COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims
Date: 2022-12-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: criminal law, criminal proceedings, fight against crime, help for victims, human rights, organised crime, penalty, trafficking in human beings

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 19.12.2022  SWD(2022) 425 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  amending Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims {COM(2022) 732 final} - {SEC(2022) 445 final} - {SWD(2022) 426 final} - {SWD(2022) 427 final} - {SWD(2022) 428 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT .................................... 7 

2.  WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY IS IT A PROBLEM? .............................. 10 

2.1.  Problem overview ........................................................................................... 10 
2.2.  Horizontal problem 1: Trafficking in human beings continues to thrive in the EU

 ......................................................................................................................... 13 

2.2.1.  Driver: there are practical obstacles in the detection of cases of trafficking in human 
beings and in the early identification of victims ........................................................................ 13 

2.2.2.  Driver:  preventive  and  awareness-raising  initiatives  do  not  adequately  target 
individuals and specific groups at higher risk of becoming victims of trafficking .................... 15 

2.2.3.  Driver:  the  data  collection  exercises  and  the  monitoring  of  trends  do  not  reflect  the 
full scale of trafficking in human beings across the EU ............................................................ 15 

2.3.  Specific problem 2: The numbers of investigations, prosecutions and convictions 

of traffickers are low, leading to a culture of impunity .................................. 16 

2.3.1.  Driver:  there  has  been  a  rise  in  the  forms  of  exploitation  other  than  those  explicitly 
mentioned in the definition of trafficking in human beings provided in the Directive are often 
not criminalised in the Member States ....................................................................................... 16 

2.3.2.  Driver:  trafficking  in  human  beings  increasingly  moved  online,  creating  additional 
challenges for law enforcement and judicial authorities ............................................................ 17 

2.3.3.  Driver:  There  are  challenges  in  proving  offences  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  in 
front of national courts ............................................................................................................... 18 

2.3.4.  Driver: legal persons are not (sufficiently) held accountable for trafficking offences 19 

2.4.  Specific  problem  3:  victims  of  trafficking  do  not  always  receive  an  adequate 
level  of  assistance,  support  and  protection,  which  is  adapted  to  their  specific 
needs ................................................................................................................ 20 

2.4.1.  Driver: existing national and transnational referral mechanisms are not fully effective

20 

2.4.2.  Driver:  the  services  providing  assistance  and  support  to  victims  of  trafficking  often 
have limited capacity and resources or are not sufficiently tailored to specific needs .............. 20 

2.4.3.  Driver:  the  principles  of  non-prosecution  and  non-punishment  of  victims  forced  to 
commit criminal offences as a result of being trafficked, are not consistently implemented .... 20 

2.4.4.  Driver: victims rarely have access to compensation .................................................... 21 

2.4.5.  Driver:  measures  to  protect  victims  who  participate  in  the  criminal  proceedings  are 
not consistently applied .............................................................................................................. 21 

2.5.  Specific problem 4: the demand that fosters trafficking in human beings remains 

high .................................................................................................................. 21 

1 

 
 
 
2.5.1.  Driver: the criminalisation of the use of services exacted from victims of trafficking is 
not consistent across the Member States.................................................................................... 22 

2.5.2.  Demand-reduction approaches are not widely implemented ....................................... 23 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? .............................................................................. 23 

3.1.  Legal basis ....................................................................................................... 23 
3.2.  Subsidiarity and proportionality ...................................................................... 23 

4.  WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED? ........................................................................ 25 

4.1.  General objectives ........................................................................................... 25 
4.2.  Horizontal and specific objectives .................................................................. 25 
4.2.1.  Ensuring adequate prevention, detection and improving the monitoring of trafficking 
in human beings at the EU level (horizontal) ............................................................................ 26 

4.2.2.  Reinforcing  the  criminal  justice  response  to  the crime,  including  in  the  cross-border 
context (specific) ........................................................................................................................ 26 

4.2.3.  Ensuring  that  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  receive  adequate  assistance, 
support and protection across the Member States (specific) ...................................................... 26 

4.2.4.  Reducing the demand for the exploited services of victims that fosters trafficking for 
all forms of exploitation (specific) ............................................................................................. 26 

4.3.  How do objectives relate to the sustainable development goals and the Charter of 

Fundamental Rights of the EU? ...................................................................... 27 

5.  WHAT ARE THE VARIOUS OPTIONS TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES? .... 27 

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? .................................. 27 
5.2.  Description of the policy options .................................................................... 29 
5.2.1.  Policy option 1: Non-legislative action at EU level or national level .......................... 30 

5.2.2.  Policy option 2: Legislative action at EU level............................................................ 36 

5.2.3.  Policy  option  3:  Legislative  action  at  EU  level  in  combination  with  non-legislative 
measures ..................................................................................................................................... 51 

5.3.  Options (legislative measures) discarded at an early stage ............................. 54 
5.3.1.  Equality model ............................................................................................................. 54 

5.3.2.  Other legislative  changes discarded at  an early  stage related to  assistance of victims 
and confiscation ......................................................................................................................... 54 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS AND WHO 
WILL BE AFFECTED? ........................................................................................... 55 

6.1.  Security impact ............................................................................................... 55 
6.2.  Social impact ................................................................................................... 55 
6.3.  Economic ........................................................................................................ 56 
6.4.  Fundamental rights .......................................................................................... 62 

2 

 
 
7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE?.................................................................. 63 

7.1.  Effectiveness ................................................................................................... 64 
7.1.1.  Ensuring  adequate  prevention,  detection  and  monitoring  of  trafficking  in  human 
beings  64 

7.1.2.  Reinforcing  the  criminal  justice  response  to  the crime,  including  in  the  cross-border 
context  65 

7.1.3.  Ensuring  that  victims  of  trafficking  receive  adequate  assistance,  support  and 
protection across the Member States ......................................................................................... 66 

7.1.4.  Reducing  the  demand  for  the  exploited  services  of  victims  of  trafficking  in  human 
beings  66 

7.2 

7.3 

7.4 

7.5 

Efficiency ..................................................................................................................... 67 

Coherence..................................................................................................................... 68 

Necessity ...................................................................................................................... 69 

Subsidiarity and proportionality................................................................................... 69 

8.  PREFERRED OPTION ............................................................................................ 70 

8.1  Policy option 3 – Legislative measures combined with non-legislative measures

 ......................................................................................................................... 70 
8.2  REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) ............................................ 71 
8.3  Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach ................................................ 72 

9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? ....... 72 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................ 76 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT) .................... 79 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .............................................................. 90 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ....................................................................... 104 

ANNEX 5: STATISTICS ............................................................................................... 124 

ANNEX 6: TRANSPOSITION OF THE ANTI-TRAFFICKING DIRECTIVE ........... 173 

3 

 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AMIF 

CEPOL 

EU 
Coordinator (EU ATC) 

Anti-Trafficking 

EMPACT 

EUAA 

ELA 

EUROJUST 

EUROPOL 

Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 

European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training 

The EU ATC helps ensuring coordination and coherence 
among EU institutions, EU agencies, Member States and 
international  actors,  contributing  to  the  development  of 
existing or new EU policies and strategies relevant to the 
fight  against  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  reporting 
to  the  EU  institutions.  The  EU  ATC  contributes  to 
reporting carried out by the Commission every two years 
on  the  progress  made  in  the  fight  against  trafficking  in 
human beings1.  

European  multi-disciplinary  platform  against  criminal 
threats:  security  initiative  driven  by  EU  Member  States 
to  identify,  prioritise  and  address  threats  posed  by 
organised and serious international crime2. 

European Union Agency for Asylum 

European Labour Authority 

European  Union  Agency 
Cooperation 

for  Criminal 

Justice 

European  Union  Agency 
Cooperation 

for  Law  Enforcement 

GRETA 

Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against 

1 Recital 29 and Article 20 of 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, OJ L 101, 15.4.2011 
2 EMPACT fighting crime together (europa.eu)  

4 

 
 
                                                 
Trafficking in Human Beings 

FRONTEX 

European Border and Coast Guard Agency 

ISF 

Internal Security Fund 

Judicial winding-up 

Proceedings relating to the winding-up or liquidation of 
legal persons 

LGBTIQ 

Lesbian,  gay,  bisexual,  trans,  non-binary,  intersex  and 
queer 

National 
Equivalent 
(NREM) 

Rapporteurs 

and 
Mechanisms 

in  order 

National  rapporteurs  and  equivalent  mechanisms  are 
described 
in  Directive  2011/36/EU  as  national 
monitoring  systems.  Member  States  have  an  obligation 
to establish such mechanisms, as required by Article 19 
of  Directive  2011/36/EU, 
to  carry  out 
assessments  of  trends  in  trafficking  in  human  beings, 
measure  results  of  anti-trafficking  actions,  including 
gathering  statistics  in  close  cooperation  with  relevant 
civil  society  organisations  active  in  this  field,  and  to 
report.  An  EU  Network  of  National  rapporteurs  or 
equivalent  mechanisms  was  established  by  the  Council 
Conclusions  on  4  June  2009.  The  EU  Anti-trafficking 
Coordinator  co-chairs  the  regular  meetings  of  the 
Network, together with the incumbent Presidency of the 
Council of the EU3. 

National  Referral  Mechanism 
(NRM) 

Mechanism  aimed  at 
identifying,  protecting  and 
assisting victims of trafficking in human beings, through 
referral,  and  involving  relevant  public  authorities  and 
civil society4.  

Pimping 

Act of providing or procuring someone to a customer as 
a prostitute.  

3 Intensifying a coordinated response (europa.eu). 
4 Article 11(4) of Directive 2011/36/EU. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
SOCTA 

SDG 

Strategy 

TFEU 

THB 

Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment 

Sustainable Development Goals 

EU  Strategy  on  Combatting  Trafficking  in  Human 
Beings 2021-2025 

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU 

Trafficking in human beings 

Transnational 
Mechanism (TRM) 

Referral 

A TRM is a mechanism, which aims at linking national 
referral mechanisms to better identify, refer, protect and 
assist  victims,  when  more  than  one  Member  State  is 
affected with a trafficking case, or a Member State and a 
non-EU country5. 

5 European Commission, Study on Reviewing Member States’ National and Transnational Referral Mechanisms (2020), 
Publications Office of the European Union, p.17. Available at: link. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
1.  1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

Directive  2011/36/EU  on  preventing  and  combating  trafficking  in  human  beings,  protecting  its 
victims6 (hereinafter “the Directive”)7 is the primary legislative instrument to combat trafficking in 
human beings (THB) in the European Union. It provides for an overarching EU legal framework “to 
prevent  and  combat  trafficking  in  human  beings  by  establishing  minimum  rules  concerning  the 
definition  of  criminal  offences  and  sanctions  in  the  area  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  by 
introducing provisions, taking into account the gender perspective, to strengthen the prevention of 
this crime and the protection of the victims.”8 The Directive entered into force on 5 April 2011 and 
Member States were required to transpose it by 6 April 2013.  

According to the 2021 EU Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment (herein after 2021 EU 
SOCTA)  published  by  Europol,  trafficking  in  human  beings  is  a  core  activity  of  serious  and 
organised  crime  in  the  EU  and  is  set  to  remain  a  threat  for  the  foreseeable  future9.  During  the 
COVID-19  pandemic,  criminals  have  seized  opportunities  to  generate  significant  profits  and 
intensify  criminal  activities.  They  have  adapted  their  modus  operandi  and  are  increasingly  using 
online platforms and services to identify victims, organise their  exploitation, especially for sexual 
purposes, and advertise their services. At the same time, the threat of trafficking in human beings in 
relation to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine remains high, in particular in the longer-term. 
The war further increased opportunities for traffickers to exploit the vulnerable situation of people 
fleeing  Ukraine  for  their  financial  gain.  Therefore,  a  Common  Anti-Trafficking  Plan10  was 
developed  by  the  EU  Anti-trafficking  Coordinator  (EU  ATC)  and  endorsed  by  the  Solidarity 
Platform on 4 May 2022 to address the risks of trafficking in human beings and support potential 
victims among those fleeing the war in Ukraine. 

Trafficking in human beings was identified as a crime priority in the EU Security Union Strategy11 
and  in  the  Council  conclusions  of  26  May  2021  setting  the  2022-2025  EU  priorities  for  the  fight 
against  serious  and  organised  crime  through  the  European  multi-disciplinary  platform  against 
criminal  threats  (EMPACT).  The  conclusions  set  as  a  priority  “to  disrupt  criminal  networks 
engaged  in  trafficking  in  human  beings  for  all  forms  of  exploitation,  including  labour  and  sexual 
exploitation, and with a special focus on those who exploit minors for forced criminality; those who 
use or threaten with violence against victims and their families, or mislead victims by simulating to 

6 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. 
7 When the Directive was adopted in 2011, Denmark held an opt-out from EU policies in relation to European Union 
justice and home affairs policies. Therefore, Denmark is not bound by the Directive.   
8 Article 1 of the Directive. 
9Europol  (2021),  European  Union  serious  and  organised  crime  threat  assessment,  A  corrupting  influence:  the 
infiltration and undermining of Europe's economy and society by organised crime, Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg. Available at: link.  
10 Available at: link.  
11 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European council, the Council, the European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  the  EU  Security  Union  Strategy 
(COM/2020/605 final). Available at: link.  

7 

 
 
                                                 
 
officialise  the  exploitation;  those  who  recruit  and  advertise  victims  online,  and  are  serviced  by 
brokers providing digital services”12.  

The  Impact  Assessment  relates  to  one  of  the  key  actions  of  the  EU  Strategy  on  Combatting 
Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  2021-2025,  presented  by  the  Commission  on  14  April  2021 
(hereinafter “the Strategy”)13 together with the EU Strategy to tackle Organised Crime, which sets 
out the actions to be taken to disrupt the business models and structures of criminal organisations 
across  borders,  both  online  and  offline.  The  EU  Strategy  on  Combatting  Trafficking  in  Human 
Beings indicated that the Commission would evaluate the Anti-trafficking Directive, and based on 
the  outcome  of  the  evaluation,  consider  reviewing  it.  The  Commission  carried  out  an  evaluation 
(“Evaluation  Staff  Working  Document”14)  on  the  basis  of  which  it  concluded  to  revise  the  Anti-
trafficking  Directive.  The  evaluation  feeds  into  the  Impact  Assessment  for  a  revision  of  the 
Directive.  The  evaluation  and  the  Impact  Assessment  also  respond  to  the  call  of  the  European 
Parliament  to  the  Commission  to  assess  the  implementation  of  the  legal  instrument  and  to  come 
forward with proposals to revise the Directive15.  

The Impact Assessment is relevant to three Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), i.e. SDG 5.2 on 
eliminating  all  forms  of  violence  against  all  women  and  girls  in  the  public  and  private  spheres, 
including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation; SDG 8.7 on taking immediate and 
effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking and secure 
the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour, including recruitment and use of 
child  soldiers,  and  by  2025  end  child  labour  in  all  its  forms;  and  SDG  16  on  ending  abuse, 
exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children.  

The fight against trafficking in human beings is a cross-cutting policy area and, therefore, is linked 
to  many  other  initiatives.  It  is  notably  addressed  in  a  number  of  recently  adopted  proposals  for 
legislative instruments. The Commission’s proposal for a Directive on corporate sustainability due 
diligence16 is complementary to Directive 2011/36/EU. It sets out a horizontal framework to foster 
the  contribution  of  businesses  operating  in  the  single  market  to  the  respect  of  human  rights  and 
environment  through  their  own  operations  and  through  their  value  chains,  by  identifying, 
preventing,  mitigating  and  accounting  for  their  adverse  human  rights  and  environmental  impacts, 
including trafficking in human beings.  

The  proposal  for  a  Directive  on  combating  violence  against  women  and  domestic  violence17 
acknowledges that the offence of trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation 
is a form of violence against women specifically covered under Directive 2011/36/EU. The specific 
prevention,  protection  and  support  measures  envisaged  in  the  Directive  on  combating  violence 

12 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8665-2021-INIT/en/pdf 
13 EU Strategy on Combatting Trafficking in Human Beings 2021-2025, COM(2021) 171 final. 
14 SWD(2022) 427. 
15 European Parliament resolution of 10 February 2021 on the implementation of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing 
and combatting trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, 2020/2029(INI). 
16 COM(2022) 71 final. 
17 COM/2022/105 final. 

8 

 
 
                                                 
against  women  and  domestic  violence  complement  the  measures  laid  down  in  Directive 
2011/36/EU.   

