.  Nevertheless,  the 
definitions  in  the  Directive  tend  to  limit  its  full  coherence.  For  instance,  despite  the 
broad definition of ‘victim’, certain articles depend on the role of the victim. This limits 
the rights of some victims. Recital 20 of the Directive acknowledges that Member States 
have  a  diversity  of  traditions,  practices  and  legal  systems  setting  out  victims’  rights  in 
criminal proceedings, and specifies that Member States are to determine the scope of any 
rights  set  out  in  the  Directive  where  there  are  references  to  the  role  of  the  victim  in 
criminal proceedings. For example, in Member States that recognise victims as parties to 
proceedings,  victims  may  be  able  to  receive  information  on  criminal  proceedings. 
Conversely,  in  Member  States  that  do  not  recognise  victims  as  parties  to  proceedings, 
this right may be restricted in accordance with Article 6(2) of the Directive. 

A  few  stakeholders  consider  some  formulations  of  the  Directive  to  be  too  vague  and 
therefore a barrier to the Directive’s full coherence. For example, the Directive requires 
non-discriminatory access to rights, but leaves it to Member States to ensure this.   

Some  vague  provisions  were  also  identified  on  the  right  to  information,  the  right  to 
access  support  services  and  the  right  to  protection.  On  the  right  to  information,  the 
definition of ‘simple and accessible’ information was found to be a stumbling block for 
many  Member  States.  Notably,  the  provisions  on  victims’  information  rights  are  not 
tailored to children, who have different needs to adults. On the right to access support 
services,  it  is  not  clear  what  the  minimum  standards  of  support  are  for  victim  support 
services.  Stakeholders  said  there  was  scope  for  more  involvement  of  support  services, 
such  as  enabling  NGOs  to  accompany  or  represent  victims  throughout  criminal 
proceedings.  On  the  right  to  protection,  there  is  a  strong  emphasis  on  protection 
measures  during  criminal  proceedings,  the  role  of  support  services  in  enhancing 
protection and the implementation of this right is not reflected in the Directive.    

26 

 
Coherence and complementarity with other policy interventions 

Coherence with Member State legislative frameworks 

There  are  no  major  inconsistencies  between  the  Directive  and  national  legislative 
frameworks, but there is some room for improvement in some national interpretations of 
its provisions. 

Most  national  stakeholders  consulted114  confirmed  that  there  were  no  inconsistencies 
between Member State legislative frameworks and the Directive.  However, there is still 
room for improvement in the national interpretation of the Directive115 since it does not 
always  ensure  adequate  assistance  for  and  protection  of  victims.  Victim  support 
organisations116 suggested that further coherence at national level could be  achieved by 
further  explaining  certain  concepts,  for  example  what  is  meant  by  ‘access  to  support 
services’  (e.g.  what  qualifies  as  a  ‘support  service’),  and  legal  provisions  on  what  is 
considered sufficient information. 

Coherence with relevant EU level interventions 

The evaluation found that the Directive is highly coherent with, and complementary to, 
relevant  EU policy interventions. No  major inconsistencies or overlaps  were identified. 
Rather, areas for potential further synergies were identified. The evaluation showed that 
there is a certain degree of coherence and complementarity between the Directive and the 
EU instruments dedicated to specific categories of victims. Stakeholders117 consider the 
Directive  to  be  consistent  with  relevant  EU  policies,  but  some  suggested118  that  there 
should be more cross-referencing of legal texts. 

The  Counter-terrorism  Directive  is  fully  coherent  with  the  Directive.  This  was 
confirmed  by  stakeholders119  working  with  victims  of  terrorism.  The  Counter-terrorism 
Directive uses the definition of victims  given in  Article 2 of the Directive.  In addition, 
Article  24(7)  of  the  Counter-terrorism  Directive  also  specifies  that  ‘this  Directive  shall 
apply  in  addition,  and  without  prejudice,  to  measures  laid  down  in  Directive 
2012/29/EU’.  It  complements  what  is  set  out  in  the  Directive  by  responding  more 
directly to the specific needs of victims of terrorism. It sets out further measures beyond 
the  scope  of  the  Directive,  such  as  assistance  and  support  for  victims  of  terrorism  in 
accordance with their specific needs. For example, it requires a comprehensive response 

114  Interviews:  Police  authorities  –  CY,  EE,  IE,  PL;  Judiciary  –  ES,  HU,  PL,  PT;  Prosecution  –  PL; 
Ministry of Justice – EE, HU, IT; National Rapporteur for trafficking in human beings – EL; Ombudsman 
for children – SE; Combined response – AT, FI, FR, LU, SI, SK. 
115  Interview:  EU  agencies  and  institutions  –  DG  HOME  D.2.  Survey  –  9  respondents.  Pemberton,  A., 
Groenhuijsen,  M.  (2011),  Developing  Victims’  Rights  within  the  European  Union:  Past,  Present  and 
Future, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1947236 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1947236. 
116 Survey – 7 respondents; Focus group for victim support organisations 7.10.2021. 
117  Interviews:  National  implementing  authorities  –  LU  combined,  PL  prosecution;  EU  agencies  and 
institutions – DG HOME D.2, DG HOME D.4, DG HOME C.2, DG CONNECT G.3, DG JUST B.1, EU 
platforms and NGOs – European Women’s Lobby (EWL). 
118 Interviews: Ombudsman for children – SE; EU agencies and institutions – DG JUST B.1. 
119 Interview: EU agencies and institutions – DG HOME D.2, EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator. 

27 

 
                                                           
to  their specific needs immediately after  a terrorist  attack and for  as long as necessary, 
building  on  the  obligations  in  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive.  This  complementary 
approach  is  fully  in  line  with  the  Directive,  the  objective  of  which  is  to  set  minimum 
standards  for  victims  of  crime,  which  can  then  be  supplemented  by  additional  and 
tailored (legislative) measures. 

On  cooperation  between  Member  States  in  cross-border  cases,  both  the  Victims’ 
Rights and the Counter-terrorism Directives have room for improvement. A stakeholder 
highlighted that both Directives could take greater account of the specific circumstances 
of cross-border victims. The plight of cross-border victims of terrorism was also evident 
in the evaluation of the Counter-terrorism Directive. It showed that although cross-border 
victims of terrorism rely on swift and adequate cooperation between the Member States, 
there  seem  to  be  obstacles  to  this,  such  as  the  lack  of  a  secure  tool  for  exchanging 
information on individual situations, both in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack 
or during follow-up over a longer period120. 

Overall,  the  Directive  appears  overall  coherent  with  and  complementary  to  the  Anti-
trafficking  Directive.  Articles  11  to  18  of  the  Anti-trafficking  Directive  contain 
provisions on victims’ rights, specifically victim support and assistance, which are in line 
with  the  Directive.  The  Directive  was  adopted  after  the  Anti-trafficking  Directive,  so 
several  of  the  Anti-trafficking  Directive’s  provisions  form  the  basis  for  the  Directive. 
Some  provisions  of  the  Anti-trafficking  Directive  are  also  more  protective  than  the 
Directive due to the specific nature and context of human trafficking. 

The  Victims’  Rights  Directive  appears  to  be  coherent  with  and  complementary  to  the 
Child  Sexual  Abuse  Directive,  also  adopted  before  the  Directive.  The  Child  Sexual 
Abuse Directive provides additional guarantees for child victims of sexual abuse which 
are not enshrined in the Directive. For example, Member State authorities shall take the 
necessary measures to ensure that a child is provided with assistance and support as soon 
as they believe the child might have been subjected to the offences the Directive covers. 
In addition, assistance and support for a child victim should not be made conditional on 
the  child  victim’s  willingness  to  cooperate  in  the  criminal  investigation,  prosecution  or 
trial. 

Prior to the proposal for a Directive on combating violence against women and domestic 
violence that was presented by the Commission on 8 March 2022, the legal  framework 
for  gender-based  violence  (GBV)  and  domestic  violence  (DV)  consisted  of  several 
instruments121. The new proposal contains several provisions on victims’ rights, such as: 

120 SWD(2021) 324 final. 

121 The Victims’ Rights Directive, the Anti-trafficking Directive (2011/36), the European Protection Order 
(EPO)  Directive  (2011/99),  the  Compensation  Directive  (2004/80),  International  Protection  Directives 
(2013/33,  2011/95  and  2008/115),  Directives  related  to  equal  treatment  and  equal  opportunities 
(2006/54/EC,  2004/113/EC  and  2010/41/EU),  Regulation  (EU)  No  606/2013  on  mutual  recognition  of 
protection  measures in civil  matters and Article  16 of the UN  Convention on the Rights of Persons  with 

28 

 
                                                           
 
the  protection  of  victims  of  violence  against  women  and  domestic  violence;  access  to 
justice and specialised support for such victims. 

The evaluation found that there is a good level of coherence between the Directive and 
the  Combating  Fraud  Directive.  The  main  developments  of  the  Combating  Fraud 
Directive  include  the  assistance  provided  to  victims  and  greater  attention  to  computer-
related fraud.  

During  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  there  was  an  increase  in  cases  of  online  fraud  and 
phishing. The Combating Fraud Directive refers to the Directive in Recitals 33 and 34 on 
victims’  rights.  Opportunities  exist  for  the  Directive  to  more  extensively  cover  support 
and assistance provided to victims in line with the Combating Fraud Directive.  

Assistance  to  and support  for victims is  enshrined in  Article 1 of the Combating Fraud 
Directive  and  detailed  in  Article  16,  which  states  that  fraud  victims  must  receive 
information not only on the dedicated service providers, but also on preventive measures 
to protect themselves from the negative consequences of such crimes. Such preventative 
measures are not entailed in the Victims’ Rights Directive and neither is the provision of 
Article 16(2) which encourages Member States to have single national online information 
tools to facilitate access for assistance and support. 

The evaluation found that EU rules on state and offender compensation for victims are 
mostly coherent, with potential for closer alignment. 

Overall, the evaluation found that the EU tools aimed at protecting victims of crime at 
EU level are coherent with and complementary to the Victims’ Rights Directive. Despite 
the  intended  complementarity,  the  application  of  protection  orders  in  cross-border 
situations  rarely  functions  as  it  should.  A  range  of  challenges  have  been  identified 

Disabilities,  ensure  a  specific  approach  to  prevent  and  tackle  GBV/DV  and  confer  specific  rights  on 
victims of GBV/DV. 

29 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                            
including a lack of knowledge of the system amongst victims and practitioners, a lack of 
training and the diversity of measures between Member States.  

4.2.  HOW DID THE EU INTERVENTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE? 

EU added value 

Summary findings – EU added value 

The  Directive  has  generated  added  value  beyond  what  could  have  been  achieved 
unilaterally  by  Member  States  or  internationally.  It  has  also  provided  added  value 
compared to the Framework Decision. 

The EU added value of the Directive is  that it  sets  out binding rights  for all victims of 
crime  and  imposes  concrete  obligations  on  Member  States.  It  acts  as  a  safety  net  for 
specific categories of victims for whom there is no specific legislation (lex specialis) in 
place.  

This  harmonisation  could  not  have  been  achieved  by  Member  States  alone.  Instead,  it 
was necessary for the EU to set such rules on the legal basis of Article 82(2) TFEU. It is 
unlikely that such harmonisation  would have happened in  the absence of the Directive; 
criminal  law  takes  shape  incrementally  and  often  reflects  national  circumstances. 
Without  EU  intervention,  it  is  highly  unlikely  that  Member  States  would  have  taken  a 
harmonised approach to developing their criminal law frameworks. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
Improvement in the situation of victims 

The Directive brought significant added value in the area of victims’ rights, expanding on 
the  provisions  of  the  Framework  Decision,  thereby  prompting  further  action  and 
investment.  It  introduced  crucial  new  elements,  such  as  the  right  to  an  individual 
assessment. 

A  majority  of  stakeholders  agreed  that  progress  had  been  made  on  addressing  victims’ 
rights  and  needs  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Directive122.  A  minority  of 
stakeholders123 believed that no significant improvements had been made, especially for 
some categories of victims.  

Some stakeholders said that their national legislative framework had been strong before 
the introduction of the Directive, but most agreed that the Directive had contributed to a 
certain extent to progress made since 2015124. 

Stakeholders  agreed  that  while  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  brought  very  significant 
added  value  across  the  different  sets  of  rights  for  victims  of  crime,  the  fact  that  some 
provisions  are  not  drafted  in  a  mandatory  or  sufficiently  specific  way  diminishes  the 
Directive’s added value. For example, a lack of clarity on what  constitutes ‘simple and 
accessible’ language means that in many Member States, information is still provided in 
legal language that is difficult for most victims of crime to understand125. 

Added value compared to national interventions 

The  Commission  proposal  for  the  Directive  highlighted  the  need  for  a  new  Directive, 
building  on  the  Framework  Decision.  In  the  explanatory  memorandum,  the  proposal 
stated that the objective  cannot  be sufficiently achieved by Member States alone, since 
the aim of the proposal is to build trust between Member States. It is therefore important 
to  agree on common minimum  standards that apply throughout  the EU.  There is  also  a 
major  cross-border  aspect  of  victimisation,  with  significant  numbers  of  EU  citizens 
living, working and travelling around the EU  and falling victim to  crime  while abroad. 
People in such situations can find accessing their rights particularly difficult and criminal 
proceedings can impose an additional burden on them. Citizens should be able to rely on 
having access to a minimum level of rights across the EU. 

122  Interviews:  national  implementing  authorities:  CZ  combined,  DE  combined,  ES  combined,  FI 
combined,  FR  combined,  LU  combined,  PT  combined,  RO  combined,  SE  combined,  SI  combined,  SK 
combined, PL judiciary, BE THB, EE Ministry of Justice, HU Ministry of Justice, IT Ministry of Justice, 
NL  Ministry  of  Justice,  CY  police  authorities,  FI  police  authorities;  national  rapporteur THB  –  BE,  DE, 
EE, EL, IE, MT; Ombudsman for children – EE, HR; EU agencies and institutions – DG HOME D.2, DG 
JUST C.2; EU NGOs and platforms – La Strada; one academic. Survey – 17 respondents (N=20). 
123 Interviews: EU NGOs and platforms – EWL, International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in 
Europe (ICRSE); Survey – 1 respondent. 
124 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 82. 
125 Focus group for victim support organisations 7.10.2021. 

31 

 
                                                           
The evaluation study found that national situations varied widely when the Directive was 
introduced,  with  some  Member  States  already  having  strong  national  legislation  on 
victims’  rights  prior  to  the  Directive,  while  others  recognised  that  this  was  not,  and 
would not have been, a priority without impetus from the EU. Stakeholders’ views on the 
extent  to  which  the  same  level  of  progress  could  have  been  achieved  by  individual 
Member States diverge. Several recognised that such progress would have been slower or 
patchier in their Member State without the Directive126. None of the Member States had 
rules in place covering all provisions contained in the Directive before it came into force.   

On  victim  support  services,  in  some  Member  States,  relevant  services  and  specialised 
agencies dealing with specific types of crime were already quite well developed prior to 
the  Directive127.  Some  Member  States  either  had  a  historically  stronger  victim  support 
service  culture  or  had  strong  administrative  structures  and  highly  active  NGOs  and  a 
sufficient  legal  framework  in  place  that  allowed  them  to  provide  a  relatively  high 
standard  of  victim  protection.  The  evaluation  study  suggests  that  national  legal 
frameworks focused mostly on the offender’s procedural rights, overlooked the specific 
needs  of  victims  during  criminal  proceedings.  In  that  respect,  the  Directive’s  victim-
centred approach is seen as innovative and of added value in better protecting and paying 
more attention to the place of victims in criminal proceedings. 

Other Member States used the Directive to further boost services for victims.  

The  introduction  of  the  right  to  an  individual  assessment  for  all  victims  of  crime  is  an 
innovation of the Directive.  

In  Member  States  with  limited  pre-existing  rules  on  victims’  rights,  most  national 
authorities recognised that progress would not have been made without the Directive128. 
The  Directive’s  added  value  was  most  obvious  in  Member  States  where  no  legal 
framework covering all types of victims previously existed. 

Civil  society  organisations,  notably  those  representing  more  vulnerable  categories  of 
victims, were supportive of the Directive as it had led to improvements in legislation in 
this  area  across  the  EU,  which  could  not  have  been  achieved  by  Member  States  alone. 
However,  they  noted  that  there  were  shortcomings,  some  of  which  are  related  to  the 
Directive’s implementation, in particular the treatment of certain victims in practice.129. 

Stakeholders generally agreed that the Directive’s added value was to lay the foundations 
of  minimum  standards  on  which  to  build  further,  be  it  either  for  Member  States  who 
lacked  standards  applicable  to  all  victims  of  crime,  or  for  certain  types  of  victims  who 

126 Interviews: national implementing authorities: EE Ministry of Justice, IT Ministry  of Justice. Survey of 
national victims’ organisations: three respondents. 
127 2017 Implementation Assessment of the VRD. 
128  Interviews:  national  implementing  authorities:  CZ  combined  response,  ES  combined  response,  LU 
combined response, PT combined response, SI combined response, SK combined response, PL Judiciary, 
EL THB rapporteur, CY Police. 
129  Interviews:  EU  NGOs  and  platforms:  European  Women’s  Lobby,  European  Disability  Forum, 
Transgender Europe, End female genital mutilation (End FGM) European network. 

32 

 
                                                           
also  benefit  from  more  protective  measures  through  other  instruments.  A  stakeholder 
from  the  Organization  for  Security  and  Cooperation  in  Europe  (OSCE)  pointed  to  the 
added value the Directive had as both a binding instrument and as a prompt for countries 
to adapt and rethink their national legislation, even countries outside the EU130. 

4.3. 

IS THE INTERVENTION STILL RELEVANT? 

Summary findings – relevance 

The evaluation’s findings show that both the scope of the Directive and the definitions it 
contains  remain  broadly  fit  for  purpose.  Nonetheless,  issues  related  to  its  scope  were 
identified, particularly with regard to crime coverage and the ability for certain victims 
to access the rights set out in the Directive. The evaluation found that the discretion 
left  to  national  jurisdictions  in  assessing  the  definitions  of  ‘family  member’, 
‘dependant’ and ‘child’ limits their relevance. 

Challenges also exist with regard to the relevance of the provisions, related to respectful 
and non-discriminatory treatment of victims by competent authorities, as well as to 
the child-sensitive approach of the Directive. 

4.3.1.  Relevance of scope and definitions 

This  subsection  examines  the  relevance  of  the  scope  and  definitions  of  the  Victims’ 
Rights Directive. The evaluation’s findings show that both the Directive’s scope and 
its definitions remain broadly fit for purpose. 

Stakeholders  agree  that  the  Directive’s  strength  is  its  ‘all-encompassing’  nature131. 
Nonetheless, issues related to its scope were identified, particularly with regard to crime 
coverage and the ability for certain victims to access the rights set out in the Directive.  

Reporting is crucial and constitutes a starting point for victims to be able to benefit from 
their rights. For various reasons, however, a large proportion of criminal offences are 
not  reported  by  victims  to  authorities132.  These  findings  do  not  discredit  the 
relevance of the Directive, but they do highlight the need to improve or facilitate the 
reporting of crime. 

130 Interviews: EU NGOs and platforms:  the Office  for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the 
Organsation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (ODIHR). 
131 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on 
the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 89. 
132 Fundamental Rights Agency (2021), Crime, safety and victims’ rights, pp. 77-83; ICF (2021), Study to 
support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and 
protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 31. 

33 

 
 
 
                                                           
The evaluation highlighted some challenges in identifying a crime which is important 
for  victims  in  the  process  of  accessing  their  rights.  While  some  crimes  are  easier  to 
identify and establish, some offences and damages are intangible and therefore difficult, 
if not impossible, to prove. This is particularly the case for crimes committed using new 
technologies, such as cybercrime and online harassment133. Stakeholders reported that in 
such  cases  the  relevance  of  the  current  provisions  of  the  Directive  can  be  questioned. 
New technologies also bring with them a higher risk of re-victimisation (harmful content 
online may be difficult to remove or may reappear)134. 

Stakeholders  also  encouraged  consideration  of  how  the  Directive  could  better  take  into 
account victims for whom the harm done/crime is more difficult to prove and therefore to 
report.  At  the  same  time,  the  evaluation  found  some  good  practices.  These  could  be 
adopted  in  law  or  elsewhere  and  are  designed  to  improve  evidence  collection.  They 
include  giving  victims  information  on,  and  raising  their  awareness  of,  how  to  preserve 
evidence, or best practice models of support. 

The  broadness  of  the  geographical  scope  of  the  Directive  is  positively  seen  by 
stakeholders. However, the evaluation found that as a general rule victims in cross-border 
situations  are  more  vulnerable  and  have  greater  difficulty  exercising  their  rights.  For 
instance, complaints made to competent authorities outside the EU, such as embassies or 
consulates, do not trigger the fulfilment of the obligations set out in the Directive135. In 
this  context,  there  may  be  scope  for  extending  certain  rights,  such  as  the  right  to 
information, the right to referral, and the right to have the report of the crime passed on to 
police authorities. 

Research also showed that cross-border victims are disadvantaged compared to national 
victims  when  seeking  to  enjoy  victims’  rights.  In  this  respect,  additional  measures  to 
ensure  equality  of  access  to  rights  could  be  considered.  Migrants  and  refugees  are 
particularly vulnerable in this context. Illegally staying third country nationals are fearful 
of  reporting  crimes  due  to  document  checks.  Asylum  seekers  must  have  their  status 
recognised in order to access services136. Some (good) practices are recommended in the 
case  of  migrants,  such  as  the  setting  up  of  (i)  specialised  contact  points  for  migrant 
workers,  or  (ii)  a  ‘firewall’  between  immigration  enforcement,  child  protection,  other 
services  and  competent  authorities137.  This  last  right  concerning  the  ‘firewall’  was 
deemed to be especially important for all migrants, whether in work or undocumented. 

133 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 32. 
134 Ibid. 
135  Victims’  Rights  Directive,  recital  13;  ICF  (2021),  Study  to  support  the  evaluation  of  Directive 
2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final 
report, p.33. 
136  Victims’  Rights  Directive  2012/29/EU-European  Implementation  Assessment,  p.  96;  VOCIARE 
Synthesis Report, p. 127. 
137 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 33. 

34 

 
                                                           
The Directive states that Member States may limit the number of family members who 
can  benefit  from  victims’  rights  and  define  priority  of  one  family  member  over 
another138.  This  is  to  avoid  a  situation  in  which  the  definition  gives  rise  to 
disproportionate demands on criminal justice actors, since all the rights in the Directive 
apply to all family members of deceased victims and the rights to support and protection 
apply  to  family  members  of  surviving  victims.  At  the  same  time,  this  provision  could 
also be used to discriminate against and prevent certain victims/relatives from benefiting 
from  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive,  such  as  same-sex  partners,  as  seen  in  one                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Member  State,  or  non-married  partners  as  this  is  the  case  in  another  Member  State139. 
Another issue is related to the definition of family members that includes ‘dependents of 
the victim’. Stakeholders reported that children are not always considered ‘dependents’ 
when parenthood is not recognised in a household140.  

The  implementation  of  the  definition  of  child  victim  also  sometimes  appears 
problematic. According to the Victims’ Rights Directive, a ‘child’ is ‘any person below 
18 years of age’141. However, the age to be considered a child/adult, for the purposes of 
accessing victims’ rights, differs across Member States142. This may jeopardise access to 
enhanced  rights  and  protection  of  children,  including  in  cross-border  situations. 
Stakeholders also indicated that the ‘clear-cut’ definition of ‘child’ in the Directive is not 
flexible  enough  as  it  does  not  allow  for  specific  rights  to  be  granted  according  to  the 
particular  needs  of  a  person  who  is  over  18  transitioning  to  adulthood143.  Recognising 
this transition as a vulnerability factor may be one way to address some of the issues. 

4.3.2.  Relevance of the provisions about the treatment of victims 

This  section examines  the relevance of the provisions  on victims’ recognition and their 
non-discriminatory  treatment  in  a  respectful,  sensitive  and  tailored  manner.  The 
relevance of the Directive’s child-sensitive approach is also analysed. 

Compared  to  Council  Framework  Decision  2002/629/JHA,  the  Directive  introduced 
many  new  concepts  and  provisions  aimed  at  strengthening  victims’  rights.  Some  of  its 
major achievements are the obligation for the competent authorities of the Member States 
to carry out an individual assessment of victims’ protection needs and the obligation to 
ensure  that  victims  have  access  to  free  and  confidential  support  services144.  By 
introducing  a  wider  range  of  rights  for  victims  and  calling  for  their  proper  recognition 
and  treatment,  the  Directive  remains  highly  relevant  for  supporting  and  protecting 
victims of crime. 

138 Victims’ Rights Directive, Articles 2(1)(b) and 2(2)(a). 
139 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p.34. 
140 Ibid . 
141 Victims’ Rights Directive, Article 2(1)(c). 
142 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 34. 
143 Ibid. 
144 Ivankovic, A., Altan, L., Carpinelli, A., Carmo, M., Valerio, M. (2019), VOCIARE Synthesis Report. 

35 

 
                                                           
However, practical challenges in relation to the application of these minimum standards 
on  recognition  and  treatment  still  remain.  Part  of  the  reason  for  this  is  the  way  certain 
provisions  have  been  formulated.  First,  victims’  recognition  remains  problematic, 
mainly due to a certain legal vagueness of the Directive in this regard. In situations where 
victims do not report a crime (e.g. for fear of being returned to their country of origin or 
prosecution, or lack of awareness, etc.), they risk not being recognised as victims and as 
such,  are  unable  to  access  their  rights145.  Indeed,  for  some  rights  or  within  criminal 
proceedings,  formal  recognition  may  be  needed,  but  in  practice  it  is  not  necessary  to 
report a crime in order to receive support.  

Victims  also  lack  recognition  in  some  Member  States  due  to  the  absence  of  legislation 
that acknowledges victims of violent crime as parties to criminal proceedings.  

On  the  non-discriminatory  treatment  of  victims  in  accordance  with  Article  1  of  the 
Directive, research shows146 that there are still significant obstacles for victims in cross-
border situations, as well as vulnerable victims, to actually enjoy their rights. Some of the 
main difficulties for cross-border victims are related to the lack of access to information 
about proceedings and information available in their language. Undocumented migrants 
are less likely to report a crime for fear of being returned if they seek help or report their 
mistreatment. Evidence from the evaluation study shows that information is not always 
available  in  a  format  suitable  for  victims  with  disabilities,  such  as  sign  language  or 
Braille, or for children, who need more simplistic information147. Explicit provisions on 
how  discrimination  and  equality  should  be  achieved  could  be  an  area  for  further 
reflection. 

According  to  the  results  from  the  evaluation  study,  the  treatment  of  victims  across 
Member  States  has  improved  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Victims’  Rights 
Directive148. However, stakeholders also pointed out that the language of the Directive 
is  often  vague,  leaving  too  much  leeway  in  the  transposition  of  its  provisions  into 
national law and their practical implementation. This means that the Directive ultimately 
fails to ensure that victims are treated in a respectful, sensitive and tailored manner.  

Evidence from the evaluation study shows that problems victims encounter also relate to 
the lack of recognition as a victim by law enforcement authorities, and a general lack of 
commitment  of  the  latter  in  investigations.  It  also  appears  that  interviews  are  not 
always carried out in a respectful manner. Overall communication during trial with 
victims  was  often  considered  ‘insufficient,  abstract  and  distant’149.  Also,  although 
competent  authorities  shall  assess  and  identify  victims’  protection  needs  in  accordance 

145 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 35. 
146 Ibid, pp. 35-36. 
147 Ibid., p. 36. 
148 Ibid. 
149 Ibid., p. 37. 

36 

 
                                                           
with Article 22 of the Victims’ Rights Directive, several victims highlighted the police’s 
initial reluctance to assess their risk of repeat victimisation150. 

On  the  child-sensitive  approach,  there  appears  to  be  no  consensus  as  to  whether  the 
Directive’s  provisions  are  specific  enough  to  ensure  such  an  approach  is  achieved  in 
practice. 

Stakeholders  reported  that  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive  has  brought  about 
important  child-friendly  changes  across  the  Member  States.  Examples  of  such 
measures  are:  the  possibility  to  use  audio-visual  recordings  as  evidence;  access  to 
psychological examination and support; accompaniment of child victims during criminal 
proceedings; the obligation for those interrogating child victims to have been trained; and 
the development of information for children using adapted means and language151. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  large  majority  of  stakeholders  consulted  consider  that  the 
provisions in the Victims’ Rights Directive are not clear or specific enough to ensure 
a child-sensitive approach. It has been argued that the Directive provides guidance but 
lacks clear recommendations for implementation measures152. These shortcomings seem 
compounded  by  the  intersectionality  of  some  child  victims.  For  instance,  evidence 
from  the evaluation  study  shows that  some child victims like – child victims of  human 
trafficking, child victims with disabilities, child victims of gender-based violence – seem 
less  likely  to  receive  child-sensitive  justice  in  certain  Member  States.  Another  issue  is 
that in one Member State, children older than 15 do not have the same protection as other 
child victims, contrary to what it says in the Victims’ Rights Directive153. 

An example of the wide divergence in ensuring the best interests of the child is that  in 
some Member States, age, rather than maturity, seems to be the deciding factor for 
hearing a child victim154. 

Finally,  research  shows  that  the  Directive’s  scope  does  not  seem  to  be  broad  enough 
when  it  comes  to  child  victims,  as  it  does  not  take  account  of  more  recent  forms  of 
victimisation. For instance, the Directive is silent on digitally enabled offences such 
as online harassment155. In particular, it does not set out specific measures even when 
such crimes are recognised nationally. 