The Directive addresses  the specific needs  of the particular categories of  victims of trafficking in 
human beings. Victims of trafficking are nevertheless entitled to the measures provided under the 
Victims’ Rights Directive that is a horizontal instrument, applicable to all victims of crime. On 28 
June 2022, the Commission adopted its evaluation of the Victims’ Rights Directive that identified 
shortcomings  related  to  victims’  access  to  information,  justice,  support  and  protection18.  The 
Commission is currently preparing an impact assessment of the Victims’ Rights Directive and plans 
to propose a revision of the Directive in 2023. 

The  Digital  Services  Act19  adopted  on  19  October  2022  will  be  a  relevant  tool  in  detecting, 
monitoring and removing online  content related  to  trafficking in  human  beings,  as  it introduces  a 
due diligence obligation for providers of intermediary services, such as online platforms, with the 
aim to reduce illegal and harmful content online.  

The new rules proposed by the Commission to address online child sexual abuse20 are also relevant 
in cases where the child victim of sexual abuse or sexual exploitation is also a victim of trafficking 
in human beings, as they require providers and hosting services to make risks assessments, detect 
and report online child sexual abuse, and remove related material. 

The Commission’s proposal for a new Directive on asset recovery and confiscation21 contributes to 
the  fight  against  trafficking  in  human  beings  by  providing  a  new  set  of  rules  that  addresses  asset 
recovery  from  tracing  and  identification,  through  freezing  and  management,  to  confiscation  and 
final disposal of assets.  

On 14 September 2022 the Commission presented a proposal prohibiting products made with forced 
labour on the Union market22. The proposal will include products produced by forced labour from 
victims  of  human  trafficking  and  will  cover  both  domestic  and  imported  products.  Building  on 
international  standards  and  complementing  existing  horizontal  and  sectoral  EU  initiatives,  in 
particular the due diligence and transparency obligations, the Regulation will combine a prohibition 
with a robust, risk-based enforcement framework. 

The coherence with other EU legislative instruments relevant for  the area of trafficking in human 
beings  was  assessed  for  the  purpose  of  the  evaluation.  The  evaluation  concluded  that  the  Anti-
trafficking Directive was overall coherent with those instruments, although the consistency with the 

18 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU Strategy on Victims’ Rights (2020-2025), COM/2020/258 Final. 
19 Regulation 2022/2065/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for 
Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p.1) See also EUR-
Lex - 32022R2065 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
20 COM/2022/209 final. 
21 COM/2022/ 245 final. 
22 COM(2022) 453 final. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Employers  Sanctions  Directive  (2009/52/EC)  could  be  further  improved.  This  is  addressed  in 
Section 7.3 of the Impact Assessment. 

2.  2. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY IS IT A PROBLEM? 

2.1. 

2.1. 

Problem overview 

Based  on  the  trends  observed  over  the  period  2013-202023,  trafficking  in  human  beings  has  not 
decreased. The annual number of registered victims did not vary significantly over the evaluation 
period24, although the actual number of victims is likely to be significantly higher than the statistics 
suggest25. The lowest number was recorded in 2015 (6 071 victims) and the highest in 2019 (7 777). 
While the scale and trends vary across the EU, all Member States are affected. During the period 
2013-2020,  the  five  Member  States  with  the  largest  number  of  registered  victims,  in  absolute 
numbers,  were  the  Netherlands  (8  967),  France  (8  652),  Italy  (6  927),  Romania  (5  742)  and 
Germany  (4  842).  However,  considering  the  proportion  of  victims  as  compared  to  the  total 
population  of  the  registering  country26,  the  top  five  Member  States  were  Cyprus  (100),  the 
Netherlands (66), Romania (36) and Austria (36) and Malta (35).  

Three quarters (75%) of all victims registered in the EU were women and girls. Only two Member 
States  (Belgium  and  Portugal)  registered  a  majority  of  male  victims  (men  and  boys)  during  the 
reporting period. Children represented nearly a quarter (21%) of all victims in the EU.  

Trafficking  for  the  purpose  of  sexual  exploitation  has  consistently  remains  the  main  form  of 
exploitation within the EU (65% of all registered victims over the reporting period). The Member 
States with the highest share of victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation were Slovenia (87%), 
Bulgaria (82%), France (72%), Estonia and Denmark (70% each). Victims of trafficking for sexual 
exploitation registered in the EU are overwhelmingly female (93%).  

Trafficking  for  labour  exploitation  is  the  second  main  form  in  the  EU  (21%).  It  was  the  most 
prevalent form of exploitation in Malta (74%), Portugal (66%), Belgium (57%) and Poland (53%). 
Labour  exploitation  affects  mostly  male  victims  (70%),  although  female  victims  are  increasingly 
exploited in particular sectors (e.g., domestic work, care activities or cleaning services). 

Other forms of exploitation27 accounted for 14% of all the victims of trafficking in human beings.  

23 See the evaluation and Annex 5 for a detailed analysis of the quantitative data. The quantitative data provided in this 
report  has  been  collected  by  Eurostat  from  the  Member  States  via  the  national  statistical  office  and  involving  the 
National  rapporteurs  and  equivalent  mechanisms  (NREM)  together  with  relevant  authorities  and  civil  society 
organisations. It is drawn from administrative sources.  
24 The lowest number of victims was recorded in 2015 (6 071 victims) and the highest in 2019 (7 777). 
25 The reported statistics only include data from administrative sources, i.e. on victims who have come into contact with 
relevant organisations within each Member States, and it is estimated that many victims remain undetected. 
26 Number of victims per million inhabitants.  
27 Forced begging, criminal activities, removal of organs, benefit fraud and other purposes.  

10 

 
 
                                                 
Statistics highlight  the cross-border  and transnational  dimension of the crime.  56% of the victims 
identified in the EU are EU citizens, including 21% who are citizens of another EU Member States 
than the one where they were registered. The Member States who registered the highest percentage 
of  EU  victims  who  are  citizens  of  another  Member  States  for  the  reporting  period  were  Czech 
Republic (65%), Germany (48%), Ireland (41%), Slovenia (39%) and Austria (37%).  

Non-EU citizens accounted for 44% of victims registered within the EU. The Member States with 
the highest percentages of victims of non-EU citizenship are Sweden (96%), Malta (90%), Finland 
(86%),  Denmark  (87%),  Belgium  and  Italy  (both  75%).  This  data  indicates  that  the  countries  of 
origin, transit and destination of trafficking victims identified in the EU are both EU Member States 
and non-EU countries. 

The  nationality  of  the  traffickers  also  confirms  the  cross-border  dimension.  While  EU  citizens 
accounted  for  more  than  two  thirds  of  all  suspects  with  known  country  of  citizenship  during  the 
2015-2020 period, the proportion of non-EU citizens among suspects increased steadily during the 
reporting  period,  reaching  41%  in  2020.  EU  citizens  also  represented  over  two  thirds  of  all 
prosecuted individuals. Around 25% of those prosecuted were non-EU citizens. Among convicted 
individuals, the share of EU citizens (51%) and non-EU citizens (49%) is nearly even.   

The  number  of  prosecutions  and  convictions  has  remained  consistently  low28,  especially  if 
compared  to  the  number  of  registered  victims  and  of  suspects.  Between  2013  and  2020,  40  028 
suspects were recorded for an offence of trafficking in human beings was. During the same period, 
21  824  individuals  were  prosecuted  and  11  319  were  convicted.  The  evaluation  showed  that  the 
limitations  of  available  data  hindered  the  accuracy  of  these  statistics,  as  Member  States  have 
different approaches to reporting data on individuals and cases in their police, prosecution and court 
systems.  

Trafficking  in  human  beings  continues  to  be  a  low  risk,  high  profit  crime,  which  generates  an 
estimated amount of EUR 29.4 billion29 per year. The annual revenues produced for trafficking for 
sexual exploitation are estimated at around EUR 14 billion30.  

Since the adoption of the Directive, several major developments have affected the socio-economic 
situation, with significant implications on the trafficking in human beings landscape. Technological 
developments  and  the  expansion  of  online  social  media  created  new  opportunities  for  traffickers, 
allowing them to recruit victims online and to reach a much broader audience via online streaming 
and widespread sharing of exploitative materials. The demand for using the services exploited from 
trafficking  victims  is  also  likely  to  increase.  According  to  the  2021  EU  SOCTA  report  “the 

28 Between 2013 and 2020, the number of recorded suspects for an offence of trafficking in human beings was 40 028; 
the number of prosecuted individuals was 21 824 and the number of convicted individuals was 11 319. 
29 Europol, The trafficking in human beings financial business model (2015). Available at: link.  
30 This is a high-range estimate, taking into account hidden  victims. The  middle range estimate  is at approximatively 
EUR  7  billion.  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Migration  and  Home  Affairs,  Mapping  the  risk  of 
serious  and  organised  crime  infiltrating  legitimate  businesses:  final  report,  Disley,  E.(editor),  Blondes,  E.(editor), 
Hulme, S.(editor), Publications Office, 2021, p. 10.  

11 

 
 
                                                 
sustained demand for sexual services will continue to drive the sexual exploitation of victims”, and 
“the  persistent  demand  for  low-wage  workers  employed  in  manual  jobs,  both  seasonable  and 
throughout  the  year,  will  ensure  opportunities  for  labour  exploitation”.  In  2020,  Europol  warned 
that  an  economic  recession  in  the  wake  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  would  increase  the  risks  of 
trafficking  in  human  beings,  as  criminals  have  access  to  a  wider  pool  of  individuals  in  enhanced 
vulnerability  situations  or  economic  distress.  At  the  same  time,  an  increased  demand  for  cheap 
labour  may  work  as  a  pull  factor,  provoking  a  potential  rise  in  trafficking  within  the  EU31. 
Furthermore,  the  vulnerability  of  people  who  fled  Ukraine  into  the  EU  following  Russia’s 
unjustified  military  aggression  is  expected  to  increase  in  the  mid-  and  long-terms.  Criminal 
networks, but also employers, may try to take advantage of the situation of refugees, who may be 
inclined to accept jobs with poor working conditions or which are undeclared and in turn be more at 
risk of labour exploitation. 

The evaluation  found that  the Directive  contributed to  the creation of  an EU common framework 
for  the  (i)  criminalisation,  investigation  and  prosecution  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  offences, 
including  related  definition  and  sanctions;  (ii)  assistance,  support  and  protection  of  victims  of 
trafficking  in  human  beings;  (iii)  prevention  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  related  offences. 
Despite the improvements brought by the Directive, the current legal framework is not fully adapted 
to  the  emerging  trends  and  recent  challenges  posed  by  trafficking  in  human  beings.  Indeed,  the 
evaluation  found  room  for  improvement,  in  particular  in  making  the  Directive  more  effective  in 
dealing with new forms of exploitation and modus operandi of the traffickers, as well as in the area 
of  investigations  and  prosecutions.  Moreover,  divergences  in  the  way  the  Directive  has  been 
implemented in the Member States is  causing inconsistencies, for instance in the interpretation  of 
trafficking in human beings offences and in the criminalisation of the use of services exacted from 
victims of trafficking. Shortcomings with regard to the assistance, support and protection of victims 
mainly  stem  from  gaps  in  the  implementation  of  the  Directive,  which  can  be  addressed  through 
further support to the Member States.  

One horizontal and three specific problems were identified as part of the evaluation (see Table 1 – 
Problem tree).  

31 Europol, The challenges of countering human trafficking in the digital era (2020). Available at: link. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
Table 1 - Problem tree 

General problem 

The current legal framework is not fully adapted to the way trafficking in human beings has evolved since 
the adoption of the Directive 

Horizontal problem  1 – Trafficking in human beings continues to thrive in the EU 

1.1.  There  are  practical  obstacles  in  the  detection  of  cases  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  in  the  early 

identification of victims 

Drivers 

1.2.  Preventive and awareness-raising initiatives at EU and national level do not adequately target individuals and 

specific groups at higher risk of becoming victims of trafficking  

1.3.  The data collection exercises and the monitoring of trends do not reflect the full scale of trafficking in human 

beings across the EU 

Specific 
problems 

core 

2 – Investigations, prosecutions and 
low, 
convictions  numbers 
leading 
of 
to 
traffickers 

are 
impunity 

the 

2.1. There has been a rise in the forms 
of  exploitation  not  explicitly  covered 
in the THB definition provided by the 
Directive  

2.2.  THB  increasingly  moved  online, 
creating additional challenges for law 
enforcement and judicial authorities 

2.3.  There  are  challenges  in  proving 
trafficking  offences 
front  of 
national courts 

in 

Drivers 

Legal 

persons 

not 
2.4. 
(sufficiently)  held  accountable  for 
trafficking offences 

are 

4  –  The  demand  that  fosters 
trafficking 
in  human  beings 
remains high 

4.1.  The  criminalisation  of  the  use 
of  services  exacted  from  victims  of 
THB is not consistent across the EU 

4.2.  Demand-reduction  approaches 
are not widely implemented 

in 
3  –  Victims  of  trafficking 
human  beings  do  not  always 
level  of 
receive  an  adequate 
and 
assistance, 
protection,  adapted 
their 
specific needs 

support 

to 

Existing 

3.1. 
and 
transnational  referral  mechanisms 
are not fully effective 

national 

  Assistance  and 

3.2. 
support 
services often have limited capacity 
or are not sufficiently tailored to the 
specific needs of individual victims 

3.3.  The  principles 
of  non-
prosecution  and  non-punishment  of 
the  victims  for  criminal  activities 
they  were  forced  to  commit  as  a 
direct result of being trafficked, are 
not consistently implemented  

3.4.  Victims  rarely  have  access  to 
compensation  

3.5.  Measures  to  protect  victims 
who  participate 
the  criminal 
proceedings  are  not  consistently 
applied in the Member States 

in 

2.2. 

2.2.  Horizontal problem 1: Trafficking in human beings continues to 
thrive in the EU 

2.2.1.  2.2.1.  Driver: there are practical obstacles in the detection of cases of trafficking in 

human beings and in the early identification of victims 

Several stakeholders highlighted that shortcomings in the detection of the crime form a significant 
obstacle to the early identification of victims and their access to the rights they are entitled to under 

13 

 
 
 
the  Directive32.  The  systems  for,  and  authorities  involved  in,  the  detection  and  identification33  of 
victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  are  different  across  the  Member  States.  While  many 
authorities can be competent to detect possible situations of trafficking in human beings, the formal 
identification  of  the  victims  is  usually  entrusted  with  a  more  limited  number  of  entities. 
Identification is carried out by law enforcement authorities in the majority of the Member States34, 
which  are  sometimes  the  only  entities  competent  to  formally  identify  the  victims35.  Victim 
identification  is  often  closely  related  to  the  detection  of  trafficking  cases  and  the  initiation  of 
criminal  proceedings.  However, victims may be  unwilling to  come forward  and  report a  crime to 
the law enforcement authorities, as they might fear secondary victimisation and further trauma or to 
disclose  their  situation  when  they  are  illegally  staying  in  the  territory  of  a  Member  State36.  In 
addition, victims are often emotionally or economically dependent on the trafficker or fear for their 
lives and for the life of their family.  

Although  all  Member  States  have  specific  measures  in  place,  the  detection  and  identification  is 
often hindered by the lack of resources for training and capacity-building, as relevant stakeholders 
both at national and local level may not have the necessary skills and abilities to determine whether 
a  person  could  be  a  victim,  in  particular  when  it  comes  to  specific  phenomenon,  such  as  online 
trafficking  in  human  beings37.  Moreover,  Member  States  reported  that  a  significant  obstacle  to 
identification  of  victims  is  the  “lack  of  an  overarching  identification  status,  standard  criteria  or 
indicators  to  identify  victims,  which  results  in  competent  authorities  with  too  much  discretion  in 
identifying presumed (potential) victims of trafficking”38.  

The  deficiencies  in  detecting  potential  victims  lead  to  fragmented  detection,  identification 
procedures  and  case  management,  both  within  the  Member  States  and  in  cross-border  cases.  The 
evaluation underlined that there is room for improving the awareness, capacity and training of key 
professionals who are likely to come into contact with victims to recognise the signs of trafficking 
in human beings. 