Stakeholders’ consultations indicate that there is room for improvement in relation to 
the role that both the digital space and the use of communication technology could 

150 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2019, Women as victims of partner violence – Justice 
for  victims  of  violent  crimes,  Part  IV,  p.  48;  ICF  (2021),  Study  to  support  the  evaluation  of  Directive 
2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final 
report, p. 37. 
151 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, pp. 37-38. 
152 Ibid., p. 38. 
153 Ibid. 
154 Ibid., pp. 38-39. 
155 Ibid., p. 39. 

37 

 
                                                           
play156 The COVID-19 pandemic led to increasing digitalisation of criminal procedures. 
Digital  participation  in  criminal  proceedings  can  be  beneficial,  provided  that  the 
procedural  safeguards  for  both  parties  are  guaranteed  and  there  is  a  sufficient 
personal/human dimension to the technological solutions. In particular, the use of digital 
tools  should  not  always  replace  physical  intervention,  e.g.  in  the  case  of  suspicions  of 
domestic violence157. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

The overall objective of this Staff Working Document is to evaluate the Directive, using 
five  evaluation  criteria:  effectiveness,  relevance,  efficiency,  coherence  and  EU  added 
value. The evaluation also assesses the Directive’s impact on fundamental rights (mainly 
by assessing its effectiveness and coherence). 

This section presents the main findings and lessons learned from the evaluation. 

5.1.  CONCLUSIONS 

On  effectiveness,  the  evaluation  shows  that  the  Directive  has  had  a  generally  positive 
impact on the right to information, on access to victim support services, access to justice, 
protection  measures  and  the  provision  of  professional  training.  That  said,  several 
shortcomings were identified. They are described in detail in the next section on lessons 
learned. 

On relevance, the evaluation study shows that the Directive in general remains relevant 
and adequate, with its scope and definitions considered fit for purpose. That said, several 
limitations potentially affecting its relevance have been identified. For instance, victims 
can  only  benefit  from  the  rights  the  Directive  grants  from  the  moment  they  report  a 
crime. They must also go through a process of formal recognition that limits their access 
to certain rights in some Member States. The Directive may also not adequately address 
the needs of victims of online crime or of crime enabled by new technology.  

Another  issue  the  Directive  does  not  address  is  victims’  period  of  transition  from 
childhood to adulthood. There are also concerns about the rights of victims being limited 
to their role in criminal proceedings in different Member States. Evidence also suggests 
that  the  Directive  may  have  overlooked  the  practical  challenges  in  ensuring  non-
discriminatory treatment of victims. On the Directive’s scope, evidence shows that there 
is  room  for  improvement  on  the  role  of  the  digital  space  and  use  of  common 
technologies. 

On efficiency, evidence shows that the aspects that are the most costly to implement have 
differed  greatly  from  one  Member  State  to  another.  This  is  due  to  the  varied  national 

156 Ibid., p. 40. 
157 Ibid. 

38 

 
 
                                                           
laws and practices regarding victims’ rights. The same conclusion can be  drawn on the 
availability  of  general  resources  and  the  costs  associated  with  implementing  specific 
provisions of the Directive. Certain limitations, such as the lack of complete monitoring 
and  reporting  by  Member  States,  affected  the  assessment  of  the  Directive’s  efficiency. 
For  instance,  by  the  time  this  Staff  Working  Document  was  published,  some  Member 
States had provided the Commission with only partial data and statistics, as required by 
Article  28  of  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive.  Evidence  shows  that  data  on  support 
services’  resources  are  also  very  scarce  and  fragmented.  There  is  a  variety  of  budget 
streams  in  most  Member  States,  linked  to  the  fragmentation  of  competences  across 
national  authorities. The under-funding of the victim protection  system  from  the public 
budget  and  the  sporadic  use  of  other  resources  were  identified  as  a  potential  cause  of 
inefficiencies in victim protection measures. 

Although difficult to quantify, the evaluation of the Directive confirms that it has broadly 
generated  the  benefits  it  was  expected  to.  This  is  particularly  the  case  for  the  overall 
treatment of victims by competent authorities, victims’ being able to count on their right 
to  information  and  protection  being  enforced,  as  well  as  their  right  to  access  support 
services and justice. Member States have also started to pay more attention to the privacy 
of victims. In general, the Directive has enhanced victims’ safety and reduced the risk of 
secondary victimisation and retaliation.  

The  evaluation  shows  that  the  Directive  is  internally  and  externally  coherent  to  a 
satisfactory  degree.  On internal  coherence, potential  inconsistencies were identified in 
relation to the status of victims. The lack of a clear legal concept for the status of a victim 
in  criminal  proceedings  potentially  raises  practical  issues  for  the  achievement  of  the 
Directive’s  objectives.  On  external  coherence,  there  are  no  major  inconsistencies 
between the Directive and national legislation. Some of the difficulties identified can be 
attributed  to  the  fact  that  some  of  the  Directive’s  provisions  remain  vague.  Still,  the 
evaluation  shows  that  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive  is  in  general  coherent  with  the 
sectorial legislation on victims’ rights, such as the Counter-terrorism Directive, the Anti-
trafficking  Directive,  the  Child  Sexual  Abuse  Directive  and  the  Combating  Fraud 
Directive.  

Evidence  from  the  evaluation  shows  that  the  Directive  has  provided  added  value  by 
extending the provisions of the Victims’ Standing Decision, prompting further action and 
investments and introducing crucial new aspects. The Directive’s added value on access 
to information is the introduction of specific rights, such as the right to understand and be 
understood  and  the  right  to  receive  information.  As  regards  access  to  support  services, 
the  added  value  of  the  Directive  is  linked  to  the  wider  establishment  of  generic  victim 
support  services  and  their  extension  to  all  types  of  victims.  In  terms  of  the  right  to 
protection,  the  added  value  included  the  introduction  of  minimum  standards  for  victim 
protection  and  support  and  the  individual  assessment  of  victims’  needs.  On  access  to 
justice, evidence from the evaluation study suggests that the Directive has contributed to 
enhancing  provisions  related  to  procedural  rights.  An  important  added  value  of  the 

39 

 
Directive  is  also  related  to  the  handling  of  cross-border  cases,  which  enhances  the 
cooperation of victim support services.  

In certain cases, the Directive’s added value was limited by a lack of specificity of some 
provisions. The conclusion of the assessment of this criterion also varies across Member 
States,  with  some  having  strong  national  legislation  on  victims’  rights  prior  to  the 
Directive, while others recognised that this would not be prioritised without EU impetus.  

5.2.  LESSONS LEARNED 

Lessons  learned  and  some  possible  measures  are  set  out  below.  They  should  not  be 
understood  as  exhaustive.  These  recommendations  should  be  understood  as  food  for 
thought based on the findings of this evaluation and should not prejudge any decision to 
review the Directive. 

Victims’ ability to access information 

The right to information was significantly strengthened by the Directive, even though 
victims of crime still face several difficulties when trying to access this right. A number 
of challenges were identified regarding the content and the provision of information,  at 
the  different  stages  of  the  victim’s  experience  (i.e.  first  contact/during  criminal 
proceedings). On  the content of the information provided, some of the main  challenges 
identified  were  a  lack  of  comprehensive  information,  low  awareness  of  services  and 
rights,  and  information  that  is  not  sufficiently  tailored  to  victims’  needs  or  accessible 
enough. The main difficulties with the provision of information are the lack of awareness 
of  where  to  find  it,  language  barriers,  information  provision’s  being  too  reliant  on  the 
crime’s being reported, and insufficient information accessibility (i.e. online literacy and 
proximity to services).  

Possible actions 

  The  Directive  could  provide  more  details  on  the  information  requirements  for 
victims at different stages of the process, including on the content of information. 

 

 

 

It  could  establish  an  obligation  to  operate  the  single  victim  helpline  in  every 
Member State. 

It could introduce a requirement that the provision of information be coordinated 
through governmental organisations and NGOs coming into contact with victims 
to ensure consistent and systematic provision of information. 

It could introduce a requirement that information be provided in multiple formats: 
written, online or through visual media. It could also ensure that those who come 
into  contact  with  victims  are  trained  to  provide  information  in  a  way  that  takes 
into account victims’ needs. 

 

It  could  introduce  a  requirement  that  information  be  made  widely  available  and 
accessible to victims permanently, even if they do not report the crime. 

40 

 
Victims’ access to support services 

The Directive has improved victims’ access to support services. However, there is room 
for improvement in the provision of specialised expertise to meet specific victims’ needs. 
Other remaining problems include uneven information distribution at national level and 
the  lack  of  certain  services.  Part  of  the  reason  for  this  is  the  difficulty  in  interpreting 
certain provisions of the Directive, such as ‘access to justice’ and ‘sufficient geographical 
coverage’. The evaluation also shows that the quality criteria are vague (support services 
having  to  be  reliable  and  to  respond  to  victims’  needs  in  a  respectful,  professional  and 
non-discriminatory manner) and a lack of proper standards. This is partly the result of the 
discretion  given  to  Member  States  on  access  to  support  services,  with  some  of  them 
choosing to do little, while others adopt a more extensive approach. 

Possible actions 

  Development  of  guidelines  on  how  support  services  should  operate  (e.g. 
clarification  of  minimum  standards)  and  be  more  available  (i.e.  accessible  by 
victims  in  remote  areas  or  by  victims  who  do  not  report  the  crime).  Possible 
alignment  with  the  terms  of  the  Istanbul  Convention  could  allow  a  harmonised 
approach towards support services.  

  Adoption  of  a  one-stop  shop  approach  by  Member  States,  whereby  several 
agencies or centres work together in one network victims can turn to to obtain all 
relevant support and advice. 

  Provision by Member States of free psychological support and medical treatment 
for  as  long  as  vulnerable  victims  need  them  (as  a  minimum)  –  this  could  be 
streamlined with the provisions of the Counter-terrorism Directive. 

  Provision  by  Member  States  of  single  national  online  information  tools  to 

facilitate access to assistance and support. 

Victims’ access to justice 

On victims’ access to justice, the Directive has introduced a set of rights for victims in 
the  event  of  a  decision  not  to  prosecute  and  has  established  the  right  to  be  heard. 
Nonetheless, evidence from the evaluation study suggests that some groups of vulnerable 
victims  seem  to  have  difficulties  accessing  justice  because  Member  States  still  lack 
specific procedures for vulnerable victims. The procedural aspects of the rights related to 
access  to  justice  are  regulated  by  national  law  and  their  effectiveness  in  practice  is 
difficult  to  assess  as  it  can  be  limited  by  national  procedural  requirements.  Common 
challenges  to  access  to  justice  stem  from  competent  authorities’  limited  awareness  of 
victims’  rights  and  victims’  own  limited  awareness,  judicial  authorities’  lack  of 
sensitivity towards victims, or the use of highly legal and complex language. 

Possible actions 

41 

 
  Ensure that victims can be accompanied by  a legal/administrative representative 
throughout criminal proceedings and that they have access to legal remedies. 

  Provide  guidance  on  the  application  of  the  General  Data  Protection  Regulation 

(GDPR) in the context of victims’ rights to ensure greater consistency. 

  Adopt certain rights, normally reserved for parties to proceedings, for all victims 
of  crime  to  better  meet  their  needs  and  enhance  their  participatory  rights.  This 
could include greater powers for victims of crime to request evidence to be taken 
into account. 

Victims’ right to protection 

Significant  challenges were also  identified with  regard to  victims’  right to protection. 
Indeed,  the  Directive  has  introduced  the  victims’  right  to  individual  needs  assessment. 
This  is  considered  a  major  achievement.  However,  the  evaluation  study  shows  that  the 
implementation  of  this  right  is  partially  hampered  because  of  the  lack  of  specific 
guidelines for conducting assessments, the lack of awareness or  the lack of training for 
practitioners. It was pointed out that the Directive does not provide measures for victims’ 
physical protection. This may explain the great diversity of existing measures and affect 
the mutual recognition of protection orders. Remaining factors limiting victims’ right to 
protection  are  the  lack  of  measures  to  avoid  contact  with  the  offender  and  the  uneven 
level of protection of victims’ privacy. 

Possible actions 

  Encourage  Member  States  to  cooperate  with  support  services.  Support  services 
could follow up on the individual needs assessment to ensure that the protection 
of victims is adjusted to their changing needs. 

  Examine  the  possibility  of  establishing  additional  minimum  standards  for 
physical  protection  measures  such  as  restraining  orders,  setting  up  a  telephone 
line available 24/7, providing shelters and ensuring support services are available 
in remote areas. 

  Consider  strengthening  privacy  measures  –  for  example  by  providing  more 

specific requirements on how privacy should be ensured. 

  Explore  the  possibility  of  introducing  a  template  for  a  cross-border  referral 

mechanism. 

Provision of training 

The problem with the provision of training was that there was often a lack of quantity 
and quality. The degree of training provided differed from one authority to another. The 
most progress was made on the availability of training for law enforcement officials, but 
training  for  the  judiciary  and  other  relevant  stakeholders  (e.g.  victim  support 
organisations)  could  be  further  improved.  This  is  partially  a  reflection  of  the  different 

42 

 
approach  in  the  Directive  between  an  obligation  and  an  encouragement  to  provide 
training. 

Possible actions 

  Encourage  Member  States  to  introduce  interdisciplinary  training  (i.e.  training 
with different authorities and communities to improve cooperation and build more 
trust).  

  Ensure  that  training  is  available  and  relevant  professionals  are  encouraged  to 

attend. 

  Give  stakeholders  guidance  on  the  types  of  training  (e.g.  the  introduction  of 

training on ‘soft skills’ to deal with different vulnerabilities). 

Cross-cutting elements: 

The  evaluation  study  identified  cross-cutting  elements  that  have  a  negative  impact  on 
the implementation of the Directive. In particular, this is the lack of cooperation between 
different  authorities  in  Member  States  and  between  Member  States.  Collaborative 
platforms  among  Member  States  are  not  well  developed,  hindering  the  referral  of  and 
support for cross-border victims. 

Possible actions 

  Encourage  Member  States  to  nominate  one  national  authority  as  a  coordinating 
authority  responsible  for  collecting,  monitoring  and  reporting  implementation 
data.  

  Encourage  Member  States  to  set  up  safe  reporting  channels  to  help  victims 
overcome  the  fear  of  reporting  that  is  leading  to  low  reporting  rates  (e.g. 
anonymous  reporting  channels  or  third-party  reporting).  Consider  also  the 
possibility  of  putting  in  place  practical  firewalls  between  law  enforcement  and 
immigration  authorities,  for  victims  who  are  afraid  of  being  returned  to  the 
country they came from if they report a crime. 

  Reinforce  the  systematic  collection  of  data  on  key  aspects  to  monitor  the 

functioning of the Directive. 

43 

 
 
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/COMMISSION WORK PROGRAMME REFERENCES 

The Evaluation Roadmap for the initiative was published by the Directorate-General for 
Justice  and  Consumers  of  the  European  Commission  (DG  JUST)  on  the Commission’s 
‘Have your say’ website158 in December 2020. The Terms of Reference were drawn up 
for  engaging  a  contractor  to  carry  out  the  external  study  as  part  of  the  evaluation.  A 
request  for  service  was  issued  on  27  January  2021,  and  a  contractor  selected  by  an 
evaluation  committee.  The  study  began  on  29  April  2021  with  a  kick-off  meeting  and 
ended  in  November  2021.  The  agenda  planning  (Decide)  reference  assigned  to  the 
evaluation is PLAN/2020/9515. The evaluation was announced in the Commission Work 
Programme 2022. 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

In  line  with  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  an  existing  interservice  steering  group 
within  the  Commission  oversaw  the  evaluation.  Several  Commission  Directorates-
General were invited to nominate steering group representatives. 

The  steering  group  meetings  were  chaired  by  DG  JUST.  The  steering  group  was 
regularly  consulted  over  the  course  of  the  evaluation,  typically  in  conjunction  with  the 
submission  of  specific  draft  reports  by  the  contractor  responsible  for  carrying  out  the 
external  study.  These  consultations  took  place  in  regular  meetings,  by  email  or  on  the 
telephone.  

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

In  conducting  the  evaluation,  no  exceptions  from  the  usual  procedural  requirements 
described in the Better Regulation Guidelines were required. 

4.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

DG  JUST  used  an  external  contractor  to  support  the  evaluation  of  the  Victims’  Rights 
Directive.  ICF159  carried  out  a  study  of  the  extent  to  which  the  Victims’  Rights 
Directive’s  objectives  have  been  achieved,  and  offered  conclusions  and  broad 
recommendations  on  how  to  address  the  shortcomings  identified  in  the  study.  In 
particular,  the  resulting  final  report  presents  quantitative  and  qualitative  evidence  to 
assess  the  Directive’s  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence  and  EU  added 

158 
victims-evaluation-of-the-Victims%E2%80%99-Rights-Directive_en  

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12727-Supporting-crime-

159 ICF S.A. - external contractor 

44 

 
 
                                                           
value,  as  well  as  its  impact  on  fundamental  rights160.  The  report’s  findings  and  final 
recommendations  should  also  help  the  Commission  to  identify  the  key  problems  and 
draw out the priorities for future legislative or non-legislative action161.  

The evaluation study assessed how the 26 Member States bound by the Directive (all but 
Denmark) have transposed and implemented the Directive since its entry into force on 15 
November  2012.  The  study  identified  challenges  and  success  factors  in  the  Directive’s 
implementation at EU level, but also in its transposition at national level in each Member 
State.  To  do  this,  it  examined  the  relevant  national  legislation  and  implementing 
measures.  In  addition  to  the  legal  aspects,  the  study  covered  the  practical  aspects  and 
challenges  of  implementing  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive.  It  also  took  stock  of  the 
Directive’s legal links with other EU instruments in the area of victims’ rights.  

The study was guided by and structured around an evaluation matrix. The approach was 
changed slightly after the kick-off meeting between the Commission and the contractor 
on 21 April 2021 and at the elementary stage of the literature review during the inception 
phase. 

During  the  inception  phase,  the  contractor  did  a  literature  review  of  primary  and 
secondary  sources.  The  primary  sources  included  publications  from  the  EU  institutions 
and agencies (legal and policy documents), as well as publications from  NGOs and EU 
platforms  and  networks.  The  contractor  also  used  the  national  reports  written  in  2018-
2019  in  the  context  of  the  conformity  assessment  of  the  transposition  of  the  Victims’ 
Rights  Directive.  At  this  preliminary  stage,  the  contractor  also  looked  at  secondary 
sources such as studies and academic papers, statistical data, or position papers162. 

A  baseline  scenario  was  prepared  based  on  the  information  collected  through  desk 
research.  In  line  with  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  the  baseline  comprises  an 
assessment of the situation before the adoption of the Victims’ Rights Directive, and of 
the  situation  during  the  transition  period  before  its  complete  implementation  in  2021-
2015. The study then reported the changes compared to this baseline in subsequent years. 
These changes were examined at EU level and, where possible, at Member State level163.  

Preliminary written and oral consultations also took place during the inception phase, to 
gather  the  views  and  experiences  of  a  representative  panel  of  international,  EU  and 
national stakeholders in the area of victims’ rights.  

First, an online survey was put together for victim support organisations in EU Member 
States. The survey was open for replies from 23 July to 7 October 2021. The contractor 
received  22  responses  from  organisations  established  in  10  Member  States:  Belgium, 
Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece and Ireland. The 

160 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 11. 
161 Ibid. 
162 Ibid., p. 19. 
163 Ibid. 

45 

 
                                                           
survey  questions  covered  specific  and  practical  issues  related  to  the  effectiveness  and 
relevance  of  key  provisions  of  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive.  Stakeholders  were  also 
asked for their views on the Directive’s coherence with national legislation. Finally, they 
were  asked for their views on  the added value of an EU  directive  compared with  what 
could have been achieved at Member State level alone. The platform used for the survey 
was Qualtrics.  

Then,  from  the  beginning  of  July  2021,  the  contractor  conducted  more  targeted 
consultations  in  the  form  of  a  written  questionnaire  and  a  semi-structured  interview. 
Stakeholders were given the choice between the written questionnaire and the interview. 
One hundred and twenty-five stakeholders of different categories were contacted, such as 
competent  national  authorities  responsible  for  implementing  the  Directive,  academic 
experts,  EU  officials  and  representatives  from  civil  society.  The  selected  pool  of 
representatives from national authorities included officials from the Ministry of Justice, 
members  of  the  judiciary,  law  enforcement  officials,  national  rapporteurs  and 
ombudsmen. The questionnaire covered the five evaluation criteria. 

The inception report was finalised in July 2021. It included a section on the background 
and  policy  context  of  the  evaluation,  presented  the  state  of  play  of  research  and  a  first 
overview of the implementation issues identified.  

The  contractor  then  drafted  an  interim  report  on  the  basis  of  the  desk  research  and  the 
first  feedback  from  stakeholders.  Finalised in  September 2021, the  report presented the 
preliminary  findings  of  the  evaluation  against  the  five  evaluation  criteria  (relevance, 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence  and  EU  added  value)  and  fundamental  rights.  The 
analysis was further refined after final consultations with stakeholders.  

In particular, the Commission  carried out  a public  consultation  over  14  weeks  from  19 
July to 25 October 2021. The Commission received 95 contributions, which were taken 
into account in the drafting of the final evaluation report. 

The  period  during  which  feedback  was  accepted  for  preliminary  written  and  oral 
consultations  covered  the  summer  holiday  period.  To  ensure  the  highest  possible 
participation rate, the deadlines were extended until the beginning of October.  

Three  focus  groups  chaired  by  ICF  were  set  up  in  the  final  stage  of  the  evaluation  in 
October  2021.  In  the  interests  of  having  an  open  discussion  on  the  evaluation’s 
preliminary findings, they brought national victim support associations and EU umbrella 
organisations  together  at  EU  level  to  validate  the  main  findings  and  get  stakeholders’ 
views  on  good  practices  and  remaining  challenges164.  These  exchanges  also  helped  to 
identify problems and draw up recommendations for the Commission on how to address 
them. 

164 Ibid., p. 97. 

46 

 
                                                           
Finally,  two  validation  workshops  were  held  on  8  and  9  November  2021  with  the 
members of the European Network for Victims’ Rights to present the study’s preliminary 
conclusions. On this occasion, the participants discussed the main findings and eventual 
follow up action from the Commission.  

In  line  with  the  official  recommendations  on  social  distancing  in  the  context  of  the 
COVID-19 pandemic, the three focus groups and the two validation workshops were held 
online with remote participation. 

ICF’s  partner  Victims  Support  Europe,  as  well  as  the  European  Network  for  Victims’ 
Rights,  joined  their  efforts  in  carrying  out  the  consultation  process  by  participating  in 
stakeholder  engagement.  Victim  Support  Europe  did  this  by  circulating  the  link  to  the 
online survey and to the public consultation among its contacts and peer organisations in 
EU Member States.  Victim Support Europe encouraged victim support organisations to 
reply  to  the  questionnaires  and  further  circulate  the  link,  thus  playing  a  crucial  role  in 
mobilising many key stakeholders among their members. Thanks to this partnership, the 
study team could get feedback from organisations across all of the 26 EU Member States 
in  which  the  Directive  applies.  The  European  Network  for  Victims’  Rights  played  the 
same role for national competent authorities in the context of the targeted consultations 
conducted by the study team and the public consultation launched by the Commission.  

The final  report of the  study  to  support the evaluation  of the Victims’ Rights  Directive 
presents  the  evidence  gathered  and  analysed  and  answers  each  of  the  evaluation 
questions.  

The  report  is  structured  around  the  key  components  of  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive, 
namely  its  scope  and  its  main  provisions.  In  particular,  the  report  assesses  the  main 
obligations related to the right to information, the right to protection, the right to access 
support services and to have better access to justice. The contractor examined the quality 
of the transposition of the Directive’s provisions, and identified potential implementation 
and  practical  shortcomings  by  analysing  the  situation  in  each  Member  State.  This  was 
done using the five evaluation criteria. 

There  are  however  some  limitations  to  the  study’s  findings.  Certain  aspects  of  the 
evaluation  questions  were  not  covered  or  supported  by  evidence  in  the  literature, 
especially  on  the  Directive’s  efficiency  and  added  value,  as  well  as  on  how  individual 
Member  States  implemented  the  Directive.  To  overcome  this  limitation,  specific 
questions  on  the measures  taken  at  national  level  to  comply  with  the  Directive  and  the 
practical  difficulties  faced  were  included  in  the  surveys  and  questionnaire  for  national 
stakeholders165.  As  a  result,  most  of  the  information  gaps  identified  in  the  written 
documentation  were  partially  filled  by  stakeholder  feedback.  However,  this  meant  that 
some findings of the study were based on evidence from a single type of source, which 
could not be triangulated.  

165 Ibid. 

47 

 
                                                           
Quantitative information from Member States was incomplete or partial in several cases. 
This affected the robustness of some of the study’s findings, in particular the efficiency 
assessment  and  the  evaluation  of  the  costs  and  benefits  incurred  by  the  Directive’s 
implementation across all EU Member States. It appears that the responsibility for victim 
support  is  spread  among  various  governmental  and  non-governmental  actors.  It  seems 
that, consequently, there is no regular and reliable collection of statistical data regarding 
victim  support’  costs  at  national  level  in  the  EU  Member  States.  The  Directive’s 
implementation  also  involves  costs  of  a  different  nature  and  it  covers  all  victims  of  all 
crimes. It is therefore difficult to carry out an accurate and comparable analysis of costs 
without  access  to  disaggregated  data  for  each  crime  category166.  To  address  these 
shortcomings, the study supported its analysis with additional statistical data provided by 
the Commission. 

166 Ibid., p. 99. 

48 

 
                                                           
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

1.  METHODS AND SOURCES 

The  evaluation  aimed  to  analyse  the  implementation  and  application  of  the  Victims’ 
Rights  Directive  in  Member  States  using  specific  criteria  set  out  in  the  Commission’s 
Better  Regulation  Guidelines  (relevance,  coherence,  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  EU 
added value), as well as the Directive’s impact on fundamental rights and freedoms.  

The external evaluation study was carried out by ICF, following a call for services under 
a  framework  contract.  The  evaluation  was  conducted  using  a  mixed  methods  approach 
and was informed by the triangulation of a variety of sources. A range of methodological 
tools and techniques were used. 

The evaluation study entailed extensive desk research involving a review of all relevant 
studies  and  literature.  It  covered  an  extensive  range  of  EU  and  Member  State  sources, 
such  as  legal  and  policy  documents,  studies  and  academic  papers,  statistical  data, 
transposition  and 
position  papers,  publications  from  relevant  stakeholders,  and 
implementation studies. 

The evaluation study established the baseline for intervention on the basis of the context 
in which the Victims’ Rights Directive was drafted and adopted. Where feasible, it then 
analysed the developments in the area, namely the transposition period and the changes 
that occurred afterwards at EU level and at Member State level. 

A  wide  range  of  stakeholders  were  consulted  as  part  of  the  evaluation  study.  The 
consultation  process  consisted  of  targeted  consultations  of  key  EU,  international  and 
national stakeholders, as well as a public consultation launched by the Commission. 

The targeted consultations included:  an online survey  aimed at  national victim support 
organisations; a questionnaire or semi-structured interviews for national authorities 
responsible  for  implementing  the  Directive  in  Member  States;  focus  groups  to  discuss 
the main study findings and possible recommendations with EU umbrella organisations 
working  in  the  area  of  victims’  rights  and  with  national  victims’  associations;  semi-
structured interviews with academics and EU officials. A more detailed description of 
the consultations is described in the Synopsis Report in Annex V.  

A public consultation  was launched by the Commission  on 10 July 2021 and remained 
open until 25 October 2021. The consultation received 95 contributions. The analysis of 
the contributions is presented in Annex V. 

In addition to the consultation activities carried out by ICF, the Commission organised a 
plenary  meeting  of  the  Victims’  Rights  Platform  on  15  December  2021.  During  the 
meeting, the Commission presented the preliminary study findings to the members of the 

49 

 
 
 
platform  that  includes  representatives  of  EU-level  networks,  agencies,  bodies  and  civil 
society  organisations  relevant  for  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Strategy  on  victims’ 
rights.  The  purpose  of  this  was  to  ascertain  whether  the  findings  were  in  line  with  the 
views of EU-level actors relevant for victims’ rights. 

The  evaluation  is  thus  based  on  a  combination  of  extensive  desk  research  and  field 
research,  legal  analysis  including  relevant  case  law,  and  a  broad  range  of  stakeholder 
feedback  from  consultations  carried  out  by  the  external  contractor  and  by  the 
Commission. This made it possible to triangulate the findings of the evaluation. 

2.  LIMITATIONS 

The  assessment  is  that  the  evaluation  took  place  under  favourable  conditions  with  a 
certain level of interest in it from all sides. In most Member States, the evidence provided 
by the literature review, combined with input from stakeholders, was sufficient to draw 
evidence-based conclusions on aspects such as the exact nature of the measures adopted 
after 2012  and/or whether they were a  consequence of the Directive or implementation 
issues167. 

However, certain limitations, related to the limited or fragmented evidence for the costs 
of implementation, and to fragmented data for certain aspects of the evaluation, affected 
the findings. 

The  main  limitation  of  the  desk  research  and  consultation  process  was  poor  access  to 
reliable statistical data and quantitative figures. The information provided, especially on 
implementation, was either insufficient or inoperable. Since 16 November 2017, Article 
28  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  communicate  to  the  Commission 
‘available  data  showing  how  victims  have  accessed  the  rights  set  out  in  this  Directive’ 
every 3 years. However, the data provided were often incomplete. This explains why the 
costs and benefits of the Directive could not be fully examined for all Member States. It 
affected  the  robustness  of  some  of  the  report’s  findings,  in  particular  the  efficiency 
assessment.  