32 For example during stakeholders interviews carried out by the external contractor, as well as during the  meeting of 
the  EU  Civil  Society  Platform  against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  organised  by  the  European  Commission  on  30 
November 2021. Challenges in the effective detection and consequent formal identification of victims of trafficking was 
also  identified  as  a  challenge  in  several  Member  States  in  the  Commission’s  Study  on  Member  States’  National  and 
Transnational Referral Mechanisms (2020), p.38, and in Eurojust Report on Trafficking in Human Beings (2021), p.22. 
33  The  European  Migration  Network’s  Study  on  Third  country  national  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings: 
detection, identification and protection (2021) defines “detection” as “the process of identifying a possible situation of 
trafficking in human beings”. It may be “followed by identification, which is the formal confirmation that the detected 
person can be considered a presumed victim of trafficking according to the competent authorities of the Member States. 
This  formal  identification  of  the  victim  often  then  entitles  the  victim  to  different  forms  of  support  or  to  apply  for 
authorisation to remain on the territory of the country where they were identified.” Available at: link, p.20. 
34 AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, SE, SI and SK. 
35 BG, ES, IE and MT. 
36  Submissions  to  the  public  consultation  by  Missing  Children  Europe;  two  targeted  interviews  carried  out  by  the 
external  contractors;  workshop  with  the  EU  Civil  Society  Platform  against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  on  30 
November 2021. 
37  European  Migration  Network,  Study  on  Third  country  national  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings:  detection, 
identification and protection (2021), p.25 and p.28. 
38 Ibid n°36, p.28, Box 12.  

14 

 
 
                                                 
2.2.2.  2.2.2.  Driver:  preventive  and  awareness-raising  initiatives  do  not  adequately  target 
individuals and specific groups at higher risk of becoming victims of trafficking 

The evaluation found that prevention strategies and awareness-raising initiatives at both the national 
and EU level do not sufficiently address societal issues linked to trafficking in human beings, such 
as  gender  discrimination,  economic  inequality,  low  levels  of  education,  poverty  and  restrictive 
migration  policies39.  Awareness-raising  initiatives  do  not  always  reach  their  target  audience, 
especially high-risk groups and people in high-risk sectors.     

2.2.3.  2.2.3.  Driver: the data collection exercises and the monitoring of trends do not reflect 

the full scale of trafficking in human beings across the EU 

Persistent gaps in the data collection prevent capturing the full scale of trafficking in human beings 
in  the  EU  and  adequately  monitoring  the  phenomenon.  Despite  significant  progress,  statistics  are 
still not systematically collected by all Member States40. While all Member States reported data on 
victims  for  the  latest  reporting  period  (2019-2020),  criminal  justice  data  (investigations, 
prosecutions, convictions or penalties imposed by national courts for trafficking offences) was still 
missing in eight Member States41. Statistics on specific indicators are not always available in some 
Member States. Other Member States only record statistics on persons who have been prosecuted or 
convicted, but not on suspects, or collect data on the number of proceedings rather than the number 
of prosecuted persons. More generally, gaps in the availability and quality of data can result from 
issues  in  the  functioning  of  national  registration  systems  and  coordination  between  registering 
authorities and National Statistical Authorities, which report the data to EUROSTAT. Furthermore, 
the data collection is affected by widespread underreporting, which also hinders the detection of the 
crime as described above.  

Without a complete overview at EU level, it is impossible to adequately estimate the scale of human 
trafficking across the EU as well as current trends. In addition, no data is available on the number of 
seizures,  freezing  and  confiscation  of  instrumentalities  and  proceeds  from  human  trafficking,  as 
well  as  prosecutions  and  convictions  against  legal  persons.  The  absence  of  data  collection  on  the 
number of victims who receive assistance and support42, or who are awarded compensation do not 
allow  to  monitor  or  evaluate  the  extent  to  which  these  rights  are  enforced  in  practice.  Moreover, 
statistics  collected  by  the  Commission  only  includes  victims  who  have  been  registered  with  the 

39 Interview (#11); interview (#20). This was also raised by three survey respondents, as well as in the contribution to 
the public consultation by the Red Cross.  
40 See  Annex 5 for a detailed analysis of the data  collection  on trafficking in  human beings in the EU  for the period 
2013-2020. Information on Member States’ data provision and related gaps is also available in the Commission’s EU-
wide data collection studies, published in 2018 (p.28) and 2020 (p.128).  
41  BE,  CY,  EE,  DE,  IE,  IT,  NL  and  RO.  The  availability  of  criminal  justice  data  for  2019-2020  depended  on  the 
Member States, the year and the indicators (e.g. suspects, prosecuted persons and convicted persons).  
42 Article 11(2) provides that a person is provided with assistance and support as soon as the competent authorities have 
a reasonable-grounds indication for believing that the person might have been subjected to any of the offences referred 
to in Articles 2 and 3.  

15 

 
 
                                                 
authorities or other organisations43 of the Member States. The actual number of victims is likely to 
be significantly higher than the reported data suggests, as these statistics only capture victims that 
become known to one of the registering entities and many victims remain undetected44. 

2.3. 

Specific  problem  2:  The  numbers  of  investigations,  prosecutions 

2.3. 
and convictions of traffickers are low, leading to a culture of impunity   

2.3.1.  2.3.1.  Driver:  there  has  been  a  rise  in  the  forms  of  exploitation  other  than  those 
explicitly  mentioned  in  the  definition  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  provided  in  the 
Directive are often not criminalised in the Member States  

Article  2(3)  has  been  transposed  by  all  Member  States,  although  not  all  the  national  legislations 
include  explicit  references  to  certain  forms  of  exploitation,  which  are  explicitly  mentioned45. 
However, this lack of compliance with the Directive does not necessarily mean that such conducts 
are  not  prosecuted  and  sanctioned  in  practice.  In  fact,  the  evaluation  found  that  inconsistent 
criminalisation of conducts qualifying as trafficking offences across the Member States particularly 
concerns forms of exploitation that are not explicitly mentioned in Article 2(3).  

The  share  of  forms  of  exploitations  other  than  sexual  and  labour46  increased  from  8%  in  2013  to 
20%  in  2018.  Cases  with  a  form  exploitation  reported  by  Member  States  as  “other”,  which  can 
include  forced  marriage  and  illegal  adoption,  among  others,  accounted  for  11%  of  all  registered 
cases during the reporting period 2013-2020.  

Forced  marriage  is  already  listed  in  the  recitals  of  the  Directive  as  another  purpose  that  can  be 
covered  by  the  definition  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  insofar  as  it  fulfils  the  constitutive 
elements (conduct, means and objective) of the offence47. Some Member States introduced it as a 
form of exploitation into the national legislation transposing the Directive48. The 2021 EU SOCTA 

43 The number of “registered” victims includes both “presumed” and “identified” victims. Victims are “presumed” when 
they met the criteria of Directive 2011/36/EU but have not been formally identified by the relevant formal authority as 
victims of trafficking in human beings or who have declined to be formally or legally identified as trafficked. Victims 
are considered “identified” for persons who have been formally identified as victims of trafficking in human beings by 
the relevant formal authority in Member States. See European Commission, Study on Data collection on trafficking in 
human beings in the EU (2018), p.13, Publications Office of the EU. Available at: link.  
44 European Commission, Study on Data collection on trafficking in human beings in the EU (2018), p.22, Publications 
Office of the EU. Available at: link.  
45 Begging (HR, LV, SI); slavery and practices similar to slavery (BE, IT); exploitation of criminal activities (FI, PL, 
RO). 
46  Forced  begging,  criminal  activities,  benefit  fraud  and  “others”,  including  exploitation  for  the  purpose  of  forced 
marriage, illegal adoption, selling of children, slavery, etc. 
47  The  European  Institute  for  Gender  Equality  (EIGE)  defines  “forced  marriage”  as  situations  “where  a  marriage  is 
entered into without the free and full consent of one or both of the parties because of threats, deceit or coercion”. See 
EIGE’s Gender-specific measures in anti-trafficking actions: report (2018), available at: link.    
48 Five EU Member States (EE, EL, NL, SK, as well as DK) address forced marriages as an aggravating circumstance 
or as one of the purposes of trafficking in human beings. See Sara De Vido and Lorena Sosa, Criminalisation of gender-
based  violence  against  women  in  European  States,  including  ICT-facilitated  violence  (2021),  Directorate-General  for 
Justice and Consumers, European Commission. Available at: link.   

16 

 
 
                                                 
report  and  the  Commission’s  progress  reports  have  highlighted  a  rise  in  the  number  of  cases  of 
trafficking  for  forced  marriage,  which  particularly  affects  women  and  children,  and  is  often 
combined with other forms of exploitation, such as sexual exploitation and/or labour exploitation.  

Illegal adoption is also listed in the recitals of the Directive as an exploitative purpose, which can 
be  covered  by  trafficking  in  human  beings,  insofar  as  it  fulfils  the  constitutive  elements  of  the 
offence. The 2021 EU SOCTA report underlines that children are trafficked and sold through illegal 
adoption  schemes49.  Mothers  in  vulnerable  circumstances  can  be  forced  to  give  their  children  for 
adoption outside the legal adoption system for the financial profit of the trafficker.  

There  are  certain  emerging  trends  with  regard  to  the  forms  of  exploitation,  which  were  not  as 
evident at the time of the adoption of the Directive but gained importance since then. Such case is 
typically  the  trafficking  of  women  for  the  purpose  of  illegal  surrogacy  programmes  by  coercing 
women  into  a  pregnancy  and  selling  new-born  children.  The  2021  EU  SOCTA,  Eurojust  and  the 
Commission’s  Third  progress  report50  have  pointed  out  the  threats  of  illegal  surrogacy  in  the 
context  of  trafficking  in  human  beings.  As  part  of  the  evaluation,  Eurojust  reported  that  some 
Member States encounter difficulties in judicial cooperation and prosecution in cases involving the 
selling  of  new-born  children,  in  particular  when  vulnerable  surrogate  mothers  are  exploited  by 
intermediaries and there is a risk of exploitation of the children.  

Social benefit fraud, which is  not  explicitly covered by the Directive,  was also referred to  as an 
emerging  form  of  exploitation  in  the  2021  EU  SOCTA.  Eurojust  also  reported  on  cases  where 
traffickers take advantage of vulnerable individuals in difficult financial conditions to commit social 
benefit  fraud  for  their  profit51.  Because  of  the  lack  of  legislation  on  social  benefit  fraud  as  an 
exploitative purpose of trafficking in human beings, the exploited individuals are often regarded as 
suspects of fraud rather than victims of trafficking52.  

2.3.2.  2.3.2.  Driver:  trafficking  in  human  beings  increasingly  moved  online,  creating 

additional challenges for law enforcement and judicial authorities 

The modus operandi and business model of traffickers have evolved to move the offence, or some 
elements of it, online, in particular as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. This has created 
new challenges for law enforcement and judicial authorities, making trafficking cases more difficult 
to  detect  and  investigate53.  Technology  enables  traffickers  to  remain  anonymous  via  common 
encrypted  communication  solutions,  thus  reducing  the  risks  of  being  detected54.  It  further  allows 
criminals to reach a higher number of potential victims to recruit without any physical interaction. 

49  Also  see  Europol’s  Situation  report  on  criminal  networks  involved  in  the  trafficking  and  exploitation  of  underage 
victims in the European Union (2018). Available at: link.   
50 Third report on the progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings (2020) as required under Article 20 
of Directive  2011/36/EU preventing and combating  trafficking in  human beings and protecting its  victims; available: 
link 
51  See  Eurojust,  Report  on  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings:  Best  practice  and  issues  in  judicial  cooperation,  February 
2021, available at: link; Eurojust’s contribution to the public consultation.    
52 Eurojust’s contribution to the public consultation.  
53 See section 4.3.1 of the evaluation for more details. 
54 Europol, The challenges of countering human trafficking in the digital era (2020). Available at: link. 

17 

 
 
                                                 
Traffickers use the digital space for every phase of the trafficking offence, e.g. for the recruitment 
and  exploitation  of  the  victims,  the  organisation  of  their  transport  and  accommodation,  their 
advertising and to reach out to potential clients, to control the victims, to communicate, as well as to 
hide criminal proceeds.  

The internet and other information technology means often only concern one or few elements of the 
trafficking chain, for example the recruitment or the advertisement of the victim, whereas the rest of 
the  offence  (e.g.  the  actual  exploitation)  may  take  place  offline.  In  other  cases,  information 
technology  means  may  be  used  to  exert  control  over  the  victims  (for  example  tracing  them  or 
booking accommodation). The very exploitation may also happen online and be shared through the 
internet  or  social  media,  while  the  recruitment  takes  place  offline.  This  wide  variety  of  examples 
shows that all elements of the offences hardly ever take place completely online or offline.  While 
gathering  data  at  the  EU  level  is  difficult,  Member  States  have  provided  some  examples,  which 
highlight  the  online  dimension  of  the  crime.  In  Germany,  11%  of  the  victims  identified  were 
contacted or recruited through the internet, including through the use of social media platforms or 
advertising  portals55.  French  authorities  reported  that  the  internet  was  used  by  65%  of  identified 
victims  of  sexual  exploitation  in  2019,  which  represented  a  16%  increase  as  compared  to  the 
previous year56.  

The growing use of encrypted technology by traffickers makes it more difficult for law enforcement 
authorities  to  access  and  recover  data  during  the  investigation,  including  on  communication 
between the perpetrators and between the perpetrators and the victims, identity of the traffickers and 
the victims, as well as on the means used to coerce and traffic the victims.  Law enforcement and 
judicial authorities also face obstacles in handling large amounts of electronic data, which may also 
be  linked  to  lack  of  capacity,  technical  equipment,  training  and  technical  knowledge.  Differences 
across  the  Member  States  in  legislation  concerning  data  retention  and  investigation  tools  and 
practices related to offences facilitated by the use of technology can also pose significant challenges 
in fighting against trafficking in human beings57. 

2.3.3.  2.3.3.  Driver: There are challenges in proving offences of trafficking in human beings 

in front of national courts 

The low level  of prosecutions and convictions  of trafficking offences, especially compared to  the 
number of victims and of suspects58, can be partly explained by the challenges in building effective 
cases against traffickers. One of these is  gathering sufficient and admissible evidence to prove all 
the elements of the offence, i.e. the intent, the conduct, the means and the purpose of the offence, 
which  is  the  exploitation  of  the  person.  As  a  consequence,  investigations,  prosecutions  and 
convictions are often heavily dependent  on the victim’s testimony. Yet,  gathering other  evidence, 

55  Council  of  Europe  Group  of  Experts  on  Action  against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings,  Online  and  technology-
facilitated trafficking in human beings (2022), p.32. Available at: link. This information is based on the 2019 National 
Situation Report on Trafficking in Human Beings compiled by the German authorities.  
56 Ibid n°50, p.33.  
57 Ibid n°50, p.47-50.  
58 See section 2 of the Impact Assessment and Annex 5. 

18 

 
 
                                                 
such  as  financial  transactions,  surveillance  information  and  digital  or  physical  evidence,  would 
increase  the  chances  of  successful  prosecution  and,  at  the  same  time,  would  reduce  any  further 
potential harm suffered by the victims as a result of their participation in criminal proceedings.  

Due  to  insufficient  evidence,  trafficking  in  human  beings  is  sometimes  re-qualified  as  other 
offences,  which  are  easier  to  prove  in  national  courts,  such  as  pimping,  aggravated  prostitution, 
smuggling  of  migrants,  deprivation  of  liberty,  or  violation  of  labour  or  social  security  laws.  The 
exploitation  element  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  is  the  most  difficult  to  prove  in  court,  and 
prosecutors have to produce admissible and sufficient evidence in court to obtain a conviction for 
trafficking  offences.  There  is  no  EU  definition  or  indicators  of  exploitation.  Member  States  have 
different  definitions  of  exploitation  or  rely  on  different  indicators  to  prove  it.  For  instance,  some 
Member  States  consider  that  very  low  wages  constitute  labour  exploitation,  whereas  others  will 
investigate  and  prosecute  the  offence  under  another  qualification  (e.g.  exploitation  of  immigrant 
work)59. This may hinder cross-border cooperation, in cases where one Member State considers that 
a certain conduct amounts to exploitation, while another one does not.   

In  this  context,  the  evaluation  found  that  Member  States  do  not  sufficiently  use  the  support  and 
capacity of coordination of the EU Agencies, in particular Europol and Eurojust, which could help 
them in overcoming challenges they encounter when investigating or prosecuting human trafficking 
cases. 

2.3.4.  2.3.4.  Driver:  legal  persons  are  not  (sufficiently)  held  accountable  for  trafficking 

offences 

Criminal networks involved in labour exploitation operate in cash-intensive businesses where low-
waged,  low-skilled,  intensive  and  seasonal  work  is  needed,  such  as  forestry,  food  processing, 
assembly  lines,  hospitality,  retail,  carwashes,  beauty  and  cleaning  services,  transportation, 
housekeeping  and  domestic  work.  Organised  crime  groups  specialised  in  trafficking  increasingly 
establish complex legal structures to hide their exploitative operations60.  