One of the reasons Member States  indicated for the lack of consistent and reliable data 
collection  is  the  significant  number  of  institutions  involved.  It  appears  that  the 
responsibility  for  victim  support  is  spread  among  various  governmental  actors,  such  as 
judicial  authorities,  law  enforcement  authorities,  central  authorities,  but  also  non-
governmental actors, such as a wide diversity of general and specialised victim support 
services at national level and umbrella organisations and networks at EU level. Victims’ 
rights-related  costs  are  not  monitored  as  a  single  item  in  their  respective  budgets.  It 
seems  that,  consequently,  there  is  no  regular  and  reliable  collection  of  statistical  data 
regarding victim support’ costs at national level in the Member States. The incremental 
costs of all the authorities involved are not monitored or recorded at national level. 

167 Ibid., p. 20. 

50 

 
                                                           
The  Directive’s  implementation  also  involves  costs  of  a  different  nature  such  as 
transposition costs, equipment and operational costs, human and financial resources costs 
or cooperation costs. The Victims’ Rights Directive is a horizontal instrument that covers 
all  victims  of  crime.  Member  State  authorities  and  organisations,  however,  do  not 
necessarily categorise the costs in the same manner. For instance, some organisations or 
bodies  may  provide  data  for  specific  categories  of  victims  of  crime.  At  the  same  time, 
some can provide yearly estimates, while others provide a rough figure covering several 
years168.  This  makes  it  difficult  to  carry  out  an  accurate  and  comparable  analysis  of 
costs169.  

Some  costs  are  easy  to  account  for  and  compare,  but  it  appears  that  many  costs  and 
benefits  are  difficult  to  estimate,  such  as  cooperation  and  respectful,  tailored  and 
professional treatment of victims. Similarly, the assessment of the Directive’s impact on 
fundamental rights is limited by Member States’ irregular monitoring of the issue170. 

The  lack  of  reliable  quantitative  information  made  it  difficult  to  compare  the  current 
costs and benefits with the baseline. To address these shortcomings, the study supported 
its analysis with additional statistical data provided by the Commission. ICF  also asked 
specific questions about the measures taken at national level to comply with the Directive 
and  the  practical  difficulties  faced  in  the  surveys  and  questionnaire  for  national 
stakeholders171.  When  quantitative  data  were  too  limited,  ICF  analysed  the  data 
qualitatively.  The  study  team  estimated  the  efforts  required  based  on  the  changes  that 
occurred in Member States as a result of the Directive’s entry into force.  

Thanks to the stakeholder feedback, most of the information gaps identified in the written 
documentation were partially filled. However, this means that some findings of the study 
are based on evidence from a single type of source, which could not be triangulated. This 
in turn made it difficult to assess the situation in each Member State in a more balanced 
way.   

There were also some limitations that affected the information and feedback provided by 
stakeholders  in  the  consultations.  A  short  timeline  for  carrying  out  the  consultations, 
combined with the fact that the consultation period overlapped with the summer holiday 
period  and  the  wide  range  of  stakeholders  involved  in  implementing  the  Directive 
nationally,  led  to  some  delays  in  the  organisation  of  the  consultation  activities.  The 
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the organisation of services nationally and at EU 
level  and  the  attendant  social  distancing  measures  played  a  role  in  the  initially  low 
participation rate of stakeholders in the evaluation. 

To  ensure  the  highest  possible  number  of  responses  from  stakeholders,  ICF  sent  up  to 
three  rounds  of  reminders  to  non-responsive  stakeholders,  where  possible,  in  their 

168 Ibid., p. 21. 
169 Ibid., p. 99. 
170 Ibid., p. 21. 
171 Ibid., p. 97. 

51 

 
                                                           
national  language  and  by  telephone.  For  specific  stakeholders  whose  feedback  was 
considered  particularly  crucial,  ICF  continued  to  make  efforts  to  secure  their 
participation,  also  involving  the  EU  umbrella  organisation  Victim  Support  Europe  and 
the  European  Network  for  Victims’  Rights.  The  deadline  to  participate  in  the  activities 
was  also  extended  several  times,  ultimately  until  October  2021.  The  fact  that 
stakeholders were given the choice between an oral or a written format to provide their 
input gave them some flexibility. Stakeholders could opt for the format that corresponded 
best to their working methods and the nature of the data to be collected.  

52 

 
 
 
ANNEX  III.  EVALUATION  MATRIX  AND,  WHERE  RELEVANT,  DETAILS  ON  ANSWERS  TO 
THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

1.  To what extent are the Directive’s scope and definitions suitable and appropriate for 

achieving the Directive’s objectives? 
  To  what  extent  is  the  definition  of  victim  fit  for  purpose?  Where  does  the 

definition sit on a scale from being too broad, to being too narrow? 

  Are the definitions contained in the Directive still fit for purpose considering the 
evolution  in  victims’  needs  and  contextual  developments?  Is  there  a  need  to 
revise/add any definitions?  

  Are there any gaps in terms of types of victims covered/crimes covered? 

2.  To what extent are the provisions/minimum standards on support for and protection 

of crime victims of the Victims’ Rights Directive suitable?  
  To what extent do the provisions of the Directive ensure the proper recognition of 

victims? 

  Are  the  provisions  relevant  to  guarantee  that  victims  are  treated  in  a  non-

discriminatory manner? 

  To what extent do the provisions of the Directive ensure that victims are treated 
in  a  respectful,  sensitive,  and  tailored  manner  in  all  contacts  with  services  and 
authorities? 

  Are the provisions of the Directive relevant and specific enough to ensure a child-

sensitive approach? 

  Are any of the provisions in the Directive no longer relevant/obsolete? 

Effectiveness 

3.  To what extent has the VRD been successful in achieving its objectives (as stated in 

Article 1)? 
  To what extent has the Directive ensured that victims of crime receive appropriate 

information? 

  To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  ensured  that  victims  of  crime  access  support 

services? 

  To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  ensured  that  victims  of  crime  are  able  to 

participate in criminal proceedings? 

  To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  ensured  that  victims  receive  appropriate 

protection? 

  To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  ensured  that  the  child’s  best  interests  are 

properly taken into account and assessed on an individual basis? 

  Elements to be covered under each sub-question above: 

o  What were the rules and measures in place at MS level before 2012 (if any)? 

53 

 
 
 
 
o  What  changes  have  occurred  in  the  past  five-seven  years  (standards, 

procedures, mechanisms, etc.) 

o  To what extent are more victims receiving appropriate information/access to 

support services/access to justice/protection as a result of the Directive? 

o  What are the main success factors/good practices? 

4.  To  what  extent  do  law  enforcement,  the  judiciary  and  other  relevant  professionals 
receive  appropriate  training,  guidance,  etc.  to  increase  their  awareness,  knowledge 
and skills required to properly implement the Directive? 
 

Is  there  an  obligation  to  offer  training  for  law  enforcement,  people  from  the 
judiciary and other professionals and/or obligation to take part in it? How and to 
what extent can/should such training obligations be improved? 

  What kind of training and/or other guidance do practitioners receive in practice? 
Do they receive any specialised training, guidelines, protocols, briefing sessions, 
for  example  child-  and  gender-sensitive  training?  If  so,  what  aspects  does  this 
training cover? Is this training adequate? 

5.  What factors are limiting the effectiveness of the Victims’ Rights Directive? 

  What are the main challenges faced by victims when trying to rely on their rights 
(for  each  provision  topic;  i.e.  right  to  information,  right  to  access  support 
services, right to access justice, right to protection)? 

  What  barriers/obstacles  do  competent  authorities  or  organisations  encounter 
which limit their effective application of the Directive (for each provision topic; 
i.e.  right  to  information,  right  to  access  support  services,  right  to  access  justice, 
right to protection)? 

  Are  there  any  new  elements  or  circumstances  to  be  investigated,  prosecuted  or 
adjudicated for which the Directive does not foresee? (as a result of the COVID-
19 pandemic or new type of crime, or other)? 

Efficiency 

6.  What  are  the  implementation  costs  and  the  benefits  incurred  by  the  Directive  –  in 

the individual Member States and overall? 
  Which aspects of the Directive have been most costly to implement? 

7.  Are there any areas in which cost savings could be made? 

  Do the benefits outweigh the costs? 

Coherence 

8.  To what extent are the provisions of the Directive internally coherent? 

  Are  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  internally  coherent?  If  not,  which 

inconsistencies can be identified and what are their consequences? 

9.  To what extent is the Victims’ Rights Directive coherent with and complementary to 

other policy interventions with similar objectives (at EU/MS/international levels)? 
  To what  extent are the objectives and definitions of the Directive  coherent  with 

other policy interventions at EU and international levels? 

54 

 
 

o  Are  there  discrepancies  in  the  way  the  objectives  and  definitions  of  the 

Directive are framed across other EU policy interventions? 

o  Are  there  discrepancies  in  the  way  the  objectives  and  definitions  of  the 

Directive are framed across other international policies (UN)? 

Is  the  provision  of  information  and  support  of  the  Directive  coherent  with  the 
provisions  implemented  at  Member  State  level  (rights  of  different  victims’ 
groups, protected categories)? 
o  Are there inconsistencies in the way that Member States have interpreted the 
Directive? If so, are there provisions of the Directive that could give rise to 
legal  uncertainty  or  potentially 
interpretations,  such  as 
stricter/more protective rules (e.g. Council Directive 2004/80/EC relating to 
compensation for crime victims, the Anti-trafficking Directive, the Directive 
on  fighting  sexual  exploitation  of  children,  and  the  Counter-Terrorism 
Directive)? 

inconsistent 

EU added value 

10.  To what extent has the situation of victims improved in the past years? 

  Can progress be directly attributed to the Directive? 
  Should additional measures be taken? 

11.  To  what  extent  could  such  progress  have  been  achieved  by  Member 

States/organisations on their own? 

Impact on fundamental rights  

12.  Are  you  aware  of  any  measures  that  MS  have  implemented  since  2015  to  ensure 

non-discrimination of crime victims at all stages of the criminal process? 

55 

 
 
 
ANNEX  IV.  OVERVIEW  OF  BENEFITS  AND  COSTS  [AND,  WHERE  RELEVANT,  TABLE  ON 
SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION] 

Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation 

Type of 
benefits/costs 

Stakeholders 
affected 

Qualitative description 
of costs/benefits  

Limitations in quantification/monetisation  

Direct benefits  

- 

Structure  and  content  of  the  monitoring  data   
limitations  for  making  causal  links  between  the 
number  of  victims  being  supported  and/or 
protected  (relative  to  the  total  number  of  crimes) 
and 
the  Directive’s 
impact  of 
implementation. 

the  direct 

- 

Intangible  nature  of 
identified  benefits 
(relating to human rights, victims’ treatment, etc.) 
 limitations for the monetisation of benefits. 

the 

Economic and social 
benefits 

  direct & 
indirect 
recurring  

 

Individuals 
(victims), society 
as a whole 

Better recognition and 
treatment of victims 

-  Mandatory training 
of law enforcement 
authorities on 
victims’ rights and 
needs  better 
communication and 
interaction between 
victims and law 
enforcement 
professionals.  
Implementation of 
needs assessment 
mechanisms  
better recognition 
and orientation of 
vulnerable and 
indirect victims 
through better 
identification of 
their specific needs.  

- 

Better protection of 
victims from secondary 
victimisation 

-  Wider recognition 

by Member States of 
victims’ right to 
receive protection 
within their 
jurisdictions and 
across (intra-EU) 
borders  victims 
less likely to be 
subjected to further 
criminal acts and 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 

intimidation during 
both criminal 
investigations and 
court proceedings. 
Separate waiting 
areas  increased 
victims protection 
during criminal 
proceedings (for 
instance, by 
avoiding the 
distress, for the 
victim, of having to 
come face-to-face 
with the offender). 

More effective access to 
victim support services 

- 

Increased presence 
of and access to 
generic and 
specialised support 
services across the 
EU  victims 
benefit from free 
and confidential 
support services 
tailored to their 
needs, thus 
increasing their 
wellbeing and 
safety. 

More effective access to 
justice through:  

- 

- 

better access to, and 
tailored content of, 
information 
a more victim-
centred approach 
(obligation for MS 
to implement and 
meet the VRD’s 
minimum standards 
on victims’ rights in 
criminal 
proceedings).  

57 

 
 
 
 
 
Indirect benefits 

Directive’s 
The 
implementation  has  led 
to 
the  direct  benefits 
listed  above.  Addressing 
victims’ 
needs 
significant  is resulting  in 
this indirect benefit: 
- 

victims  are  better 
and 
recognised 
better 
receive 
support 
treatment, 
protection 
and 
throughout  criminal 
and 
investigations 
court 
proceedings, 
mitigating  both  the 
physical 
and 
emotional turmoil of 
victims  during  their 
recovery/the 
aftermath 
crime. 

the 

of 

Economic costs  

  direct 
 

recurring  

Public 
administrations 
(both national and 
local)  

Victim Support 
Organisations  

NGOs 

This in turn brings down 
the total costs associated 
with crimes incurred by 
society (loss of 
productivity due to work 
incapacity, costs related 
to potentially necessary 
mental health support 
...). 

Direct costs 

Costs  identified  as  part 
of 
Impact 
the 
Assessment: 

- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

costs of training 
costs  of  improving 
victim 
support 
services  
of 
costs 
interpretation/transla
tion 
costs  of  restorative 
justice 
costs  of  attending 
trials 
costs  of  providing 
waiting 
separate 

58 

The estimation of the (overall and individual/national) 
costs  incurred  by  implementing  the  Directive  was  not 
possible, due to the following limitations:  

- 

- 

- 

fragmentation 

the  multitude  of  national  and  regional  authorities 
involved in implementing the Directive 
general 
the 
competences 
the  general  fragmentation of the  overall  structural 
organisation  of  victim  protection  and  support 
systems.  

authorities’ 

of 

 
 
 
 
areas. 

It was not possible to 
estimate and quantify the 
real costs incurred by 
implementing the 
Directive, but costs have 
been incurred by 
fulfilling the Directive’s 
obligations and 
implementing the related 
provisions, mainly for 
public adminstrations 
(both national and local). 
Victim support 
ogranisations and other 
NGOs also reported 
having incurred costs. 

59 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

1. Consultation objectives 

The  scope  of  the  consultation  was  relatively  broad.  It  covered  national  authorities 
responsible for transposing and implementing the Directive, special national rapporteurs, 
EU officials, academic experts, national victim support organisations, NGOs at EU level, 
management staff from networks and platforms active at EU level in the area of victims’ 
rights, and public opinion, including victims’ opinions.  

2.  Description of the consultation methods and tools by group of stakeholders  

To reach such a diverse  pool  of stakeholders, the contractor  used different  consultation 
tools and formats. The methodology and the tools used are described below.  

Victim  support  organisations  at  Member  State  level  contributed  through  an  online 
survey.  