The Directive provides for the liability of, and sanctions for, legal persons that commit trafficking 
offences. Although the Commission guidelines on the biannual data collection sent to the National 
Statistical  Authorities  of  the  Member  States  include  the  provision  of  data  on  the  number  of  legal 
persons that are subject to prosecution and court judgements, no such data has been reported by the 
Member States. Consulted stakeholders further reported that prosecutions and convictions of legal 
persons are extremely rare61. This shows that the Directive has not ensured greater accountability of 
legal persons.  

59  European  Commission,  Study  on  case-law  relating  to  trafficking  in  human  beings  for  labour  exploitation  (2016). 
Available at: link.  
60  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Migration  and  Home  Affairs,  Mapping  the  risk  of  serious  and 
organised  crime  infiltrating  legitimate  businesses:  final  report  (2021),  Disley,  E.(editor),  Blondes,  E.(editor),  Hulme, 
S.(editor), Publications Office of the EU.  
61 Interview with an academic expert #24; interview with an academic expert #25.   

19 

 
 
                                                 
2.4. 

Specific problem 3: victims of trafficking do not always receive an 
2.4. 
adequate level of assistance, support and protection, which is adapted to 
their specific needs 

2.4.1.  2.4.1.  Driver:  existing  national  and  transnational  referral  mechanisms  are  not  fully 

effective 

All  but  one  Member  State  have  put  in  place  a  formal  or  informal  National  Referral  Mechanism 
(NRM)62.  While  all  coordination  mechanisms  include  identification  processes  and  short-term 
support  and  protection  measures  for  victims,  their  scopes  differ  across  the  Member  States63.  The 
evaluation found insufficient coordination and links between professionals who are involved in the 
identification  of  victims  of  trafficking  and  organisations  providing  specialised  assistance  and 
support  services.  The  evaluation  also  noted  the  limited  capacity  of  shelters  for  children,  and 
insufficient  cooperation  between  anti-trafficking  and  asylum  services  or  child  protection  systems. 
This negatively affects the victims’ willingness or ability to seek help and report cases and fosters 
re-victimisation  (i.e.  the  victim  will  be  exploited  again  by  traffickers).  Moreover,  the  absence  of 
harmonised procedures at the EU level hampers the effectiveness of the cross-border identification 
and referral of victims.   

2.4.2.  2.4.2.  Driver:  the  services  providing  assistance  and  support  to  victims  of  trafficking 
often  have  limited  capacity  and  resources  or  are  not  sufficiently  tailored  to  specific 
needs 

The evaluation64 found that Member States pay limited attention to, or have limited understanding 
of, the needs of victims of trafficking with disabilities or other special needs. It also found that often 
not  sufficient  national  resources  are  allocated  to  externalised  services,  in  particular  civil  society 
organisations,  for  the  assistance  and  support  to  victims.  Moreover,  female  victims  and  others  in 
vulnerable situation, such as children, in particular vulnerable children (e.g. migrant children) and 
children with disabilities, members of the Roma community or of the LGBTIQ community, as well 
as  persons  with  disabilities65,  do  not  always  have  access  to  available  information  on  available 
support services and their rights.     

2.4.3.  2.4.3.  Driver: the principles of non-prosecution and non-punishment of victims forced 
to  commit  criminal  offences  as  a  result  of  being  trafficked,  are  not  consistently 
implemented 

Article 8 of the Directive requires the non-prosecution and non-punishment of victims of trafficking 
who  were  compelled  to  commit  criminal  activities  as  a  direct  consequence  of  being  trafficked. 

62  Commission,  Study  on  Reviewing  Member  States’  National  and  Transnational  Referral  Mechanisms  (2020),  p.19. 
Available at: link. Germany is the only Member State, which does not have some cooperation mechanism in place at the 
national level.  
63 Ibid n°57, p.20.  
64 See section 4.1.1.5 of the evaluation. 
65 According the Anti-trafficking Directive, particularly vulnerable victims include at least all children (Recital 12).  

20 

 
 
                                                 
While  the  vast  majority  of  Member  States  have  transposed  this  provision  into  their  national 
legislation66, its application is limited in practice67. This particularly affects certain categories, such 
as victims trafficked for forced criminal activities; victims who do not cooperate with the authorities 
in criminal proceedings; as well as children68.  

2.4.4.  2.4.4.  Driver: victims rarely have access to compensation 

Pursuant  to  Article  17  of  the  Directive,  Member  States  are  required  to  ensure  that  victims  of 
trafficking have access to existing schemes of compensation available for victims of violent crimes 
of  intent.  Access  to  compensation  by  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  also  falls  within  the 
scope of the  Victims’ Rights  Directive (Directive 2012/29/EU)69 and the Compensation Directive 
(Directive  2004/80/EC)70.  The  evaluation  established  that  the  Directive  contributed  to  increasing 
access  to  compensation,  as  Member  States  have  adopted  legislative  and  policy  measures  in  this 
area.  However,  in  practice,  victims  face  difficulties  in  receiving  compensation71  due  to 
administrative obstacles, no access to legal aid, as well as the duration of the criminal proceedings, 
since compensation is often awarded upon their conclusion. Access to compensation may further be 
hindered if the victim has returned to his or her country of origin or is an undocumented migrant.  

2.4.5.  2.4.5.  Driver: measures to protect victims who participate in the criminal proceedings 

are not consistently applied 

While Member States ensure access to witness programmes, these are also not used systematically 
for victims of human trafficking and some of their features are not adapted to the situation of the 
specific vulnerability of the victims. For instance, victims often experience secondary victimisation 
during criminal proceedings, as a result of the repeated recounting of their experiences and of being 
questioned in order to produce or verify evidence. This is particularly problematic considering that 
the victim’s testimony is often central to successful investigations and prosecutions.  

66 Article 8 has not been transposed by CZ and HR. 
67  European  Commission,  European  Commission,  Third  (2020)  report  on  the  progress  made  in  the  fight  against 
trafficking in human beings, COM(2020) 661 final, and its accompanying Staff Working Document,  SWD(2020) 226 
final; GRETA and EIGE contributions to the public consultation. 
68  European  Commission,  Second  report  on  the  progress  made  in  the  fight  against  trafficking  in  human  beings, 
COM(2018) 777 final, and its accompanying Staff Working Document, SWD(2018) 473 final; EIGE contribution to the 
public  consultation;  GRETA,  Trafficking  in  Children  (2019),  available  at:  link;  RACE  (2014),  Trafficking  for  force 
criminal activities and begging in Europe, available at: link.  
69  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, OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p.57. 
70  Council  Directive  2004/80/EC  of  29  April  2004  relating  to  compensation  to  crime  victims  (the  ‘Compensation 
Directive’), OJ L261, 6.8.2004, p.15. 
71 European Commission, Staff Working Document accompanying the Third (2020) report on the progress made in the 
fight against trafficking in human beings third report, SWD(2020) 226 final; Special Advisor J Milquet to the President 
of the European Commission, Strengthening Victims’ Rights: From compensation to reparation, For a new EU Victims’ 
rights strategy 2020-2025, (2019), available at: link.  

21 

 
 
                                                 
2.5. 

Specific problem 4: the demand that fosters trafficking in human 

2.5. 
beings remains high 

2.5.1.  2.5.1.  Driver:  the  criminalisation  of  the  use  of  services  exacted  from  victims  of 

trafficking is not consistent across the Member States 

Article 18(4) of the Directive requires Member States to consider criminalising the use of services 
which are the objects of exploitation, with the knowledge that the person is a victim of trafficking. 
In  2016,  the  Commission  noted  that  a  diverse  legal  landscape  across  the  EU  fails  to  effectively 
discourage demand, and that liability linked to direct knowledge that the person is a victim creates a 
high  threshold  in  prosecutions.  Accordingly,  the  level  of  knowledge  of  the  user  of  exploited 
services requires a close examination72. 

The  use  of  exploited  services  concerns  the  demand  for  goods  or  services  resulting  from  the 
exploitation of victims of trafficking in human beings. In exploitation of the prostitution of others 
and  other  forms  of  sexual  exploitation,  the  users  of  exploited  services  are  those  who  engage  in 
sexual  activity  with  trafficked  victims.  In  forced  labour,  the  users  of  exploited  services  are  those 
who purchase, or otherwise acquire, goods resulting from labour exploitation. In case of removal of 
organs, the users are those who obtain the organs of the exploited victim. However, not all forms of 
exploitation included in the Directive necessarily result in the use of exploited services by a third 
party. In case of forced begging, the users of the exploited services are the traffickers themselves.  

Seven Member States  did not  use the option provided for by  Article 18(4) and  therefore  have no 
rules  on  the  use  of  exploited  services73.  Five  Member  States  criminalised  the  knowing  use  of 
exploited  services  only  related  to  sexual  exploitation74.  One  Member  State  criminalised  the 
knowing  use  of  exploited  services  related  to  sexual  exploitation  and  labour  exploitation75.  Eight 
Member  States  criminalised  the  knowing  use  of  exploited  services  related  to  all  forms  of 
exploitation76.  Two  Member  States  criminalised  the  use  of  services  related  only  to  sexual 
exploitation when the users had knowledge that the services were exacted from trafficked victims or 
they should have known based on a reasonable assessment of the circumstances77 or had cause to 
suspect  it78.  One  Member  State  criminalised  the  use  of  exploited  services  in  relation  to  sexual 
exploitation without a knowledge requirement, as well as the knowing use of services for all other 
forms of exploitation79. Two Member States do not have specific rules on the criminalisation of the 
use  of  exploited  services  but  both  adhere  to  the  “equality  model”,  which  criminalises  any  use  of 
sexual services without any knowledge requirement, regardless of whether the person is a victim of 

72 COM(2016) 719 final. 
73 AT, BE, CZ, ES, IT, PL, SK. 
74 EE, IE, LU, LV, NL. 
75 EL. 
76 BG, HR, HU, LT, MT, PT, RO, SI. 
77 DE. 
78 FI.  
79 CY. 

22 

 
 
                                                 
trafficking80. Therefore, exploited services are implicitly included, although there is no specific rule 
concerning these in those Member States. 

Consulted  stakeholders  have  considerably  diverging  views81  regarding  the  effectiveness  of  the 
criminalisation  of  the  use  of  exploited  services  as  a  means  to  reduce  the  demand  that  fosters 
trafficking.  There  are  concerns  that  criminalising  the  use  of  services  exacted  from  victims  of 
trafficking  might  risk  further  increasing  the  dependence  of  victims  on  their  traffickers  or  pushing 
victims  of sexual  and labour exploitation  to  places where they are less likely to  be identified and 
provided with adequate protection and support. At the same time, the lack of harmonisation across 
the Member States means that users will face different consequences depending on where they use 
the exploited services of victims.  

2.5.2.  2.5.2.  Demand-reduction approaches are not widely implemented  

A particular  area where  more efforts  are needed  relates to the  growing demand in  the society  for 
cheap  products  and  services,  especially  in  times  of  economic  recession,  which  can  foster  cheap 
labour  and  lead  to  labour  exploitation.  Stakeholders  consulted  reported  that  there  could  be  a 
considerable  scope  for  greater  responsibility  of  businesses  and  corporations82  in  relation  to 
influence consumer and end-user awareness of forced labour, in particular in high-risk sectors, such 
as agriculture, garments and hospitality. Moreover, awareness-raising approaches are rarely targeted 
to  the  demand-side,  for  example  to  potential  users  of  the  services  exacted  from  victims  of 
trafficking in human beings, in particular for the purpose of sexual exploitation.    

3.  3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1. 

3.1. 

Legal basis 

The legal basis for the EU action in the field of trafficking in human beings are Articles 82(2) 
and, more particularly, 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). The latter 
provides  that  “the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  may,  by  means  of  directives  adopted  in 
accordance  with  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure,  establish  minimum  rules  on  the  definition  of 
criminal  offences  and  sanctions  in  the  areas  of  particularly  serious  crime  with  a  cross-border 
dimension resulting  from the nature or impact of  such offences or from a special need to  combat 
them on a common basis”.  Trafficking  in  human beings is  one of the  areas which fall within the 
scope of Article 83(1).  

3.2. 

3.2. 

Subsidiarity and proportionality 

80 FR, SE. 
81 See section 4.1.1.3 of the evaluation. For instance, amongst the respondents to the public consultation who answered 
that the Directive  should criminalise the knowing  use  of  exploited services,  14  were public authorities, 26  were non-
governmental organisations and 28 were EU citizens. On the other hand, 2 EU citizens, 2 public authorities and 19 non-
governmental organisations considered that the Directive should not criminalise the knowing use of exploited services.  
82  Submissions  to  the  public  consultation  by  (respectively)  EIGE;  International  Labour  Organisation;  ICAT;  and  La 
Strada International. 

23 

 
 
                                                 
Under  Article 4(2)(j) of  the TFEU,  the area of freedom, security and justice is  described as a 
shared competence between the EU and the Member States. Article 67(3) TFEU empowers the 
EU  to  “ensure  a  high  level  of  security  through  measures  to  prevent  and  combat  crime  […]  and 
through  measures  for  coordination  and  cooperation  between  police  and  judicial  authorities  and 
other competent authorities”. The fight against trafficking in human beings since 2002 governed by 
EU  law,  first  by  Council  Framework  Decision  2002/629/JHA  on  combating  trafficking  in  human 
beings83  and  subsequently  by  Directive  2011/36/EU  on  preventing  and  combating  trafficking  in 
human beings, protecting its victims. 

The  cross-border  dimension  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  is  twofold,  with  an  intra-EU  cross-
border dimension, and an external dimension involving the crossing of EU external borders (section 
2.1).    Consultations  with  stakeholders  demonstrated  the  necessity  of  EU  action  in  the  area  of 
trafficking in human beings84. Eurojust also reported that all 405 cases referred to the EU Agency 
between  January  2017  and  June  2019  were  transnational  and  allegedly  committed  by  organised 
crime groups85. Most of the cases (84) selected for analysis86 involved EU citizens from Romania, 
Bulgaria,  Slovakia,  Hungary  and  Lithuania,  while  eight  cases  involved  victims  from  non-EU 
countries  (Nigeria,  Ukraine,  Belarus  and  Moldova).  Cross-border  law  enforcement  and  judicial 
cooperation is increasingly based on common EU rules across the Member States, which requires a 
higher harmonisation of relevant national legislation and systematic exchange of good practices87. 
The  cross-border  dimension  does  not  only  concern  the  nationality  of  victims  but  also  the  modi 
operandi of the criminal networks perpetrating the crime, which often have ties with other countries 
than the one of citizenship. Therefore, different elements of the trafficking offence can take place in 
different  Member  States  and/or  non-EU  countries.  The  cross-border  dimension  of  trafficking  in 
human  beings  brings  specific  challenges,  which  require  action  and  coordination  at  the  EU  level. 
These  include,  but  are  not  limited  to,  the  sharing  of  information  between  law  enforcement  and 
judicial  authorities  from  different  Member  States  and  non-EU  countries,  identifying  whether 
parallel criminal proceedings are taking place in other countries, acting jointly and quickly in order 
to  make  sure  that  the  perpetrators  with  ties  to  several  countries  do  not  escape  justice,  gathering 
evidence  that  can  be  admitted  in  court,  taking  into  account  the  different  national  legal  systems, 
conflicts of jurisdiction, as well as identifying and referring victims of trafficking in human beings 
to assistance and support in the cross-border context.   

60 2002/629/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 19 July 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings,  OJ L 203, 
1.8.2002,  p.  1–4,  which  was  replaced  by  Directive  2011/36/EU  on  preventing  and  combating  trafficking  in  human 
beings, protecting its victims.. Available at: link. 
84  Eighty-five  percent  of  the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  considered  that  it  would  be  more  difficult  for 
Member  States  to  tackle  trafficking  in  human  beings  individually,  without  the  Anti-trafficking  Directive  and  95% 
replied  that  the  aim  of  preventing  and  combatting  trafficking  continued  to  require  action  at  the  EU  level  (Annex  2). 
Also see section 4.2 of the evaluation. 
85  Eurojust,  Report  on  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings:  Best  practice  and  issues  in  judicial  cooperation  (2021),  p.5. 
Available at: link.  
86 91 cases were selected by Eurojust for analysis.  
87 Online survey: 3 national competent authority (DE, FR, HU); 1 National Rapporteur (HU); 1 judicial authority (NL); 
1 other (NL).  