Between  July  and  October  2021,  the  study  team  sought  input  from  national  competent 
authorities,  national  rapporteurs  and  ombudsmen,  academic  experts,  EU  officials  and 
NGOs, and management staff from networks and platforms at EU level. The stakeholders 
were  given  the  choice  between  two  ways  of  answering  the  questionnaire:  1)  in  the 
context  of  a  semi-structured  interview  online,  or  2)  by  emailing  their  written  replies  to 
the  study  team.  Thirty-four  interviews  were  conducted  and  ninety  written  contributions 
submitted to the study team. Most EU officials and representatives of organisations at EU 
level  preferred  interviews,  while  most  representatives  of  national  authorities  provided 
written replies to the questionnaire.  

The European Network for Victims’ Rights was in charge of sending the questionnaire to 
national  competent  authorities.  The  network  shared  with  the  contractor  the  inputs 
collected  from  their  contact  points  in  Member  States.  It  also  helped  the  study  team  to 
reach different categories of stakeholders, such as central authorities, by providing their 
contact details. The consultation strategy did not originally  envisage the consultation of 
central authorities, although they do play a role in implementing the Directive and were 
therefore relevant for the evaluation. Thanks to this help from the network, 15 officials in 
German federal authorities, as well as  staff from various ministries in Austria, Belgium 
and Romania sent replies to the questionnaire.  

The  study  team  also  analysed  the  results  of  a  public  consultation  carried  out  by  the 
Commission. The Commission launched the consultation on its ‘Have your say’ website 
on 19 July 2021 and accepted replies until 25 October 2021. The consultation was open 
to  the  public  and  to  individuals  representing  organisations.  It  asked  25  questions, 
covering all five main evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence 
and EU added value. The questionnaire was available in all EU official languages. The 
Commission received 95 contributions from 19 Member States and 2 non-EU countries 
(the Dominican Republic and South Africa). Germany was the Member State from which 
the highest number of replies originated, followed by Hungary and Belgium. Most replies 

60 

 
were from EU citizens and representatives of NGOs. Most of the replies referred to the 
criterion of added value, followed by effectiveness, coherence, relevance and efficiency.  

Finally, the study took into account the results of five meetings/workshops  (three focus 
groups  and  two  validation  workshops).  The  focus  group  of  1  October  2021brought 
together  14  participants  from  networks  and  NGOs  at  EU  level.  On  4  and  5  October 
202113  participants  gathered  together  from  national  victim  support  organisations.  ICF 
organised  and  coordinated  the  three  focus  groups  in  close  cooperation  with  Victim 
Support Europe. The participants were given the opportunity to react to the evaluation’s 
preliminary  findings,  particularly  to  the  problems  identified  and  the  proposed  way 
forward. These exchanges were also the occasion to point out and discuss data gaps. ICF 
and the European Network on Victims’ Rights coordinated the two validation workshops 
with  national  competent  authorities.  The  results  of  these  meetings  were  taken  into 
account in the evaluation. The meetings made it possible to take into account the views 
of other stakeholders who were not involved in the previous consultation stages, and to 
complement individual insights with the results of collaborative and creative discussions 
on victims’ rights. The opinions extracted from the chat of the  online focus groups and 
written material sent by the participants as a follow-up to the meetings provided further 
material for the evaluation.  

The inputs from the focus groups were particularly useful for further refining the report’s 
conclusion and final recommendations. The validation workshops of 8 and 9 November 
2021  aimed  at  refining  the  formulation  of  the  conclusion  and  recommendations  in  the 
draft  final  report.  The  workshops  brought  together  24  single  contact  points  of  the 
European  Network  for  Victims’  Rights.  They  represented  the  national  competent 
authorities  of  17  Member  States:  Austria,  Croatia,  Italy,  France,  Slovakia,  Romania, 
Germany,  Hungary,  Slovenia,  Belgium,  the  Netherlands,  Estonia,  Sweden,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Portugal, and Malta, including some Member States whose authorities had 
not participated in the previous consultation phases. 

3.  Targeted consultations 

The  targeted  consultation  activities  consisted  of  an  online  survey,  replies  to  a 
questionnaire  in  the  form  of  semi-structured  interviews  or  written  replies,  and 
conclusions from focus groups and workshops.   

Competent authorities responsible for implementing the Directive in the Member States, 
as  well  as  national  rapporteurs  and  ombudsmen,  constituted  the  first  group  of 
stakeholders  for  the  study.  For  this  group,  the  main  channel  for  providing  their 
contribution  was  written  replies  to  the  questionnaire  sent  to  them  by  the  European 
Network for Victims’ Rights. 

The second group of stakeholders comprised staff from the EU institutions and agencies. 
Most of them chose to reply to the consultation questions in an interview. A few of them 
submitted their replies by email.  

61 

 
The  study  team  also  got  in  touch  with  academics,  constituting  the  third  group  of 
stakeholders  who  participated  in  the  targeted  consultations.  All  of  this  group  provided 
input in semi-structured interviews. 

Victim  support organisations  constituted the fourth  group of stakeholders. They mainly 
contributed by sending written replies to the online survey. From this stakeholder group, 
13 representatives also participated in the focus groups of 3 and 4 October 2021, to react 
to the preliminary findings of the evaluation.  

Finally, the  consultation  strategy  identified  a fifth group of stakeholders. They  are also 
members  of  the  management  staff  of  NGOs,  but  represent  the  interests  of  networks, 
platform  and  umbrella  organisations  at  EU  level  rather  than  at  national  level.  These 
stakeholders  participated  in  the  targeted  consultations  mainly  by  replying  to  the 
questionnaire in semi-structured interviews, but some submitted their replies in  writing. 
From  this  group,  14  representatives  also  participated  in  the  focus  group  of  1  October 
2021.  

3.1. Results of the targeted consultations in relation to the relevance criterion 

3.1.1. Relevance of objectives 

Overall, Member State authorities considered that the provisions of the Directive remain 
relevant as  regards its  key  objectives, namely to improve  the  protection  of and support 
for victims of crime, to  facilitate access  to  justice and compensation  and to  ensure that 
victims  of  crime  are  treated  with  respect.  Most  national  authorities  replied  that  the 
provisions of the Directive are effective in protecting all victims at the different stages of 
criminal proceedings in a non-discriminatory manner, including vulnerable groups. They 
consider that the measures are concrete enough and applicable in practice. Member State 
authorities  and  victim  support  organisations  could  not  identify  any  provision  that  they 
would consider obsolete or irrelevant. Similarly, EU officials generally consider that the 
provisions  of  the  Directive  are  comprehensive  enough  and  fit  for  the  purpose  of 
providing rights and minimum standards for a wide range of victims of crime.  

EU officials who were consulted voiced concerns about the increasingly prominent role 
of  digital  and  communication  technologies  in  European  societies.  One  stakeholder 
believed that this increased the risk of re-victimisation, directly linked to the efficiency of 
policies  to  remove  harmful  content  online.  A  significant  part  of  the  inputs  from  this 
stakeholder  group  suggested  that  the  Directive  should  include  specific  provisions  for 
crimes  enabled  by  modern  technologies,  such  as  provisions  on  the  removal  of  illegal 
content online and hate crimes. Several national contact points also pointed out that some 
provisions may not be fully compatible with the increased use of new technologies and 
communication tools in police stations and courtrooms. Some academics insisted in their 
contributions  on  the  importance  of  ensuring  access  to  justice  through  online  tools  after 
the COVID-19 pandemic.   

A few competent authorities who were consulted stressed that proper implementation is a 
condition for the Directive to remain relevant.  

62 

 
Stakeholders from academia suggested many improvements, in particular as regards the 
right to information, protection and compensation, and improved access to justice. They 
also suggested introducing provisions on judicial remedies if the rights in the Directive 
are breached. National victim support organisations also made numerous suggestions for 
improvement, although no overall consensus emerged on the priorities for improvement 
and some suggestions even contradicted each other.  

Networks and umbrella organisations at EU level stressed the importance of the Victims’ 
Rights  Directive  because  it  sets  minimum  standards  at  EU  level.  However,  most  EU 
NGOs  recommended  further  clarifying  the  language  of  the  Directive  and  introducing 
more specific requirements. 

3.1.2. Relevance of definitions and scope 

Most  representatives  from  national  authorities  who  were  consulted  consider  that  the 
Directive’s definition of victim is relevant.  

All the stakeholders from EU institutions and agencies who were consulted consider the 
Directive’s ‘all-encompassing’ nature to be a strength172. Similarly, a few representatives 
of national authorities believe that it must retain its horizontal nature, with its provisions 
applying to  victims of all crimes. These representatives  also  believe that differentiating 
between categories of victims and types of crimes would duplicate sectorial legislation. 
In  their  opinion,  if  the  provisions  of  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive  would  apply  in  a 
different  manner  for  different  categories  of  victims,  then  it  would  lose  its  added  value 
compared with sectorial legislation. This would affect its relevance.  

Among  national  victim  support  organisations,  there  were  conflicting  views  on  whether 
the  Directive’s  scope  is  large  enough  and  covers  all  victims  sufficiently.  Three 
respondents said that the Directive’s definition of ‘victim’ is too restrictive. Two said that 
a definition of ‘victim of crime’ was lacking in their Member State. Some stakeholders 
from this group warned that some victims could be left behind, such as child victims of 
sexual abuse, cross-border victims, undocumented migrants or victims of online crime173.  

Stakeholders from national authorities and EU umbrella organisations agreed that certain 
categories  of  victims  may  not  be  sufficiently  covered,  or  would  even  fall  outside  the 
scope  of  the  Directive.  A  significant  number  of  national  authorities  claimed  that  this 
would  be  the  case  for  victims  of  human  trafficking,  victims  of  sexual  and  domestic 
violence, victims of hate crime and hate speech, and to a lesser extent victims of crimes 
enabled  by  digital  and  information  technologies  such  as  cybercrime  and  cyberbullying. 
EU-level  non-governmental  organisations  cited,  for  instance,  victims  of  online  crime, 
cross-border  victims  or  elderly  victims.  For  some  individuals  from  national  authorities, 
as  well  as  for  EU-level  NGOs,  the  Directive  does  not  correctly  address  the 

172 Ibid., p. 135. 
173 Ibid., p. 138. 

63 

 
                                                           
intersectionality  of  victims.  This  puts  these  victims  at  greater  risk  of  becoming  the 
subject of secondary and repeat victimisation.  

The under-reporting of crimes was the main concern of the officials from EU institutions 
and agencies who were consulted on the relevance criterion. In their view, the Directive 
does not sufficiently address situations  where victims may not be aware that they are a 
victim  of  crime,  especially  in  the  case  of  online  crime  or  violence  against  women  and 
domestic  violence.  Some  academic  experts  consider  that  victims’  rights  should  not  be 
contingent  on  the  victim’s  having  filed  a  complaint.  For  them,  the  rights  under  the 
Directive  should  not  depend  on  the  victim’s  being  given  a  formal  role  in  criminal 
proceedings. EU-level NGOs agreed that more specific provisions should address people 
at  risk  of  falling  victim  to  crime,  as  well  as  people  who  may  not  consider  themselves 
victims of crime. They explicitly regretted that the exercise of the rights in the Directive 
is too contingent on the victim’s formally reporting the crime, and on their being given a 
formal  role  in  criminal  proceedings.  Those  stakeholders  pointed  out  that  victims  have 
needs that outlast the duration of the criminal proceedings, such as the need to be treated 
for trauma.  

One  EU  official  also  pointed  out  the  particular  vulnerability  of  asylum  seekers,  who 
cannot exercise their rights under the Directive, such as access to support services, until 
their  status  is  recognised.  Having  residence  status  can  also  be  a  prerequisite  for 
introducing a claim for compensation or benefiting from protection measures.  

Three stakeholders from academia gave their views as part of the targeted consultations. 
On  the  scope  of  the  Directive,  the  definition  of  ‘family  members’  was  not  considered 
inclusive enough. They also pointed out that the relationship between the status of victim 
and that of convict or suspect needed to be clarified.  

One  of  the  consultation  questions  was  about  the  relevance  of  the  provisions  on  child 
victims. Most representatives from national Member State authorities praised the fact that 
the Directive provides for a legal framework for all child victims. Most Member States 
also  consider  that  the  related  provisions  are  specific  enough  to  ensure  a  child-centred 
approach. Some Member States disagree, saying that the provisions of the Directive are 
not specific enough on this, and do not constitute operational or concrete obligations. For 
these Member States, ‘child-sensitive’ or ‘child-centred’ approach is not clearly defined. 
Some  other  representatives  even  consider  that  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  do  not 
sufficiently  protect  child  victims,  as  they  are  not  specific  or  tailored  enough  for  this 
category of victims.  

One  official  from  an  EU  institution  considered  that  the  definition  of  ‘child’  in  the 
Directive  does  not  take  into  account  the  specific  needs  of  children.  In  particular,  the 
needs  of  young  children  may  not  be  the  same  as  the  needs  of  a  teenager  making  the 
transition  to  adulthood.  Most  national  victim  support  organisations  were  satisfied  with 
the child-sensitive approach put forward by the Directive.  

64 

 
Some  academic  experts  argued  that  the  Directive  does  not  sufficiently  address  the 
situation of victims in institutions, such as care and health institutions. According to one 
expert, there is also a legislative gap in relation to victims under guardianship and those 
who could  be dependent on the  agreement of their guardian to  make a  complaint.  This 
expert suggested  making provision  for the possibility to  appoint independent  mediators 
in the case of a conflict of interest between victims and people they depend on. 

Some  representatives  of  EU  institutions  and  agencies  stressed  that  the  scope  of 
application of each article of the Directive is not sufficiently clear. The way the Directive 
is drafted gives the impression that each provision applies to all  types of victims. They 
also  pointed  out  that  some  provisions  leave  too  much  room  for  manoeuvre  in 
interpretation  and  transposition  by  the  Member  States.  The  unclear  and  imprecise 
language of the Directive explains the differences of implementation and practice across 
the Member States.  

3.2. Results of the targeted consultations in relation to the effectiveness criterion 

3.2.1. General findings on effectiveness  

The vast majority of victim support organisations said that overall, more victims have 
been  treated  in  a  respectful,  sensitive,  professional  and  non-discriminatory  way  as  a 
result of the Directive. NGOs and networks at EU level believe that the Directive has 
effectively granted new rights to more victims. 

Several stakeholders from the EU institutions and agencies gave the Barnahus model as 
an example of  a  positive  impact  the Directive on Victims’ Rights has had. The EStAR 
project  (Enhancing  hate  crime  victim  support,  OSCE)  was  also  cited  as  an  example  of 
good practice. EU stakeholders and one academic expert believe that the Directive has 
improved the situation of victims of violence against women and domestic violence. The 
academic  expert  also  believes  that  the  provision  of  information  and  support  as  well  as 
access  to  justice  for  all  victims,  including  those  with  disabilities,  have  improved  as  a 
result of the Directive.  

Representatives from EU institutions and agencies consider that insufficient training on 
discrimination  and  working  with  child  victims  (for  instance  on  how  to  present 
information to child victims) has undermined the Directive’s effectiveness in these areas. 
They also suggested that a lack of awareness of the rights in the Directive still affects its 
application and proper implementation. 

EU officials also claimed that the absence of provisions on the removal of illegal content 
online,  notably  child  sexual  abuse  and  cyberbullying  material  leads,  to  secondary 
victimisation.  Two  other  problems  are 
limited  cross-border  cooperation  and 
discrepancies in the individual assessment of victims’ needs.  

One academic expert explained the financial cost of taking legal action could undermine 
the Directive’s effectiveness.  

65 

 
It  emerged from the  contributions  of  EU-level  organisations that two main factors are 
likely  to  hamper  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive.  The  first  concerns  the  lack  of 
disaggregated statistical data, preventing Member States from effectively monitoring the 
situation  as  regards  victims’  rights  on  their  territory,  but  also  preventing  comparisons 
between  Member  States.  The  second  problem  is  the  unclear  and  imprecise  language  of 
the  Directive,  identified  as  one  of  the  reasons  for  differences  in  implementation  and 
practice across Member States. 

3.2.2. Right to information 

Most  national  competent  authorities  consider  that  victims  have  sufficient  access  to 
information.  In their opinion, competent authorities play a proactive role in this regard. 
The Directive improved the content quality of information, by requiring that it be tailored 
to the specific needs of victims, especially children and particularly vulnerable victims. 
However, the stakeholders from competent Member State authorities claim that access to 
information remains problematic. In particular, the information is not always provided in 
a language victims understand.   

Some  EU  officials  flagged  the  connection  between  the  under-reporting  of  crime  and  a 
deficiency in the provision of information. Victims of hate crime, dependent victims such 
as children, or victims who have a greater tendency to not trust the police, could be more 
vulnerable and therefore at risk of finding themselves in a situation in which they would 
receive insufficient information or in which the information would not be provided in a 
way that is adapted to their specific circumstances and that they can fully understand. 

According  to  EU  officials,  information  is  not  always  available  to  victims  at  their  first 
contact with authorities. Nor is it provided at the different stages of criminal proceedings.  

National authorities consider the fact that the right to access to information as set out in 
the Directive applies only if a crime is reported to be too restrictive.  

Overall,  victim  support  organisations  acknowledge  the  progress  made  since  the  entry 
into  force  of  the  Directive.  They  highlighted  in  particular  the  obligation  to  provide 
information  in  simple  and  accessible  language,  taking  into  account  the  personal 
characteristics of the victim, including any disability they may have174.  

However, both victim support organisations and EU-level organisations warned that 
interpretation and translation remain a problem. 

Victim  support  organisations  also  reported  that  victims  are  not  always  aware  of  the 
availability of support services. EU-level networks specifically mentioned that the needs 
of victims with disabilities remain insufficiently addressed, pointing out in particular the 
insufficient  availability  of  interpreters  in  sign  language  at  the  moment  of  first  contact 
with the authorities.  

174 Victims’ Rights Directive, Article 3. 

66 

 
                                                           
On  the  content  of  information,  both  national  victim  support  organisations  and  EU-
level networks argued that in practice, information is provided in complex legal terms, is 
not available in a language that the victim can understand and is not sufficiently tailored 
to  the  needs  of  certain  victims  (on  the  basis  of  their  personal  situation,  or  the  specific 
nature of the crime). In particular, information on rights and legal steps is not sufficiently 
accessible. 

For EU-level organisations, victims’ lack of awareness of their rights is one of the major 
obstacles  to  the  effective  exercise  of  the  rights  in  the  Directive.  The  stakeholders 
suggested  diversifying  the  places  and  people  providing  the  information,  for  example: 
hospitals, social services and detention  centers175. Another major shortcoming identified 
was the insufficient training of competent authorities who come into first contact with the 
victims,  in  particular  as  regards  soft  skills  such  as  sensitivity  and  how  to  avoid 
unconscious bias. Training courses should also tackle victims’ multiple and intersecting 
needs.  More  appropriate  training  should  be  available,  along  with  incentives  for  the 
relevant  practitioners 
that 
multidisciplinary programmes should be promoted  so that professionals  in  contact  with 
victims do not work in silos. These programmes should enable the participation of civil 
society  to  provide  additional  data,  help  disseminate  information  and  help  build  trust 
between the authorities and communities176.  

to  participate.  EU-level  organisations  also 

said 

3.2.3. Access to victim support services  

Most of the representatives of  national  authorities and victim support  organisations 
acknowledged the progress made since the entry into force of the Directive in terms of 
the  quality  and  quantity  of  support  services  available  to  victims  of  crime  and  their 
families.  These  stakeholders  also  acknowledged  that  access  to  these  services  had 
improved.  Victim  support  organisations  cited  improvements  in  terms  of  geographic 
distribution and funding. They praised the existence of legal requirements, in particular 
the introduction of an obligation to carry out a needs assessment. 

According  to  national  authorities,  representatives  of  EU  institutions  and  agencies  and 
victim  support  services,  geographical  coverage  remains  problematic.  In  particular, 
competent national authorities stressed that coverage could be less concentrated in rural 
areas, thus affecting disproportionately categories of victims – such as elderly people or 
victims with disabilities – for whom it can be difficult to travel by car and who may be 
constrained to use more expensive and complex means of transport.  

EU officials said that the lack of coordination at national level, reflected in the absence 
of  a  ‘well-established  state  system  of  support  services’177,  is  likely  to  impede  effective 
access  to  victims’  rights  to  support  services.  In  particular,  victim  support  organisations 

175 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 140. 
176 Ibid. 
177 Ibid., p. 136. 

67 

 
                                                           
do  not  have  enough  resources  for  the  number  and  needs  of  victims.  The  offer  of 
specialised services is particularly insufficient, partly because civil society organisations 
providing  victim  support  are  faced  with  unrealistic  requirements  and  insufficient 
resources.  

EU officials, national authorities and victim support organisations raised the issue of 
funding.  EU  institutions  and  agencies  consider  that  financial  resources  are  minimal 
compared  with  the  needs,  especially  for  civil  society  organisations.  EU  and  national 
organisations consider the shortage of resources to be the main issue. 

According to victim support organisations and national authorities, both victims and 
competent  authorities  are  not  sufficiently  aware  of  available  services  and  the  practical 
details about them (opening hours and location). Victim support organisations consider 
that  current  referral  mechanisms  are  ineffective,  and  would  like  to  see  better 
communication and coordination between civil society and authorities.  

National authorities pointed out that translation and interpretation costs can undermine 
effective access to support services.  

EU-level organisations stressed that unconscious bias and discrimination on the part of 
the  authorities,  law  enforcement  authorities  in  particular,  could  result  in  a  victim’s  not 
being referred to the appropriate service or even in some victims’ being overlooked. 

Competent national authorities suggested developing online reporting tools, help chats 
and helplines in  multiple languages. Some stakeholders also  said  that access  to  support 
services  could  be improved by  relying on interdisciplinary teams  instead of developing 
more  specific  support  services  tailored  for  a  particular  type  of  victims  or  crime.  These 
teams should include psychotherapeutic and psychological trauma experts.  EU officials 
agreed that the Barnahus model is good practice. A slightly different  approach was  put 
forward by EU networks, who suggested more tailored support services. 

3.2.4. Access to justice 

A significant number of representatives of competent authorities and EU agencies and 
institutions consider that the Directive has had a generally positive impact on access to 
justice.  In  particular,  competent  authorities  believe  that  the  right  to  be  heard  is  also 
guaranteed in cross-border situations, including in terms of translation and interpretation. 
EU officials stressed the improvements made regarding mechanisms tailored to children, 
such as the increased use of recording during children’s testimonies, the use of language 
adapted  to  children,  and  the  introduction  of  court  dogs  to  help  children  feel  more 
comfortable.  

However,  competent  national  authorities  consider  that  there  is  still  room  for 
improvement in implementing the Directive.  

68 

 
National  authorities  stressed  that  while  cooperation  mechanisms  are  available  and 
authorities  are  in  general  aware  of  their  existence,  in  practice  there  is  still  insufficient 
coordination in cross-border cases.  

National authorities pointed out shortcomings related to the right to compensation. The 
representatives  argued  that  procedures  are  often  cumbersome  and  lengthy,  and  the 
existence of this right remains largely unknown by victims.  

EU representatives pointed out that the minimum age requirements for participating in 
criminal proceedings still obstruct access to justice. They also pointed out that the costs 
of implementing a child-friendly approach could explain its insufficient implementation.  

EU  officials  also  pointed  out  that  language  barriers  and  deficiencies  in  providing 
information  at  the  different  stages  of  victims’  experience  are  still  likely  to  impede 
efficient access to justice. Other stumbling blocks are the length of criminal proceedings, 
the administrative burden of prosecutors and legal aid.  

EU-level NGOs said that effective access to compensation remains an important part of 
effective  access  to  justice.  They  also  said  that  victims  generally  do  not  have  a 
comprehensive  understanding  or  full  awareness  of  the  possibilities  the  justice  system 
affords them, beyond prosecution and including other aspects such as restorative justice. 
The length and costs of criminal proceedings are also likely to discourage victims.  

3.2.5. Right to protection 

Most victim support organisations believe that the protection of victims has improved 
as  a  result  of  the  Directive.  The  consultations  of  victim  support  organisations  and 
national competent authorities identified the arrangement of premises to avoid contact 
between  victims  and  offenders  and  rooms  tailored  to  serve  victims’  needs  as  good 
practices.  Competent  authorities  consider  that  the  provision  on  the  individual 
assessment of victims to identify their specific protection needs is one of the Directive’s 
most significant innovations. Victim support organisations also cited measures such as 
stronger  legal  requirements  for  protection  and  greater  use  of  remote  questioning.  The 
practices national authorities most often cited as good practices  were the recording of 
witness  statements  to  avoid  multiple  testimonies  and  the  setting  up  of  child-friendly 
rooms in various courts and of Barnahus facilities.  

However, a slight majority of victim support organisations still believe that victims are 
not sufficiently protected. Only a few EU institutions and agencies believe that victim 
protection has improved as a result of the Directive. 

Stakeholders from national authorities suggested introducing more detailed provisions 
to ensure that victims are not in contact with offenders, such as the possibility of remote 
participation  in  proceedings  or  separate  areas  in  court.  National  victim  support 
organisations also noted that victims still report having to cross paths with offenders in 
court or at police stations.  

69 

 
National  representatives  consider  that  the  right  to  an  individual  needs  assessment  is 
crucial for victim protection, because it is the basis for deciding on tailored and adapted 
protection  measures.  However,  both  national  representatives  and  representatives  of 
EU institutions and agencies noted that this provision is unevenly implemented across 
Member  States.  They  also  think  it  is  not  implemented  systematically.  Only  half  of  the 
respondents  from  victim  support  organisations  confirmed  that  the  individual  needs 
assessments is not done systematically. Practical factors also hamper its efficiency, such 
as  the  lack  of  training  of  practitioners  in  identifying  victims’  needs.  A  more  specific 
procedure and guidelines on the assessment criteria could help improve the assessment’s 
quality.  National  victim  support  organisations  warned  that  the  individual  needs 
assessment required in the Directive is not always conducted.  

EU-level  non-governmental  organisations  consider  that  avoiding  contact  between  the 
victim  and  the  offender  throughout  criminal  proceedings  and  a  qualitative  individual 
needs assessment are the two major factors that undermine the effective implementation 
of the right to protection.  

The  problem  of  insufficient  human  and  financial  resources  was  also  raised  by 
representatives  of  EU  institutions  and  agencies  and  national  victim  support 
organisations.  EU  officials  stressed  that  most  protection  needs  concern  situations 
outside the context of judicial proceedings, where funding is scarce.  

EU  officials  pointed  out  that  the  needs  assessment  is  ineffective  if  practitioners  are 
insufficiently trained.  

EU  officials  were  concerned  about  the  fact  that  videoconferencing  is  not  always 
available,  or  conditioned  to  in-person  testimony  in  court,  putting  victims  in  a  situation 
where  they  risk  repeat  victimisation,  intimidation  or  retaliation.  They  consider  this 
particularly  worrying  for  child  victims.  The  impossibility  of  recourse  to  recorded 
hearings  also  means  that  in-person  testimony  and  statements  may  be  repeated  several 
times.  EU  officials  see  this  as  being  closely  connected  to  the  issue  of  lengthy 
proceedings. The  longer  the criminal proceedings, the higher the  risk of  secondary  and 
repeat victimisation and the costs of victim protection.  

One  EU  official  mentioned  as  a  good  practice  that,  in  Finland,  children  witnessing 
violence, domestic violence in particular, are considered victims with protection rights.  

National  victim  support  organisations  consider  that  protection  orders  are  not 
sufficiently effective.  

3.2.6. Cross-cutting issues 

The  cross-cutting  issue  most  frequently  identified  was  training.  Member  State 
authorities  consider  that  the  quantity  and  quality  of  training  of  practitioners  working 
with victims has improved as a result of the Directive’s more detailed rules and guidance 
and EU-level networks’ encouragement of the sharing of practices. A slight majority of 
national  victim  support  organisations  are  in  favour  of  training,  but  pointed  out  how 

70 

 
fragmented the situation is across the Member States, in terms of the content of training 
programmes.  Member  State  authorities  admitted  that  training  attendance  is  still  low. 
Several  representatives  suggested  introducing  operative  rules  on  training,  including 
requirements for compulsory training or more incentives to participate in training on the 
Directive – on condition that awareness is raised more than it is by the training already 
available.  

National authorities tended to prefer non-legislative solutions such as guidance, and the 
sharing of teaching material  and  good practices through manuals  and networks.  On the 
content  of  training  programmes,  it  was  pointed  out  that  they  usually  focus  on  victims’ 
rights  in  general,  overlooking  the  specific  situations  of  particular  types  of  victims. 
Interdisciplinary training is also perceived as a good way of improving coordination and 
avoiding authorities working in silos.  

Most  respondents  from  national  authorities  agreed  that  the  EU  has  a  role  to  play  in 
multi-actor coordination across competent authorities and civil society at national level. 
National victim support organisations share the perception that cooperation between 
the various competent authorities is lacking at national level. Besides the sharing of 
best practices, national authorities praise the EU networks. They believe that the targeted 
workshops help to identify problems and enable experts on a given topic to impart their 
expertise widely in a way that saves costs and time. The spreading of the Barnahus model 
for child-friendly facilities was seen as a positive result of this way of working. National 
authorities welcome the exchange of good practices between Member States. The  role 
of the EU networks could  be strengthened to  remedy to  the insufficient  quality  of the 
individual needs assessments.  

Respondents  from  national  authorities  agreed  that  the  EU  could  also  play  a  role  in 
cooperation in cross-border cases. 

Although  the  Directive  introduced  better  coverage  of  victims’  legal  costs,  greater 
awareness  of  victims  of  their  individual  rights,  and  better  access  to  translation  and 
interpretation,  most  respondents  from  national  victim  support  organisations  said  that 
victims’  opportunities  to  participate  in  criminal  proceedings  remain  insufficient. 
One of the main challenges remains victims’ little awareness of their rights, together with 
continued  limited  access  to  interpretation  and  translation,  and  the  costs  of  proceedings. 
Victim support organisations also believe that effective participation is still hampered 
by  restrictive  provisions  on  the  role  of  victims  in  criminal  proceedings.  They  also 
claim that national authorities do not have sufficient financial and human resources to 
fully  address  the  problem,  in  particular  given  they  have  to  contend  with  excessive 
administrative burden, high staff turnover and a lack of specialised staff. They also point 
out that the procedures are not standardised overall. 