24 

 
 
                                                 
While the transnational nature of trafficking in human beings justified EU action in the first place, 
the  increased  relevance  of  the  online  dimension  of  the  crime  warrants  for  new  EU  action  in  the 
field. Access to the internet and online platforms gives traffickers the opportunity to recruit, control, 
transport and exploit the victims, as well as move profits and reach out to users everywhere within 
the EU and outside without crossing any border. It also provides a shield against the identification 
of traffickers and victims by the law enforcement authorities.  A stronger harmonisation of the EU 
rules  and  coordination  at  the  EU-level,  in  cooperation  with  the  EU  Agencies,  to  fight  the  crime 
when it is facilitated by technology would enhance the capacity of national authorities to investigate 
and  prosecute  such  offences,  including  in  collecting  digital  evidence,  carrying  out  financial 
investigations, sharing and exchanging information with other Member States when relevant.  

The  establishment  of  the  position  of  the  EU  Anti-Trafficking  Coordinator  in  the  Directive,  first 
proposed  by  the  Stockholm  programme88,  shows  the  recognition  of  the  added  value  of  stronger 
coordination  at  the  EU  level.  EU  action  proved  essential  in  adopting  and  implementing  anti-
trafficking policies across the Member States. The EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator contributes to 
improving the knowledge on trafficking at the EU level by providing input to the reporting carried 
out  by  the  Commission  every  two  years  on  the  progress  made  in  the  fight  against  trafficking  in 
human beings and on the data collection. Moreover, the EU-level response has proven an effective 
tool in specific situations, such as in reducing the risks of, and vulnerability to, trafficking among 
people fleeing the war in Ukraine. The Common Anti-trafficking Plan, developed under the lead of 
the  EU  Anti-Trafficking  Coordinator  in  close  cooperation  with  the  National  Rapporteurs  and 
Equivalent  Mechanisms  (NREM),  the  EU  Agencies  and  the  EU  Civil  Society  Platform  against 
trafficking in human beings, highlighted the necessity of EU action in preventing and fighting the 
crime  and  resulted  in  a  coordinated  approach  from  prevention  and  awareness  raising  measures  to 
the law enforcement and judicial responses.  

In light of what is described above, the initiative would contribute to the fight trafficking in human 
beings,  which is  a serious form  of organised crime with  a  cross-border  dimension, in  compliance 
with  Article  83(1)  TFEU  and  Article  82(1)  and  therefore,  does  not  exceed  what  is  necessary  to 
achieve the objectives  of the Treaties. This  initiative  proposes both  non-legislative and legislative 
measures,  which  respond  to  the  priorities  and  key  actions  of  the  EU  Strategy  on  Combatting 
Trafficking in Human Beings and remain within the scope of the current Anti-trafficking Directive. 
It addresses the main issues that were raised in the context of the evaluation (see section 2.1 of the 
Impact Assessment). The proportionality of the policy options is further described in section 7.5. 

4.  4. WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED? 

4.1. 

4.1.  General objectives 

The general objective of the proposal is to strengthen the EU legal framework against trafficking in 
human beings to ensure that it adequately addresses the challenges identified above.  

88 European Commission, The Stockholm Programme - An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens 
(2009). Available at: link.  

25 

 
 
                                                 
4.2. 

4.2.  Horizontal and specific objectives 

The horizontal and specific objectives described below aim at responding to the problems identified 
in Section 2.  

4.2.1.  4.2.1.  Ensuring  adequate  prevention,  detection  and  improving  the  monitoring  of 

trafficking in human beings at the EU level (horizontal) 

Strengthening  the  capacity  of  all  relevant  stakeholders  to  prevent  and  detect  trafficking  in  human 
beings through training, exchange of best practices, including on cross-border cooperation between 
law enforcement and judicial bodies, and reinforcing multi-agency cooperation and coordination at 
national and transnational level will contribute to improving the fight against the crime. In addition, 
improving  the  monitoring  and  understanding  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  through  a  better  and 
more systematic collection of data will contribute to having more effective prevention and detection 
measures, as it will make it possible to adequately assess the full scale of the phenomenon across 
the EU as well as current trends. This is particularly important for ensuring that policies developed 
at the national and EU level are tailored to  addressing existing challenges and emerging trends in 
the area of trafficking in human beings.   

4.2.2.  4.2.2.  Reinforcing  the  criminal  justice  response  to  the crime,  including  in  the  cross-

border context (specific) 

Reinforcing the criminal justice response to the crime will improve the capacity of law enforcement 
and judicial authorities to fight the crime and adapt to the new modi operandi and business model of 
traffickers, including in the digital environment. It will further harmonise the EU legal framework 
with a view to facilitating cross-border cooperation in trafficking cases, with the support of the EU 
Agencies, and address emerging threats, which have changed the security landscape within the past 
few years.  

4.2.3.  4.2.3.  Ensuring  that  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  receive  adequate 

assistance, support and protection across the Member States (specific) 

Improving the overall situation of victims and their access to rights will have an impact on success 
of  investigations,  hence  on  the  level  of  security  in  the  EU.  Detection  and  early  identification  are 
crucial  to  ensure  that  victims  are  referred  to  adequate  assistance,  support  and  protection  services, 
which  are  adapted  to  their  needs.  The  policy  intervention  intends  to  improve  cross-border 
cooperation  among  EU  Member  States  and  with  non-EU  countries  for  the  referral  of  victims  of 
trafficking,  for  instance  when  they  return  to  their  country  of  origin  or  are  identified  in  a  country 
other than where the exploitation took place.  

4.2.4.  4.2.4.  Reducing  the  demand  for  the  exploited  services  of  victims  that  fosters 

trafficking for all forms of exploitation (specific) 

The use of the exploited services of victims generates high profits for the traffickers and results in 
long-term  physical  and  psychological  harm  for  the  victims.  In  this  context,  demand  should  be 
addressed in a comprehensive way, from strengthening the criminal response to the use of exploited 
services  to  enhancing  awareness-raising  activities,  education  and  training.  The  intervention  also 

26 

 
 
aims at  developing prevention and awareness-raising activities on the safe use of the internet  and 
social  media,  especially  for  children,  as  well  as  targeting  those  who  may  use  of  the  services 
exploited in order to mitigate the risks of trafficking in human beings online.   

4.3. 

4.3.  How do objectives relate to the sustainable development goals and 
the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU?  

The objectives relate to the SDGs and relevant targets mentioned in section 1, which set as specific 
goals  to  eliminate  trafficking  in  human  beings.  The  general  and  specific  objectives  are  also 
consistent with Article 5(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (the “Charter”), which 
explicitly prohibits trafficking in human beings.  

5.  5. WHAT ARE THE VARIOUS OPTIONS TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES? 

5.1. 

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed?   

Section 2.1, as well as Annex 5, provide quantitative and qualitative evidence collected as part of 
the  evaluation,  which  assess  the  likelihood  that  trafficking,  as  a  security  threat,  a  serious  form  of 
organised crime and a grave violation of fundamental rights, will persist or even worsen within the 
coming years in the absence of further EU action. As mentioned above, the scale of trafficking in 
human beings did not reduce since the date of transposition of the Directive. The trends related to 
the forms  of exploitation,  sex and age of the victims  have remained consistent over the reporting 
period. Trafficking for labour exploitation has increased. The number of registered victims for this 
purpose reached 1 914 in 2019 and 1 833 in 2020, whereas the annual average between 2013 and 
2018  was  945.  At  the  same  time,  the  number  of  legal  persons,  which  are  the  object  of 
investigations,  prosecutions  or  convictions  for  trafficking  offences  committed  for  their  benefits  is 
not known.  

The number of recorded suspects nearly tripled over the reporting period (from 2 942 in 2013 to 7 
924 in 2019 and 7 290 in 2020). The number of prosecuted individuals also increased, although to a 
much  lesser  extent  (from  1  892  in  2013  to  3  055  in  2020).  However,  the  number  of  registered 
convicted individuals overall decreased from 1 455 in 2013 to 1 295 in 2020, despite some peaks in 
2017  (1  734)  and  2019  (1  724).  It  also  dropped  to  693  in  2018.  These  statistics  highlight  that  a 
culture  of  impunity  persists  within  the  EU,  which  allows  traffickers  to  remain  undetected  and 
escape justice.  

The  evaluation  found  that  the  Directive  was  a  major  milestone  in  the  fight  against  trafficking  in 
human beings, which provides for an overarching EU legal framework and contributed to creating a 
common  ground  at  the  EU  level.  Without  further  actions,  the  anti-trafficking  legal  and  policy 
framework  currently  in  place  would  continue  to  apply.  The  minimum  rules  on  the  definition  of 
trafficking  offences,  the  penalties,  as  well  as  the  prevention  and  protection  of  the  victims 
established  in  the  Directive  would  remain  in  place.  The  current  framework  would  possibly  be 
strengthened and complemented by ongoing and recent legislative initiatives in related policy areas, 
such  as  on  victims’  rights,  child  sexual  abuse  and  exploitation,  due  diligence,  violence  against 
women (see Section 1).  

27 

 
 
The Commission would continue to focus on the implementation of the Strategy in order to improve 
the  situation,  including  by  further  supporting  Member  States  in  implementing  the  Directive, 
including through dedicated funding89 and monitoring via the biannual progress reports adopted in 
line  with  Article  20,  as  well  as  meetings  with  the  EU  Network  of  National  Rapporteurs  and 
Equivalent  Mechanisms  and  the  EU  Civil  Society  Platform.  It  would  also  ensure  the  effective 
enforcement of the Directive in the Member States, including through infringements as appropriate. 
Member States have fully or partially transposed most of the mandatory provisions of the Directive 
into their national legal systems90. The assessment of the transposition of the Directive carried out 
in the context of the evaluation showed that Member States have taken additional steps to transpose 
it, as a follow-up to the Commission’s 2016 “Transposition” report91.  

Many  of  the  legal,  policy  and  operational  initiatives  announced  in  the  EU  Strategy  have  already 
been  implemented  or  have  significantly  advanced.  The  Commission  put  forward  two  legislative 
initiatives92, as well as guidance93 which address the responsibility of companies and businesses in 
reducing demand for, and detecting potential cases of trafficking in human beings in their activities 
and supply chains. The Commission also proposed actions94 to strengthen the effectiveness of the 
Employers’  Sanctions  Directive95,  which  prohibits  the  employment  of  irregularly  staying  third-
country nationals, including victims of trafficking in human beings. 

Actions and tools developed as part of the Common  Anti-Trafficking Plan in  relation  to  Russia’s 
aggression  against  Ukraine  would  continue  to  apply  in  the  broader  context  of  the  fight  against 
trafficking  in  human  beings,  notably  the  list  of  dedicated  emergency  anti-trafficking  helplines  to 
help potential victims, which was compiled and published online96. Cooperation with the European 
Labour Authority  and its European Platform  tackling Undeclared Work,  which started in  order to 
tackle  undeclared  work,  labour  exploitation  and  trafficking  in  human  beings  among  displaced 
persons and refugees from Ukraine, would continue. 

The  advancement  of  EU  policies  against  criminal  groups  as  set  out  in  the  EU  Strategy  to  tackle 
Organised  Crime,  including  a  stronger  response  to  criminal  finances  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
proposed  Directive  on  asset  recovery  and  confiscation97,  will  limit  the  capacity  to  operate  of 

89 Notably through Union actions and shared management under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and the 
Internal Security Fund.  
90 Annex 6.  
91  European  Commission,  Report  assessing  the  extent  to  which  Member  States  have  taken  the  necessary  measures  in 
order to comply with Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its 
victims in accordance with Article 23 (1), COM(2016) 722 final. 
92 See section 1. 
93 New EU guidance helps companies to combat forced labour (europa.eu). 
94 COM(2021) 592 final. 
95  Directive  2009/52/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  June  2009  providing  for  minimum 
standards  on  sanctions  and  measures  against  employers  of  illegally  staying  third-country  nationals,  OJ  L  168, 
30.6.2009, p. 24–32 
96 National hotline numbers for reporting a crime or seeking assistance (europa.eu). 
97  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  asset  recovery  and  confiscation, 
COM/2022/245 final 

28 

 
 
                                                 
criminal  groups  involved  in  human  trafficking.  The  operational  response  to  the  crime  at  the  EU 
level  would  continue  to  take  place  within  existing  frameworks,  such  as  the  European 
Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats (EMPACT) and its Operational Action Plans 
(OAP) tackling Trafficking in Human Beings and in cooperation with the EU Agencies. 

However, this would mean that no  new legal  measure is  taken in  order to reduce the scale  of the 
crime  whereas  the  trends  show  that  the  phenomenon  is  still  prevalent  in  the  EU.  The  level  of 
identification  of  victims  would  continue  to  evolve  in  a  similar  way,  with  many  of  them  likely  to 
remain  undetected.  Traffickers  would  continue  to  make  great  profits  from  the  exploitation  of 
vulnerable people. Moreover, the rate of prosecutions or convictions98, including of legal persons, 
would probably remain low.   

The  challenges  identified  would  largely  be  insufficiently  addressed,  including  in  terms  of 
prevention measures and early identification and referral of victims.  

The baseline scenario would not change the legislative approach in force for addressing the demand 
that  fosters  trafficking.  The  current  text  of  Article  18(4)  gives  Member  States  the  choice  to 
introduce, or not, rules addressing the use of exploited services. Member States would continue to 
be  able  to  adopt  a  “nuanced  approach”  (e.g.  criminalising  the  use  of  exploited  services  obtained 
only from some forms of exploitation) or stricter approaches (e.g. criminalising the use of exploited 
services when the user knew or had reasons to know that they were obtained from a victim, or even 
without any knowledge element). The lack of harmonisation of the EU rules on the criminalisation 
of the use of services exacted from victims of trafficking may hamper cross-border cooperation, for 
instance if the conduct is criminalised in the Member State of citizenship of the user but not in the 
Member State where the services of the victims were used.  

5.2. 

5.2.  Description of the policy options 

The  Impact  Assessment  identified  three  policy  options.  The  first  policy  option  entails  non-
legislative measures. The second policy option focuses on legislative measures, i.e. amendments to 
the Directive. The third policy option is a mix of legislative and non-legislative measures.  

Stakeholders were consulted on the different  measures that are part of the three policy options as 
part  of  seven  targeted  interviews  with  EU  Agencies,  EU  civil  society  organisations  and  one 
international  organisations,  as  well  as  case  studies  interviews  with  five  Member  States  (France, 
Hungary, Italy, Netherlands and Romania), which involved national authorities working in the area 
of trafficking in human beings, law enforcement and judicial authorities and social services or civil 
society organisations working with victims99.   

98 See Annex 5.  
99 See Annex 2 – Stakeholder consultations.  

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 2 – Summary of the problems, objectives and policy options 

5.2.1.  5.2.1.  Policy option 1: Non-legislative action at EU level or national level 

Policy  option  1  (P.O.1)  consists  of  a  package  of  non-legislative  measures,  which  would  provide 
support  to  the  Member  States  in  implementing  the  Directive  and  generally  contribute  to 
strengthening the EU legal and policy framework against trafficking in human beings. P.O.1 builds 
on the EU Strategy on Combatting Trafficking in Human Beings, which set out a number of policy 
measures to improve the EU anti-trafficking action, following a thorough examination of the current 
trends  and  challenges  and  extensive  consultations  with  stakeholders.  Although  some  of  the 
measures  presented  below  are  mentioned  in  the  EU  Strategy,  P.O.1  goes  beyond  the  baseline 
scenario as it focuses on actions that are not yet in force nor were clearly defined in the Strategy. It 
also  takes  into  account  the  findings  of  the  evaluation,  which  highlighted  that  some  of  the  main 
challenges in preventing and fighting against trafficking in human beings, as well as protecting the 
victims, stem from gaps in the implementation of the Directive. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3 – Policy Option 1 (non-legislative measures) 

Objectives 

Non-legislative and legislative measures 

Reinforcing  the  criminal  justice  response 
to the crime, including in the cross-border 
context 

Ensuring that victims of trafficking receive 
and 
support 
assistance, 
adequate 
protection across the Member States 

  Non-legislative  measure  2  –  Setting-
up  of  a  Focus  Group  of  specialised 
prosecutors 
in 
human beings 

trafficking 

against 

  Non-legislative  measure  3  –  Close 
technology 

cooperation  with 
companies including online platforms 

the 

  Non-legislative measure 1 and 1(ii) – 
and 
developing 
on  National  Referral 
setting-up  of  a 

Establishing 
Expertise  Hub 
guidelines 
Mechanisms  and 
European Referral Mechanism 

a  Knowledge 
and 

Reducing  the  demand  for  the  exploited 
services  of  victims  that  fosters  trafficking 
for all forms of exploitation 

  Non-legislative  measure 

1 

Establishing 
Expertise Hub 

a  Knowledge 

– 
and 

  Non-legislative  measure  3  –  Close 
technology 

cooperation  with 
companies including online platforms  

the 

adequate 

Ensuring 
and 
monitoring  of  trafficking  in  human  beings 
(horizontal) 

detection 

  Non-legislative  measure 

– 
Organising  an  EU-wide  awareness 
raising campaign 

4 

  Non-legislative  measure  1  and  1(i)  - 
and 
Establishing 
Expertise  Hub 
developing 
guidelines  on  data  collection  on 
trafficking in human beings in the EU 

a  Knowledge 
and 

  Non-legislative  measure  3  –  Close 
technology 

cooperation  with 
companies including online platforms 

the 

  Non-legislative  measure 

– 
Organising  an  EU-wide  awareness 
raising campaign 

4 

5.2.1.1.5.2.1.1. 