3.3. Results of the targeted consultations in relation to the efficiency criterion 

Most of the authorities consulted did not have the data necessary to assess the costs and 
benefits of the Victims’ Rights Directive. The costs of implementing the Directive  also 

71 

 
vary depending on the system in place at national level for victim rights. There are many 
organisations in the different Member States, funding different actors, that it is difficult 
to compare data and statistics across Member States.  

EU institutions and agencies could not provide input on efficiency. Contributions from 
organisations  at  EU  level  were  also  limited.  Both  groups  of  stakeholders  identified  the 
shortcoming of the lack of data. 

Victim  support  organisations  at  national  level  provided  limited  input.  Some 
organisations  reported  that  the  Directive  had  resulted  in  an  increase  in  financial 
resources.  One  representative  said  that  the  Directive’s  provisions  had  obliged  their 
organisation  to  increase  its  resources,  in  particular  to  conduct  individual  needs 
assessments.  The  majority  of  respondents  from  national  organisations  said  that  the 
Directive  had  not  made  any  cost  savings  possible,  and  that  funding  remains  a  major 
issue. 

Some  respondents  from  national  authorities  estimate  that  the  benefits  outweigh  its 
costs.  One  of  these  respondents  would  agree  with  this,  if  victims  were  effectively 
compensated. One Member State claimed that the Directive had increased its competent 
authorities’  administrative  burden.  In  another  Member  State,  the  quality  of  support 
services decreased because of the cost of providing these services.  

3.4. Results of the targeted consultations in relation to the coherence criterion 

National  stakeholders,  meaning  both  competent  authorities  and  civil  society  actors, 
assessed the Directive’s coherence very favourably, be it in terms of internal  coherence 
and  external  coherence  with  national  legal  systems  for  victims’  rights  and  other  EU 
legislation.  EU-level  organisations  praised  the  comprehensive  and  internally  coherent 
text of the Directive, which also complements other EU legislation in a coherent manner.  

Over  half  of  the  representatives  from  EU  institutions  and  agencies  did  not  identify 
any  specific  issue  related  to  internal  coherence.  A  representative  from  an  EU  agency 
explained that the definition of victim in recital 9 appears to contradict the definition of 
victims  in  the  operative  part  of  the  Directive  in  Article  2.  Nonetheless,  one  national 
respondent  and one stakeholder  from  an EU institution agreed that the interpretation of 
the  Directive  at  national  level  is  not  always  accurate,  with  the  national  stakeholder 
specifically  mentioning  ongoing 
infringement  proceedings.  For  victim  support 
organisations, incoherencies between the Directive and national legislation are the result 
of  the  incorrect  transposition  of  the  provisions  on  access  to  support  services  and  the 
provision of information.  

On external coherence, there was a consensus among EU officials and victim support 
organisations  who  were  asked  about  the  Directive’s  compatibility  with  other  EU  legal 
instruments and policies. EU stakeholders generally consider that the Directive interplays 
well with the Counter-Terrorism Directive, the Child Sexual Abuse Directive. However, 
one EU stakeholder suggested that there is room for improvement regarding cross-border 
victims. Another EU respondent said more should be done to effectively remove online 

72 

 
child  sexual  abuse  material  to  fight  repeat  victimisation  and  trauma,  and  to  protect 
children’s privacy. Finally, one EU respondent suggested that the general information on 
victims’ rights that the Directive requires be provided could be available on EU websites 
and  platforms  such  as  Your  Europe,  the  European  e-Justice  Portal  and  SOLVIT 
(solutions  to  problems  with  your  EU  rights  service).  One  representative  from  a  victim 
support organisation pointed out that civil society organisations and authorities have to 
comply with both the GDPR and the Directive. This includes ensuring appropriate legal 
basis  in  case  of  referral  of  victims  for  sharing  of  personal  data  with  different  services, 
and ensuring that victims are informed of their data protection rights.  

A minority of national representatives and an EU-level organisation called for better 
coherence  with  the  Anti-Trafficking  Directive  (2011/36/EU),  in  particular  on  residence 
permits. Some national stakeholders and an EU official suggested more cross-referencing 
between the different pieces of EU legislation, to give practitioners greater legal clarity. 
A few respondents from EU-level organisations called for enhancing synergies with the 
Commission’s work on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation. Finally, a small number 
of  respondents  called  for  closer  alignment  of  the  categories  of  vulnerable  victims  with 
that of the EU Public Health Strategy.  

3.5. Results of the targeted consultations in relation to the EU added value criterion 

large  majority  of  national  authorities  and  victim  support  organisations 
A 
acknowledged the situation of victims in the EU had improved since the entry into force 
of the Directive. Similarly, EU officials and NGOs at EU level praised the establishment 
of  common  standards  for  all  victims  across  the  EU.  The  Directive’s  horizontal  and 
comprehensive  nature  is  seen  by  EU  officials  as  its  main  added  value,  on  which  EU 
sectorial legislation can build. One respondent from academia drew particular attention 
to the binding nature of the Directive’s requirements, which have a  greater impact than 
non-binding instruments at the level of the Council of Europe for instance. This academic 
believes  that  the  individual  needs  assessment  is  an  important  part  of  the  process.  EU 
networks and organisations, and EU institutions and agencies, highlighted the Directive’s 
role in prompting further investment in the area of victims’ rights at national level. 

However,  there  were  diverging  views  among  competent  authorities  and  victim 
support organisations about whether their Member States could have achieved the same 
objectives at national level on their own. Many Member States admitted it is difficult to 
determine  whether  the  changes  can  be  directly  linked  to  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive. They stressed that there were rules and standards in place before the Directive, 
and  that  changes  in  national  legislation  could  be  largely  attributed  to  purely  national 
circumstances, rather than to the effect of EU impetus. More than half of victim support 
organisations believe, however, that EU’s action played a decisive role in making things 
happen.  Nevertheless,  several  Member  States  and  half  of  victim  support 
organisations  who  believe  that  national  circumstances  were  the  deciding  factor 
nevertheless recognised that binding EU legislation has enabled quicker implementation. 
For one  respondent from an EU organisation, the Directive’s added value lies in  the 
possibility  for  the  Commission  of  launching  infringement  proceedings  in  case  of  non-

73 

 
compliance.  Other  national  authorities  noted  that  the  Directive  had  led  to  a  major 
improvement in their existing national frameworks.  

A  great  majority  of  competent  authorities  are  in  favour  of  further  EU  action,  be  it 
legislative  or  non-binding,  although  more  than  half  of  them  admitted  that  the  need  for 
more detailed legal requirements for and guidance on training is not evident at this stage. 
On the contrary, there was a consensus among EU-level organisations that either further 
harmonisation  or  more  guidance  is  necessary,  because  of  the  significant  differences 
remaining as regards the extent of victims’ rights in the various national frameworks. 

Some  areas  where  there  is  room  for  improvement  were  identified  by  competent 
authorities as areas where there is potential to increase EU added value, such as tackling 
the problem of inconsistent training across the EU and ensuring victims’ rights in cross-
border situations. Cooperation through the European Network of Victims’ Rights and the 
RE-JUST  project178  were  mentioned  by  national  authorities  as  aspects  with  potential  to 
increase  EU  added  value.  On  the  other  hand,  EU-level  organisations  specifically 
mentioned measures to ensure non-discrimination.  

4.  Results of the public consultation 

4.1 Results of the public consultation in relation to the relevance criterion 

It emerged from the consultation that the Directive’s provisions are relevant to achieving 
its objectives. No specific provision was identified as outdated or inadequate.  

For most respondents, the Directive’s provisions remain relevant given the increased role 
of  new  technologies  in  European  society  and  in  everyday  life,  in  particular  their 
usefulness  for  enabling  the  participation  of  victims  in  criminal  proceedings.  However, 
several respondents warned that the specificities of certain categories of victims are not 
sufficiently  taken  into  account,  namely  victims  of  sexual  abuse,  child  victims,  victims 
with disabilities, victims suffering from trauma, victims of abuse(s) of power, victims in 
a situation of illegality (undocumented migrants  and sex workers  for example), victims 
of cybercrime and foreign victims179.  

Average number of responses by evaluation criteria 

178  The  EU-funded  project  “Towards  a  more  responsive  victim-centred  approach  of  the  criminal  justice 
system” (RE-JUST) aimed to identify strategies and action plans to improve victims’ access to justice.  

179 ICF (2021), Study to support the evaluation of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards 
on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, final report, p. 150. 

74 

 
                                                           
 
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Effectiveness

Relevance

Coherence

Efficiency

EU Added Value

4.2 Results of the public consultation in relation to the effectiveness criterion 

On  support  and  protection  in  general,  most  respondents  failed  to  see  any  progress  had 
been made, since the Directive’s entry into force, in relation to the attitude of competent 
authorities towards crime victims. According to the Directive, the victims must be treated 
in  a  respectful,  sensitive,  professional  and  non-discriminatory  way.  Almost  half  of  the 
respondents were concerned that the specific needs of certain categories of victims, such 
as  victims  with  disabilities,  victims  of  hate  crime,  victims  of  sexual  abuse,  victims  of 
organised  crime,  victims  of  human  trafficking  and  victims  with  a  migrant  background, 
are  not  sufficiently  taken  into  account.  Their  particular  situation  or  particular 
vulnerability  prevents  them  from  fully  relying  on  the  rights  provided  by  the  Directive. 
Views  diverge  regarding  child  victims.  Almost  half  of  the  respondents  acknowledged 
that progress had been made on protecting and respecting the interests of child victims. 
Other respondents did not think there had been any improvement on this matter.  

Most respondents disagree (22 respondents or 23% disagree, and 19 respondents or 20% 
strongly  disagree)  that  the  way  competent  authorities  treat  victims  has  improved  in  the 
last  5  years,  in  terms  of  authorities’  adopting  a  respectful,  sensitive,  professional  and 
non-discriminatory  approach.  On  the  other  hand,  a  minority  of  respondents  (34 
respondents or 35%) agree that the way competent authorities treat victims has improved 
in the past 5 years. 

Effectiveness was also assessed against more specific provisions of the Directive, such as 
the  right  to  information.  For  most  respondents,  the  right  to  understand  and  to  be 
understood, as well as the provision of information at first contact with the authorities, is 
not  guaranteed  in  practice.  A  few  respondents  suggested  this  may  be  due  to  a  lack  of 
specific training of the authorities on how to deal with vulnerabilities, the use of complex 
legal  language  and  the  unavailability  of  appropriate  interpretation  and  translation 
services. 61 respondents (73%) are in favour of strengthening access to information. 

The  majority  of  stakeholders  replied  that  access  to  general  victim  support  services  has 
improved since the entry into force of the Directive. However, respondents again pointed 
out the weakness of existing referral mechanisms within authorities  with whom victims 
first  come  into  contact,  to  direct  them  to  the  support  services  they  need.  On  more 
specialised  support  services,  such  as  shelters,  most  respondents  said  that  access  is  not 

75 

 
 
fully efficient. A small number of respondents were more precise, saying that this is due 
to  insufficient  geographical  coverage  of  specialist  services  (rural  areas),  that  these 
services are not always accessible to all victims and that in some areas they simply do not 
exist.  

The consultation also asked about the effectiveness of the right to protection: 35.46% of 
respondents  consider that the possibility to  avoid contact with the offender and privacy 
are not guaranteed for all victims throughout criminal proceedings. The same percentage 
of respondents believed that the individual assessment of victims’ needs does not result 
in the adoption of tailored protection measures. A few respondents reported having been 
subjected  to  long  and  repeated  interrogations  perceived  as  ‘inhumane’,  ‘embarrassing’ 
and  ‘aggressive’.  They  added  that  the  interviews  were  not  systematically  conducted  by 
trained  authorities.  The  situation  is  different  in  relation  to  the  protection  of  children, 
since  35  respondents  consider  that  special  protection  measures  are  effectively  granted, 
while  74%  (58)  of  respondents  are  in  favour  of  strengthening  victims’  physical 
protection. 

Finally, the consultation asked about the provisions on access to justice in order to assess 
them  against  the  effectiveness  criterion.  While  20  respondents  said  that  victims  cannot 
effectively rely on their right to be heard during criminal proceedings, most believe that 
this  right  is  respected.  The  Directive  says  that  victims  can  request  the  revision  of  a 
decision  not  to  prosecute.  More  than  half  of  respondents  consider  this  right  effective, 
while some disagree and 15 do not know. Most respondents said that in practice, victims 
cannot  rely  on  free  legal  aid,  with  16  respondents  disagreeing.  Some  respondents 
indicated that this situation can be the result of limited information about the availability 
of free legal aid, the small contingency fees that do not constitute enough of an incentive 
for  lawyers  to  provide  legal  aid  to  victims,  and  victims’  lack  of  financial  resources  to 
afford  initial  legal  fees.  55  respondents  (71%)  are  in  favour  of  strengthening  access  to 
justice for victims and 69% (54) of respondents are in favour of strengthening access to 
compensation. 

4.3 Results of the public consultation in relation to the efficiency criterion 

Over  half  of  the  respondents  believe  that  the  Directive’s  benefits,  namely  enhanced 
support and protection of victims of crime, outweigh the costs of implementing it. The 
costs of implementation are to be assessed in the light of the reduction of secondary costs 
related  to  healthcare  and  welfare.  Most  respondents  consider  that  these  costs  are 
proportionate to the Directive’s benefits. Several respondents said that too few resources 
are allocated to the application of the Directive.  

4.4 Results of the public consultation in relation to the coherence criterion 

Twenty-six  respondents  said  that  the  Victims’  Rights  Directive  is  generally  internally 
coherent, while 23 said that it is fully coherent.  

Over half of the respondents agree on overall external coherence and complementarity of 
the Directive with national legislation on victims’ rights.  

76 

 
However, most respondents did not consider themselves sufficiently informed to assess 
the  coherence  and  complementarity  of  the  Directive  with  other  EU  sectorial  legislation 
such  as  the  Compensation  Directive,  the  Anti-Trafficking  Directive,  the  Child  Sexual 
Abuse Directive, the Directive on the European Protection Order in criminal matters, the 
Regulation  on mutual  recognition  of protection  measures in civil  matters, the Directive 
on Combating Terrorism and the Combating Fraud Directive.  

4.5 Results of the public consultation in relation to the EU added value criterion 

Many respondents said that the Directive had significant EU added value compared with 
the  situation  before  its  adoption.  Nevertheless,  most  respondents  also  believed  that 
amending  it  or  introducing  new  legal  requirements  would  have  a  positive  impact  on 
victims’ rights. In this vein, some respondents indicated that they expect a more precise 
and  more  binding  language.  Some  others  highlighted  the  importance  of  strengthening 
certain rights.

77 

 
78