Establishing  a  Knowledge  and  Expertise  Hub  on  Combatting 

Trafficking in Human Beings 

This  measure  builds  upon  the  Strategy,  which  sets  out  that  the  Commission  would  fund  and 
coordinate a set of actions to further improve the policy and operational work to combat trafficking 
in  human  beings.  This  set  of  actions  would  de  facto  serve  as  a  knowledge  and  expertise  hub  for 
Member States  and other stakeholders. Such actions are aimed at  enhancing the exchange of best 
practices,  including  on  cross-border  cooperation  between  law  enforcement  and  judicial  bodies; 
to  reinforce  multi-agency  cooperation  and 
facilitating  advisory  services  by  practitioners 

31 

 
 
 
 
coordination at national and transnational level; helping further enhance support to victims and their 
referral  in  Europe  and  beyond;  and  promoting  awareness-raising,  research  and  data  analysis  by 
supporting  cooperation  between  relevant  national  bodies,  for  example  data  institutes  and 
observatories.  

The  Knowledge  and  Expertise  Hub  would  act  as  an  umbrella  platform  for  developing  policy 
measures,  exchanging  best  practices  and  reinforcing  cooperation  among  a  community  of  experts 
and  practitioners  in  the  field  of  trafficking  in  human  beings.  It  would  focus  on  the  shortcomings 
identified  in  the  evaluation,  especially  concerning  the  collection  of  reliable  and  comparable  data; 
early identification of, and referral to assistance and support services for victims, targeted to their 
specific  needs;  difficulties  for  victims  to  access  compensation;  insufficient  funds  for  capacity 
building and training of relevant practitioners, and use of available EU funds by Member States; or 
the  role  of  the  private  sectors,  including  companies,  employers  and  internet  and  technology 
companies in preventive and awareness-raising measures.  

The  Hub  would  operate  via  an  online  platform  linked  to  the  Commission’s  Anti-trafficking 
website100 and existing electronic platforms of the EU Network of NREM and the EU Civil Society 
Platform, as well as meetings and workshops dedicated to specific topics. The activities of the Hub 
would  allow  Member  States,  civil  society  organisations  and  EU  Agencies  to  share  best  practices, 
and provide them with tools to strengthen their capacity to monitor, detect and combat the crime. It 
would also support the work of the EU Network NREM and the EU Civil Society Platform against 
trafficking  in  human  beings,  which  are  key  actors  in  the  monitoring  of  the  transposition  and 
implementation of the Directive.  

The actions described below would be developed within the framework of the Hub, among others. 
The  establishment  of  a  Knowledge  and  Expertise  Hub  was  widely  supported  by  all  consulted 
stakeholders.  One  public  authority,  notably,  considered  that  it  would  be  highly  relevant  in 
centralising available information on trafficking in human beings at the EU level.  

(i) Developing guidelines on data collection on trafficking in human beings within the EU 

Horizontal problem 1 (driver 3) highlights that the data collection exercises and the monitoring of 
trends do not  reflect  the full scale of trafficking  in  human beings across  the EU. The Knowledge 
and Expertise Hub would develop guidelines on data collection on trafficking in human beings in 
the EU, in close cooperation with Eurostat, the EU Network of NREM and the National Statistical 
Authorities.  This  would  contribute  to  ensuring  harmonised  data  collection  across  the  Member 
States. As part of the work of the Knowledge and Expertise Hub on improving data collection and 
reporting across the Member States, required statistics could be expanded as to include additional 
indicators, such as the number of persons accessing protection and support; the number of victims 
accessing compensation; the number and entity of asset confiscations; and the number of financial 
investigations.  The  guidelines  would also  aim at improving the  collection of data by the Member 
States on legal persons.  

100 Together Against Trafficking in Human Beings (europa.eu). 

32 

 
 
                                                 
This  measure  would  improve  the  knowledge  about  the  crime  within  the  EU  and  help  in  ensuring 
reliable and comparable information to inform evidence-based policies, in line with the Strategy.  

(ii)  Development  of  guidelines  on  National  Referral  Mechanisms  and  setting-up  of  a 
European Referral Mechanism 

This measure addresses the challenges identified as part of  specific problem 3, in particular with 
regards  to  the  fact  that  existing  formal  or  informal  national  referral  mechanisms  are  not  fully 
effective and that victims’ support is often not adapted to their specific needs.   

The  Strategy  highlights  that  the  Commission  would  promote  activities  such  as  developing 
guidelines,  toolkits  and  exchanging  best  practices  among  practitioners  to  improve  national 
structures  and  cooperation  for  the  identification,  assistance  and  support  of  victims,  including 
national  referral  mechanisms.  It  also  sets  out  that  the  Commission  would  contribute  towards  the 
establishment  of  a  European  referral  cooperation  mechanism,  with  the  support  of  relevant  EU 
Agencies.  

The  European  Referral  Mechanism  would  consist  of  single  points  of  contacts  designated  by  each 
Member  States,  which  would  serve  as  a  single  point  of  reference  in  case  of  cross-border  victim 
identification, support and referral. These single points of contact would facilitate and accelerate the 
communication between Member States authorities in  individual cases, ensure a proper follow-up 
of  the  victims  and  provide  information  about  national  laws  and  procedures.  They  would  operate 
based on guidelines for Member States developed by the Knowledge and Expertise Hub based upon 
the lessons learnt and best practices of existing Transnational Referral Mechanisms. The guidelines 
would  be  developed  in  close  cooperation  with  the  NREM  and  the  civil  society  organisations  in 
order to identify the minimum standards required for national referral mechanisms.   

This  measure  would  contribute  to  ensuring  that  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  receive 
adequate  assistance,  support  and  protection  across  the  Member  States  (specific  objective  3). 
Consulted  stakeholders  agreed  on  the  importance  to  develop  minimum  standards  across  Member 
States on victims’ referral, in order to improve cross-border cooperation.  

5.2.1.2.5.2.1.2. 

 Setting-up  of  a  Focus  Group  of  specialised  prosecutors 

against trafficking in human beings 

The  Focus  Group  of  specialised  prosecutors  against  trafficking  is  one  of  the  key  actions  of  the 
Strategy.  The  objective  of  the  group  is  to  build  specialised  expertise  and  intensify  judicial 
cooperation  for  a  more  robust  criminal  justice  response  to  trafficking  in  human  beings.  It  would 
provide  a  forum  for  practitioners  to  exchange  knowledge,  expertise  and  best  practices.  It  would 
increase cross-border judicial cooperation and result in more successful investigations, prosecutions 
and convictions for trafficking offences.  The Focus Group would also help in increasing Member 
States’ use of the support and capacity of coordination of the EU Agencies, in particular Eurojust.  

33 

 
 
 
The EU Anti-trafficking Coordinator organised, together with Eurojust, a first meeting of the Focus 
Group101.  However,  the  format  and  activities,  location  and  source  of  funding,  as  well  as  the 
frequency of the meetings of the group still need to be determined. This measure intends to respond 
to  specific  problem  2,  which  highlights  that  the  low  levels  of  prosecutions  and  convictions 
contribute  to  a  culture  of  impunity  in  the  EU.  Prosecutors  and  judges  participating  in  the  Focus 
Group  could  discuss  the  main  challenges  they  face  in  combatting  trafficking  in  human  beings, 
notably  those  that  were  identified  in  the  evaluation.  These  include  the  important  reliance  on 
victims’  testimony  in  criminal  proceedings,  differences  in  the  interpretation  of  certain  legal 
concepts  or  in  the  legislation  of  Member  States  regarding  the  definition  of  the  trafficking 
offences102 and levels of penalties103, as well as capacity to conduct financial investigations, seize 
and confiscate criminal assets and detecting and fighting against trafficking facilitated by the use of 
technology.  As  an  outcome  of  these  meetings,  analytical  papers,  reports  and  recommendations 
could be developed in order to guide and support the work of relevant practitioners. 

The Focus Group would generally participate in strengthening the criminal justice response against 
trafficking  in  human  beings,  including  in  the  cross-border  context  (specific  objective  2). 
Stakeholders  consulted on the policy options  considered that this measure was necessary. Several 
judicial  authorities  highlighted  the  importance  of  cooperation  within  the  framework  of  EMPACT 
where specialised prosecutors already participate.  

5.2.1.3.5.2.1.3. 

Close  cooperation  with  the  technology  companies  including 
online  platforms  through  the  inclusion  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  among 
the areas of work of the EU Internet Forum 

The  evaluation  found  that  the  online  dimension  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  was  an  important 
and  growing  threat.  Victims  are  often  recruited  online  and  social  media  is  increasingly  used  as  a 
means to commit the offence. Nevertheless, technology companies, including online platforms, are 
not  sufficiently involved in  the prevention and fight  against  this  crime.  Under this non-legislative 
measure, the Commission  would step-up its action  to  raise awareness  with  technology  companies 
on the risks of trafficking online and encourage them to monitor, detect, limit the spread or remove 

101  Focus  group  of  prosecutors  specialised  in  human  trafficking  meets  for  the  first  time  |  Eurojust  |  European  Union 
Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (europa.eu). 
102 For instance, while all Member States have transposed the definition of trafficking in human beings, some national 
legislations do not explicitly refer to some of the means. EE, FR, LV, HU and FI do not explicitly refer to the means of 
“abduction” and “fraud”. IT and AT do not explicitly refer to the means of “abduction”. SI does not explicitly refer to 
“fraud”. EE, HU and SI do not explicitly refer to “giving or receiving of payments or benefits”. 
103 All Member States have transposed Article 4(1) of the Directive, although the level penalties may differ across the 
Member States. For example, the maximum penalty for trafficking offences is of 25 years for sexual exploitation and 15 
years for labour exploitation in CY. The maximum penalty for trafficking for all forms of exploitation is of at least 10 
years  of  imprisonment  in  EL.  In  Hungary,  penalties  are  between  2  and  8  years  of  imprisonment  for  trafficking  for 
forced labour and between 5 and 10 years for trafficking for sexual exploitation. In RO, trafficking in human beings can 
be punished between 5 and 10 years. Some Member States do not include all the aggravating circumstances of Article 
4(2) (BG, DE and EE). Moreover, BG, DE and HU do not have any provisions regarding the maximum penalty of at 
least 10 years of imprisonment for trafficking offences committed with an aggravating circumstance. Several Member 
States  do  not  explicitly  provide  for  aggravated  penalties  when  the  offence  is  committed  by  public  officials  in  the 
performance of their duties (DE, FI, LV, PL, SE, SI), as required by Article 4(3).   

34 

 
 
 
                                                 
trafficking  in  human  beings  related  content.  These  activities  would  take  place  within  the  EU 
Internet Forum, which recently introduced trafficking in human beings as one its areas of work104. 
This measure would mainly address specific problem 2, driver 2 through the following activities:  

- 

research  of  new  technical  solutions  to  support  companies  and  national  authorities  in  the 
detection  of 
electronic 
communications);  

tech-facilitated 

end-to-end 

trafficking 

encrypted 

(e.g. 

-  prevention  and  awareness-raising  activities  on  the  safe  use  of  internet  and  social  media, 

which should include reviewing of platforms internal policies;  

-  partnerships  with  global  online  fora  and  initiatives  dedicated  to  addressing  and  preventing 

the dissemination of tech-facilitated trafficking in human beings; 

-  cooperation  with  law  enforcement:  report  suspicious  cases  to  law  enforcement  authorities 

and to Europol, notably in order to identify new phenomena and emerging trends. 

This  measure  would  contribute  to  specific  objective  2  by  addressing  the  responsibility  of 
technology  companies  in  reinforcing  the  criminal  justice  response  to  the  crime,  as  well  as  to 
specific  objective  4,  which  highlights  the  need  to  develop  prevention  and  awareness  raising 
activities on the safe use of the internet and social media, as well as targeting the users of services 
that are advertised online as a way to reduce demand.  

While some consulted stakeholders highlighted that some technology companies might be reluctant 
in  participating in  such  cooperation, they all agreed to  the importance of this measure in  order to 
improve  knowledge  of  the  online  dimension  and  further  engage  the  private  sector  in  the  fight 
against trafficking105.  

5.2.1.4.5.2.1.4. 

Organising an EU-wide awareness raising campaign 

Articles 18 of the Directive requires Member States to take appropriate preventive actions, such as 
information  and  awareness  raising  campaigns,  research  and  education  programmes,  in  order  to 
discourage  and reduce the demand that fosters all forms  of exploitation  (paragraph 1) and  raising 
awareness  and  reducing  the  risks  of  people,  especially  children,  becoming  victims  of  trafficking 
(paragraph 2). Therefore, this measure, which addresses both horizontal problem 1 (driver 2) and 
specific  problem  4  (driver  2),  would  also  contribute  to  improving  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive.  

Under this non-legislative measure, the Commission would organise an EU-wide awareness-raising 
campaign  on  the  risks  of  trafficking,  with  a  specific  focus  on  high-risk  sectors  and  high-risk 

104 European Union Internet Forum (EUIF) (europa.eu).  
105  Among  the  respondents  to  the  online  survey,  7  national  competent  authorities;  13  NREM;  7  law  enforcement 
authorities; 8 judicial authorities; 1 national authorities responsible for social services; and 15 civil society organisations 
replied  that  EU  intervention  would  be  necessary  to  enhance  cooperation  with  online  private  companies  would  be 
necessary to a large or very large extent. Out of 90 respondents to the  online survey, 6 stakeholders replied to a small 
extent and 14 to a moderate extent (including 4 national competent authorities, 1 law enforcement authority, 2 judicial 
authorities and 4 civil society organisations).   

35 

 
 
 
                                                 
environments, mainly for sexual106 and labour107 exploitation. This campaign would be carried out 
in close cooperation with Member States and civil society organisations and would aim at  raising 
awareness  on  trafficking  within  the  general  public,  employers  and  potential  users  of  services 
exploited  from  victims,  in  line  with  the  Strategy.  It  would  both  contribute  to  ensuring  adequate 
prevention and detection of the crime at the EU level (horizontal objective 1) and to reducing the 
demand for the exploited services of trafficking victims (specific objective 4). 

While  consulted  stakeholders  considered  that  this  measure  would  effectively  contribute  to 
preventing  trafficking  and  reducing  demand  that  fosters  the  crime,  some  suggested  that  such 
campaign should be tailored to the specific needs of, and situations in the Member States.   

5.2.2.  5.2.2.  Policy option 2: Legislative action at EU level 

While  the  evaluation  showed  that  the  Directive  has  made  an  important  contribution  to  improving 
the situation on trafficking in human beings in the EU, a revision of the Directive would strengthen 
the  fight  against  the  crime  and  significantly  contribute  to  addressing  some  of  the  shortcomings, 
which cannot only be addressed through better implementation.  

The  evaluation  found  that  the  Directive  insufficiently  addressed  certain  aspects,  which  notably 
emerged  and/or became  more relevant since its adoption. Policy Option (P.O) 2 presents  several 
possible  legislative  changes  that  would  contribute  to  modernising  the  Directive  in  order  to  better 
address  those  challenges.  It  would  aim  at  improving  the  level  of  harmonisation  of  the  legislation 
across  the  Member  States,  for  instance  when  it  comes  to  the  forms  of  exploitation  to  be 
criminalised, as well as strengthening the sanctions against legal persons and the legal framework 
related to the criminalisation of the use of exploited services.  

Table 4 provides an overview of P.O 2, including different sub-options for some of the legislative 
measures.  

Table 4 – Policy Option 2 (Legislative measures) 

Objectives 

Legislative measures 

Possible  sub-options  as  part  of  the 
legislative measure 

Reinforcing 
criminal 
response 
crime, 

the 
justice 
the 
to 
including 

Legislative  measure  1  –  Explicitly 
addressing  the  digital  dimension  of 
trafficking  in  human  beings  in  the 

i.  Introducing  the  online  dimension  as 
part  of  the  definition  of  trafficking  in 
human beings 

106 According to the 2021 EU SOCTA, published by Europol, high-risk sectors and environments for sexual exploitation 
include  “clandestine  settings  and public environments  such as hotels, bars, restaurants,  sauna clubs,  strip clubs,  night 
clubs, massage parlours and prostitution windows”, as well as online platforms and services. 
107 High-risk sectors and environments for labour exploitation include transportation, construction, agriculture, forestry, 
food processing, factory assembly lines, hospitality, retail, carwashes, beauty and cleaning services, housekeeping and 
domestic assistance.  

36 

 
 
                                                 
the 
in 
border context 

cross-

Directive 

ii.  Qualifying  the  online  recruitment, 
advertisement or exploitation of victims 
of 
an  aggravating 
circumstance 

trafficking  as 

Legislative measure 2 – Including new 
forms of exploitation into the definition 
of trafficking in human beings 

i. Including forced marriage and illegal 
adoption  in  the  list  of  the  forms  of 
exploitation 

Legislative  measure 3  – Ensuring that 
legal  persons  may  be  subject  to  one  or 
more  sanctions  listed  in  the  Directive, 
which  are  currently  optional 
for 
Member  States  to  transpose  in  case  of 
conviction 

ii. Including more forms of exploitation 
(e.g.  forced  marriage,  illegal  adoption, 
illegal surrogacy, social fraud benefit). 

i.  Ensuring  that  legal  persons  may  be 
subject to some of the sanctions, which 
are  currently  optional  in  the  Directive, 
for the standard offence and to the other 
(currently optional) sanctions  when the 
offence  is  aggravated  by  one  of  the 
circumstances included in the Directive 

ii.  Ensuring  that  legal  persons  may  be 
subject  to  all  the  (currently  optional) 
sanctions  for  the  standard  offence  of 
THB  

iii.  Keeping  the  sanctions  to  legal 
persons  optional  for  Member  States  to 
transpose  for  the  standard  offence,  and 
mandatory 
the 
offence  is  aggravated  by  one  of  the 
circumstances included in the Directive 

transpose  when 

to 

that 
Ensuring 
of 
victims 
trafficking  receive 
adequate 
assistance, 
and 
support 
protection  across 
the Member States 

for 

Reducing 
the 
the 
demand 
exploited  services 
of 
trafficked 
victims  

Legislative  measure  4  –  Making  it 
mandatory for Member States to set up 
formal  National  Referral  Mechanisms 
and  create  national  focal  points  for 
victims’ referrals 

N/A 

Legislative  measure  5  –  Mandatory 
criminalisation  of  the  use  of  exploited 
services related to trafficking in human 
beings, with different available options 

i.  Mandatory  criminalisation  of  the 
knowing use of exploited services only 
related to sexual exploitation 

ii.  Mandatory  criminalisation  of  the 
knowing  use  of  exploited  services 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
related to all forms of exploitation 

iii.  Criminalisation  of  the  knowing  use  
of  exploited  services  or  if  the  use  of 
exploited  services  is  committed  with 
serious negligence 

iv.  Criminalisation  of 
the  use  of 
exploited  services  without  knowledge 
requirement 

v.  Different 
depending on the form of exploitation 

knowledge 

element 

Ensuring 
adequate 
detection 
monitoring 
trafficking 
human 
(horizontal) 

and 
of 
in 
beings 

N/A 

Legislative  measure  6  –  Introducing 
an  obligation  for  Member  States  to 
collect and report data on trafficking in 
human beings to the Commission every 
year, 
the 
including  by  specifying 
indicators for such data collection. 

5.2.2.1.5.2.2.1. 

Explicitly  addressing  the  digital  dimension  of  trafficking  in 

human beings in the Directive (legislative measure 1) 

Currently,  the  Directive  does  not  explicitly  address  the  digital  dimension  of  trafficking  in  human 
beings. The internet is only referred to in a provision on prevention (Article 18(2)), as a means to 
raise awareness and reduce the risk of people, especially children, becoming victims of trafficking 
in  human  beings.  This  measure  would  aim  at  improving  the  relevance  of  the  Directive,  as  the 
evaluation found that the online dimension could be better covered in the EU legislation.  

Introducing  the  online  dimension  of  trafficking  into  the  Directive  would  allow  to  better  address 
specific problem 2, which highlights that trafficking in human beings increasingly moved online, 
creating additional challenges for law enforcement and judicial authorities. At the same time, these 
challenges foster the development of new and innovative methods to fight against this phenomenon, 
through the monitoring of websites, the use of social media and websites to investigate and collect 
information that could be used as evidence, or the tracing of the digital footprint of criminals, such 
as  financial  transactions.  Therefore,  this  legislative  measure  would  encourage  policy  makers  and 
national  authorities  to  further  focus  on  addressing  the  online  dimension,  to  develop  technological 
methods and tools, as well as to enhance the capacity of law enforcement and judiciary to fight the 
crime  in  the  digital  space,  including  through  training  or  by  setting-up  specialised  units.  More 
broadly,  it  would  contribute  to  achieving  specific  objective  2  to  reinforce  the  criminal  justice 
response to the crime, including in the cross-border context.  

38 

 
 
 
 
74%  of  the  stakeholders  who  participated  in  the  public  consultation  were  in  favour  of  the 
introduction of explicit provisions on the online dimension of trafficking in human beings. Nearly 
all the public authorities (16 out of 19), as well as the majority of civil society organisations (35 out 
of 58) that responded supported this measure. The impact assessment identified two possible sub-
options in this respect.  

(i) 

Introducing  the  online  dimension  as  part  of  the  definition  of  the  offence  of  trafficking  in 
human beings 

This  legislative  option  takes  into  account  the  growing  threat  of  the  use  of  online  technology  for 
trafficking  in  human  beings  and  the  worrying  evolution  of  the  phenomenon.  This  policy  option 
could be twofold:  

(a) Adding  a  paragraph  under  Article  2,  which  defines  the  offence  of  trafficking  in  human 
beings, to specifically refer to the online dimension of the crime, including for example the 
recruitment  or  advertisement  of  the  victims  on  dedicated  websites  or  in  social  media  or 
control over the victim with tracing applications; 

(b) Creating a standalone offence for the use of technology and the internet in the recruitment, 
advertisement and exploitation of a person for the purpose of exploitation. The level of the 
penalties would remain the same as for the standard offence of trafficking in human beings.  

While the online dimension is de facto covered in the definition of trafficking offences, the explicit 
inclusion would reinforce the criminal response to one of the most serious changes in the trafficking 
in human beings landscape since the adoption of the legal instrument.  

In addition to strengthening the criminal justice response to this phenomenon, it would contribute to 
raising  awareness,  including  of  online  platforms  and  technology  companies,  on  the  prevalence  of 
online content related to trafficking in human beings.  

This  option would be complementary to, and aligned  with,  recent  legislative initiatives, including 
the  Commission’s  proposal  for  a  Directive  on  violence  against  women  and  domestic  violence 
(which introduces the offences of cyber harassment, cyber stalking and cyber incitement to violence 
and hatred), as well as with the Digital Services Act and the Commission’s proposal for a regulation 
on preventing and combatting child sexual abuse (which introduce obligations for online platforms 
and services to monitor, detect and remove illegal online content and child sexual abuse material).  

In particular, the Digital Services Act would cover the detection, monitoring and removal of online 
content  related  to  trafficking  in  human  beings  by  introducing  a  due  diligence  obligation  for 
providers  of  intermediary  services,  such  as  online  platforms,  with  the  aim  to  reduce  illegal  and 
harmful content online.  

This  sub-option  was  supported  by  stakeholders  consulted  as  part  of  the  case  studies  and  targeted 
interviews  who  underlined  the  importance  to  make  it  clear  in  the  Directive  that  the  crime  can  be 
perpetrated both offline and online.  

39 

 
 
 
(ii)  Qualifying  the  online  recruitment,  advertisement  or  exploitation  of  victims  of  trafficking  in 

human beings as an aggravating circumstance 

Under  this  option,  Member  States  would  be  required  to  introduce  more  severe  penalties  when  a 
trafficking  offence  is  committed  in  the  circumstances  laid  down  in  Articles  4(1)  and  (2)  of  the 
Directive. Online technology has facilitated all the steps of the trafficking chain and makes it more 
difficult to identify traffickers. This resulted in a multiplication of trafficking activities online and 
the  commercialisation  and  exploitation  of  victims  on  a  massive  scale108,  due  to  widespread 
advertisement, live-streaming in different online platforms, as well as the continued availability and 
the multiple viewings of online content/material related to the exploitation in the digital space. For 
these reasons, the use of online technology in the recruitment, advertisement and exploitation of the 
victim could qualify as an aggravating circumstance. This would lead to more severe penalties as 
envisaged in Article 4(2).  

Stakeholders  consulted  in  the  context  of  the  case  studies  were  more  divided  concerning  this  sub-
option. One public authority, for example, highlighted that higher penalties for when the offence is 
committed through the use of technology would not necessarily lead to a decrease in the number of 
cases.  Two  public  authorities  mentioned  that  there  was  a  risk  that  making  it  an  aggravating 
circumstance would lead to different interpretations across the Member States. Several stakeholders 
(one  law  enforcement  authority  and  two  civil  society  organisations)  highlighted  that  this  measure 
would  establishing  more  severe  penalties  when  the  crime  is  committed  online  than  when  it  takes 
place offline.  

5.2.2.2.5.2.2.2. 

Including  new  forms  of  exploitation  into  the  definition  of 

trafficking in human beings (legislative measure 2) 

Article 2(3) of the Directive includes a non-exhaustive list of forms of exploitation, which allows 
Member  States  to  address  additional  forms  of  exploitation  in  their  national  laws.  The  minimum 
forms  included  in  the  Directive  are  prostitution  of  others  or  other  forms  of  sexual  exploitation; 
forced  labour  or  services,  including  begging,  slavery  or  practices  similar  to  slavery,  servitude; 
exploitation for criminal activities; and removal of organs. The transposition assessment carried out 
in  the context  of the evaluation  of the Directive  showed that  some Member States  transposed the 
forms  of  exploitation  listed  in  Article  2(3)  as  an  exhaustive  list  and  chose  not  to  criminalise 
additional  forms.  The  public  consultation  indicated  that  over  half  (58%)  of  stakeholders  were  in 
favour of including new forms of exploitation in the definition of trafficking in human beings. More 
specifically, the majority of public authorities (10 out of 19)109 and non-governmental organisations 
(32 out of 58)110 expressed support for this measure.   

This  legislative  measure  addresses  one  of  the  key  findings  of  the  evaluation  according  to  which 
Member  States  often  transposed  into  their  national  legislation  only  the  forms  of  exploitation 
explicitly mentioned in the Directive, although the list in Article 2(3) is non-exhaustive (problem 2, 

108 Europol, The challenges of countering human trafficking in the digital era (2020). Available at: link.  
109 Including 4 who replied no and 5 who did not know. 
110 Including 15 who said no and 11 who did not know. 

40 

 
 
 
                                                 
driver  1).  It  would  generally  contribute  to  reinforcing  the  criminal  justice  response  to  the  crime, 
including in the cross-border context (specific objective 2).  

Under  this  option,  Member  States  would  have  an  obligation  to  expand  the  list  of  forms  of 
exploitation within their national law in order to address additional purposes of trafficking, which 
have  evolved  since  the  adoption  of  the  Directive.  It  would  further  contribute  to  harmonising  the 
offence of trafficking in human beings across the Member States, as some Member States already 
criminalise some of these, while others do not.  

Consulted stakeholders were generally in favour of expanding the list of the forms of exploitation 
that should be included in the Directive. However, some of them pointed to the fact that it would be 
important  to  clearly  define  the  conducts  that  qualify  as  trafficking  offences,  even  when  such 
conducts relate to forms of exploitation, which are not explicitly covered by the Directive.   

(i)  Include forced marriage and illegal adoption in the list of the forms of exploitation, which are 

criminalised under Article 2(3) 

Forced marriage and illegal adoption are already included in recital (11) of the Directive, as forms 
of exploitation that can be covered within the definition of trafficking in human beings, in so far as 
they fulfil the constitutive elements of the crime. This shows that there was broad consensus among 
Member States already at the time of the adoption of the Directive. Furthermore, these two purposes 
of trafficking have consistently been mentioned by stakeholders as forms of exploitation that should 
be criminalised under the Directive. Although ESTAT only collect data on these forms as part of a 
larger  category  of  “other”  forms,  the  evaluation  found  that  trafficking  for  forced  marriage  and 
illegal  adoption  have  become  more  prevalent  since  2011  and  can  no  longer  be  considered  as 
“emerging” trends. Finally, 69% of the respondents to the online survey indicated that the revision 
of  the  Directive  should  criminalise  forced  marriage  as  an  exploitative  purpose  of  trafficking  in 
human  beings111.  58%  of  the  respondents  considered  that  illegal  adoption  should  be  added  under 
Article 2(3)112, in so far as the other elements of the crime (i.e. conduct and means) are fulfilled.   

(ii) 

Include more forms of exploitation under Article 2(3) 

Another  option  would  be  adding  even  more  forms  of  exploitation  within  Article  2(3):  forced 
marriage, illegal adoption, illegal surrogacy and social benefit fraud. All these forms of exploitation 
have been identified in  reports adopted by the Commission  and EU Agencies as emerging  and/or 
evolving trends, which pose a security threat in the EU. Moreover, 52% of the respondents to the 

111 Overall, 62 respondents to the online survey considered that the Directive should criminalise forced marriage as an 
exploitative purpose related to trafficking in human beings, including 10 national competent authorities, 11 NREM, 5 
law enforcement authorities, 5 judicial authorities, 1 national authority responsible for social services, 20 civil society 
organisations and 3 other national authorities.  
112 Overall, 51 respondents to the online survey considered that the Directive should criminalise  illegal adoption as an 
exploitative purpose related to trafficking in human beings, including 5 national competent authorities, 9 NREM, 5 law 
enforcement authorities, 6 judicial authorities, 15 civil society organisations and 3 other national authorities.  

41 

 
 
                                                 
online survey indicated that the revision of the Directive should criminalise illegal surrogacy as an 
exploitative purpose of trafficking in human beings113.  

5.2.2.3.5.2.2.3. 

  Ensuring that legal persons may be subjected to one or more 
sanctions,  which  are  currently  optional  in  the  Directive,  in  case  of  conviction 
(legislative measure 3) 

Member States are required by Article 5 of the Directive to ensure that legal persons are held liable 
for trafficking offences. Article 6 provides an obligation for Member States to implement effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive sanctions against legal persons, which shall include criminal or non-
criminal fines and may include other sanctions. All the provisions of Article 5 have been transposed 
by  the  Member  States  and  all  Member  States  provide  for  the  sanction  of  at  least  a  criminal  or 
administrative fine for legal persons involved in trafficking in human beings, in accordance with the 
minimum  requirements  of  the  Directive.  Moreover,  most  Member  States  have  transposed  at  least 
one of the optional sanctions provided for by Article 6 of the Directive114. Progress has been done 
since  the  Commission  2016  “Transposition”  report115.  For  example,  Belgium  amended  its 
legislation  in  order  to  make  sure  that  persons  and  companies  convicted  for  trafficking  in  human 
beings can be excluded from public benefits (Article 6(a)) and to clarify that the partial or complete 
closure of the establishments which have been used for committing the offence (Article 6(e)) can be 
pronounced  by  a  judge  for  a  duration  from  one  to  twenty  years116.  Nevertheless,  the  evaluation 
found that the optional sanctions against legal persons are not widely transposed and that there is a 
lack of data regarding the application of the sanctions in practice. 

This legislative measure aims at addressing problem 2, which highlights that legal persons are not 
sufficiently  held  accountable  for  trafficking  offences.  60%  of  the  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation considered that the Directive has so far contributed to a “small extent” or “not at all” to 
holding  legal  persons  liable  for  trafficking  in  human  beings117.  Moreover,  most  stakeholders 

113 Overall, 46 respondents to the online survey considered that the Directive should criminalise illegal surrogacy as an 
exploitative purpose related to trafficking in human beings, including 8 national competent authorities, 6 NREM, 4 law 
enforcement  authorities,  2  judicial  authorities,  1  national  authority  responsible  for  social  services,  17  civil  society 
organisations and 2 other national authorities. 
114 BG, DE, EE, FI, IE, SK do not have any of the optional sanctions listed in  Article 6(a)-6(e). See Annex 6 on the 
Transposition of the Directive.  
115 European Commission, Report assessing the extent to which Member States have taken the necessary measures in 
order to comply with Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its 
victims in accordance with Article 23 (1), COM(2016) 722 final. 
116 See Annex 6 for a more detailed overview of the optional sanctions that were transposed in Member States.  
117 Among public authorities that responded to the public consultation, 7 replied that the Directive had contributed to 
holding legal persons liable for trafficking in human beings “to a moderate extent”; 6 replied “to a small extent”, 2 “to a 
high  extent”  and  1  “not  at  all”.  Only  one  trade  union  replied  to  this  question  with  “not  at  all”. The  majority  of  non-
governmental organisations replied “to a small extent” (26), 8 “to a moderate extent” and 8 “not at all”.  

42 

 
 
 
                                                 
considered  that  the  sanctions  on  legal  persons  provided  by  the  Directive  were  effective  (37%)118, 
proportionate (33%)119 and dissuasive (33%)120 to a small extent.  

Two  identified  key  areas  for  improvement  of  the  Directive  are  greater  action  by  legal  persons  in 
order  to  prevent  trafficking  and  reduce  demand  for  trafficked  services,  and  greater  action  by  the 
authorities  in  addressing  trafficking  offences  committed  by  legal  persons  or  as  part  of  the  value 
chain.  The  limited  use  of  the  provision  of  the  Directive  laying  down  other  sanctions,  which  are 
optional  for  Member  States  to  transpose  (Article  6)  hinders  the  deterrent  effect  of  the  liability  of 
legal  persons, thereby  contributing to  their widespread impunity. Requiring the Member States to 
ensure that legal persons will be subjected to more sanctions upon convictions would strengthen the 
criminal consequences of trafficking in human beings, increasing the liability of legal persons. This 
would more generally contribute to reinforcing the criminal justice response to the crime (specific 
objective 2) but also reducing demand that fosters trafficking in human beings (specific objective 
4). 

This  measure  would  reinforce  the  effectiveness  of  the  Commission’s  proposal  for  a  Directive  on 
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence by introducing mandatory criminal sanctions for trafficking 
offences committed by legal persons.  

(i)  Ensuring  that  legal  persons  may  be  subjected  to  some  of  the  sanctions,  which  are  currently 
optional  in  the  Directive,  for  the  standard  offence  and  to  the  other  (currently  optional) 
sanctions when the offence is aggravated by one of the circumstances included in the Directive 
in case of a conviction 

Other legal instruments address sanctions against legal persons. The Employers Sanctions Directive 
(2009/52/EC)  provides  for  a  range  of  penalties  and  measures  against  employers,  including  legal 
entities,  who  employ  illegally  staying  third  country  nationals.  More  particularly,  Article  7  of  the 
Employers  Sanctions  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure 
that employers shall also, if appropriate, be subject to the exclusion from entitlement to some or all 
public benefits,  aid or subsidies; and to the temporary or permanent  closure of the establishments 
that have been used to commit the infringement.    

These  two  measures  are  among  the  optional  sanctions  under  Article  6  of  the  Anti-trafficking 
Directive121. Taking into account the particular gravity of the offence of trafficking in human beings 

118 Including 3 public authorities and 24 non-governmental organisations. Most of the public authorities (10) considered 
that penalties were effective “to a moderate extent” or “to a high extent”. The only trade union that replied considered 
that the sanctions were not effective at all.    
119 Similarly to the effectiveness, public authorities were more equally divided regarding this question: 1 replied “not at 
all”,  2  “not  at  all”,  3  “to  a  small  extent”,  5  “to  a  moderate  extent”  and  5  “to  a  high  extent”.  23  non-governmental 
organisations replied “to a small extent”, while only 3 replied “to a moderate extent” and 2 “to a high extent”. 
120 7 public authorities considered that the sanctions on legal persons in the Directive were dissuasive “to a moderate 
extent” and 3 “to a high extent”, while 2 said “to a small extent” and 3 “not at all”. 22 non-governmental organisations 
replied “to a small extent” and 11 “not at all”. The only trade union that replied considered that the sanctions were not 
dissuasive at all.    

43 

 
 
                                                 
and the limited scope of the Employers Sanctions Directive, which only applies to illegally staying 
third-country  nationals  while  56%  of  the  victims  of  trafficking  are  EU  nationals,  the  two  above-
mentioned  measures  could  be  made  mandatory  for  Member  States  to  transpose  under  the  Anti-
trafficking  Directive.  This  would  ensure  better  coherence  between 
legislative 
instruments122. 

two 

the 

In addition, Member States would have to ensure that legal persons will be subjected to the other 
sanctions,  which  are  currently  optional  to  transpose  (the  temporary  or  permanent  disqualification 
from  the  practice  of  commercial  activities123;  placing  under  judicial  supervision124;  and  judicial 
winding-up125), when the offence is committed with one of the aggravating circumstances referred 
to  in  Article  4(2).126  This  concerns  offences,  which  are  committed  in  particularly  grave 
circumstances, such as when the victim is a child or the life of the victim has been endangered.  

(ii) 

Ensuring that legal persons may be subjected to all the (currently optional) sanctions for the 
standard offence of trafficking 

Under  this  option,  Member  States  would  have  an  obligation  to  ensure  that  legal  persons  can  be 
subjected to all the sanctions listed in Article 6 for trafficking offences. This means that they would 
have to transpose all these sanctions in their national law as possible sanctions. This option is the 
strictest  one  among  the  three  options  proposed  under  this  legislative  measure,  especially 
considering that no Member State has transposed all the optional sanctions under Article 6.  

(iii)  Keeping  the  sanctions  to  legal  persons  optional  for  Member  States  to  transpose  for  the 
standard offence, and mandatory to transpose when the offence is aggravated by one of the 
circumstances included in the Directive 

While  this  option  would  contribute  to  strengthening  the  criminal  consequences  against  legal 
persons, it would  also  give more flexibility to the Member States in  implementing it,  as it would 

121 The exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid (Article 6(a) of the Anti-trafficking Directive) is already in 
force in 11 Member States (BE, CZ, CY, EL, ES, HU, HR, IT, MT, PL and PT). The temporary or permanent closure of 
establishments which have been used for committing the offence (Article 6(e)) is in force in (BE, EL, CY, ES, FR, LT, 
LU, MT, PT and RO) – See Annex 6. 
122  See  section  4.1.3.1  of  the  evaluation  on  the  coherence  between  the  Anti-trafficking  Directive  and  the  Employers 
Sanctions Directive. 
123 The temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of commercial activities (Article 6(b)) is in force in 
18 Member States (AT, BE, CZ, CY, EL, ES, FR, HU, HR, IT, LT, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI). 
124 The placing under judicial supervision (Article 6 (c)) is in force in 7 Member States (CY, ES, FR, IT, MT, PT, RO). 
125 The judicial winding-up (Article 6(d)) is in force in 15 Member States (BE, CY, CZ, EL, ES, FR, HU, HR, LT, LU, 
MT, NL, PT, RO, SI).  
126 Pursuant to Article 4(2), Member States should punish by a maximum penalty of at least 10 years of imprisonment 
where the trafficking offence (a) was committed against a victim who was particularly vulnerable, which, in the context 
of this Directive, shall include at least child victims; (b) was committed within the framework of a criminal organisation 
within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised 
crime; (c) deliberately or by gross negligence endangered the life of the victim; or (d) was committed by use of serious 
violence or has caused particularly serious harm to the victim. The fact that the trafficking offence was committed by 
public officials in the performance of their duties should also be regarded as an aggravating circumstance.  

44 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                  
only concern the gravest cases of trafficking. This option would go less far in terms of holding legal 
persons accountable for trafficking offences committed for their benefit than option (i).    

5.2.2.4.5.2.2.4. 

  Making  it  mandatory  for  Member  States  to  set  up  formal 
National  Referral  Mechanisms  and  create  national  focal  points  for  victims’ 
referrals (legislative measure 4) 

Article  11(4)  of  the  Directive  obliges  Member  States  to  take  the  necessary  measures  to  establish 
appropriate  mechanisms  aimed  at  the  early  identification  of,  assistance  and  support  to  victims,  in 
cooperation with relevant support organisations. The transposition assessment (Annex 6) shows that 
all Member States have different types of mechanisms in line with this Article. However, the broad 
wording  of  this  provision  leaves  a  lot  of  discretion  to  Member  States  to  decide  on  the  form, 
structure  and  functioning  of  these  mechanisms.  For  instance,  in  Germany,  the  practical 
implementation of these measures lies within the remit of the different “Länder”127.  

This  legislative  measure  would  aim  at  ensuring  that  victims  of  trafficking  receive  adequate 
assistance,  support  and  protection  across  the  Member  States  (specific  objective  3).  Under  this 
option, Article 11(4) would be revised in order to introduce an obligation for Member States to set 
up formal National Referral Mechanisms. In addition, Member States would be required to create 
national focal points for the early identification and referral of victims, which would be in charge of 
identifying the competent services for cases of trafficking in human beings and of coordinating the 
referral of victims at the national and EU level.  

77% of the stakeholders who participated in the public consultation, including the vast majority of 
public  authorities  (13  out  of  19),  of  non-governmental  organisations  (41  out  of  58)  and  of  EU 
citizens  (30  out  of  32),  considered  that  the  Directive  should  require  Member  States  to  establish 
formal  national  referral  mechanisms.  Stakeholders  consulted  on  the  policy  options  as  part  of  the 
case studies and targeted interviews supported this measure, which would contribute to improving 
the provision assistance and support to victims, as well as their access to the rights they are entitled 
to.  Several  public  authorities  from  Member  States  suggested  to  allocate  the  role  of  national  focal 
point  to  the  existing  NREM  in  Member  States  in  order  to  avoid  any  duplication  of  efforts  and 
fragmentation of competences.  

5.2.2.5.5.2.2.5. 

Mandatory  criminalisation  of  the  use  of  exploited  services 
related  to  trafficking  in  human  beings,  with  different  available  options 
(legislative measure 5) 

As mentioned in relation to problem 4 (driver 1), the criminalisation of the use of services exacted 
from victims of trafficking is not consistent across the Member States. Legislative measure 5 aims 
at strengthening the criminal response to the use of exploited services through the harmonisation of 
EU  rules  as  a  means  to  reducing  the  demand  that  fosters  trafficking  (specific  objective  4).  This 
sections presents the different options available in order to criminalise the use of exploited services.   

127 Commission,  Study on Reviewing Member States’  National and Transnational Referral Mechanisms (2020), p.19. 
Available at: link. 

45 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
(i)  Mandatory  criminalisation  of  the  knowing  use  of  exploited  services  only  related  to  sexual 

exploitation 

This  option  consists  in  the  most  limited  change  in  measures  addressing  the  use  of  exploited 
services,  as  it  would  only  concern  sexual  exploitation.  During  the  consultations,  some  Member 
States  and  stakeholders  expressed  themselves  in  favour  of  this  approach  at  the  EU  level,  basing 
their  opinion  on  the  need  to  focus  on  the  main  form  of  exploitation.  However,  although  sexual 
exploitation is the main purpose of trafficking in statistical terms, the figures of labour exploitation 
are  also  very  high.  The  proposed  criminalisation  of  the  knowing  use  of  services  follows  an 
evidence-based  criminological  assessment  in  the  light  of  the  principle  of  proportionality. 
Accordingly,  it  continues  to  adopt  an  equal  approach  to  the  demand  that  fosters  all  forms  of 
exploitation, without including a distinction that would result in a different treatment of the demand 
for  cheap  labour  (which  fosters  labour  exploitation)  and  the  demand  for  sexual  services  (which 
fosters sexual exploitation).  

A  limited  intervention  making  the  knowledge  element  mandatory  avoids  any  risks  of  over-
criminalisation, as offenders require actual knowledge that the persons was a victim. On the other 
hand, knowledge remains difficult to prove in court. However, data from the Member States which 
adopt a negligence or strict liability approach128 do not lead to conclude that these result in higher 
numbers  of  prosecutions  or  convictions  for  offences  concerning  use  of  exploited  services,  in  a 
general reduction of trafficking or of the demand fostering it129. 

(ii)  Mandatory  criminalisation  of  the  knowing  use  of  exploited  services  related  to  all  forms  of 

exploitation 

The  Strategy  highlights  the  need  to  thoroughly  analyse  the  criminalisation  of  the  knowing  use  of 
exploited services and products from victims, as part of the evaluation of the Directive. This option 
would make the optional provision in Article 18(4) mandatory.  

Such a change is consistent with the Commission’s 2017 Communication reporting on the follow-
up  to  the  EU  Strategy  towards  the  Eradication  of  trafficking  in  human  being130,  the  European 
Parliament  Resolution131  and  GRETA  recommendations,  all  of  which  include  the  knowledge 
element in relation to all forms of exploitation. This approach limits criminalisation to instances of 
actual knowledge, not differentiating between the forms of exploitation. It is also supported by 61% 

128 CY, DE, FI. 
129  In  CY,  which  adopted  the  stricter  approach,  there  were  2  prosecutions  and  no  convictions  since  2019,  when  the 
relevant law came into force. This is compared with 14 prosecutions and 4 convictions in 2017, and 26 prosecutions in 
2018. DE did not report any prosecution or conviction since 2015. FI reported 2 prosecutions and 2 convictions since 
2015. 
130 COM(2017) 728 final. 
131 European Parliament resolution of 10 February 2021 on the implementation of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing 
and combatting trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims; 2020/2029(INI). 

46 

 
 
                                                 
of the respondents to the public consultation. Among those respondents, 14 were public authorities, 
26 were non-governmental organisations and 28 were EU citizens132.  

This  option  would  represent  an  advancement  in  the  criminal  justice  response,  not  entailing  over-
criminalisation  or  the  de-prioritisation  of  the  demand  for  cheap  labour  (which  fosters  labour 
exploitation)  over  demand  for  sexual  services  (which  fosters  sexual  exploitation).  It  would 
harmonise  the  EU  legal  landscape,  while  allowing  Member  States  to  adopt  more  restrictive 
measures at the national level.  

The  new  article  could  include  a  provision  requiring  the  Commission  to  assess  the  impact  of  the 
rules criminalising the knowing use of exploited services by submitting a  report to the Parliament 
and  the  Council  five-years  after  the  transposition  deadline133.  The  report  requirement  currently  in 
Article  23(2)  was  three  years  after  the  transposition  deadline  and  the  report134  showed  that  the 
timeframe was insufficient to assess the impact of national law. 

The provision would not include any minimum penalties, but provide that these shall be effective, 
dissuasive and proportionate. This would be in line with the rest of the Directive, as it only includes 
penalties for the main offences and not e.g. for the modes of liability in Article 3 (incitement, aiding 
and abetting, and attempt).  

In consultations, one Member State135 and some civil society organisations have expressed doubts 
on  the  possibility  of  modifying  Article  18(4),  as  they  consider  that  rules  criminalising  the  use  of 
exploited  services  may  result  in  increased  marginalisation  and  vulnerability  of  victims,  as  they 
would have to conceal their activities.  

Criminalising  the  knowing  use  of  exploited  services  for  all  forms  of  exploitation  is  the  most 
proportionate option. It is the one with the least far-reaching implications for Member States, while 
going beyond the status quo, since the large majority of Member States already have corresponding 
regulation  in  place  for  at  least  sexual  exploitation.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  European 
Parliament  in  its  2021  Resolution  expressed  its  views  supporting  this  approach136.  Proving  the 
knowledge requirement in court will nevertheless remain challenging. 

(iii) 

Criminalisation the knowing use of exploited services or when the use of exploited service  
committed with serious negligence  

132  23%  of  respondents  considered  that  the  Directive  should  not  criminalise  the  knowing  use  of  exploited  services, 
including 3 public authorities, 19 non-governmental organisations and 2 EU citizens.  
133 This could  mirror the text of Article 23(2) of the  Anti-Trafficking Directive:  “The Commission shall, by [DATE], 
submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council, assessing the impact of existing national law, establishing 
as  a  criminal  offence  the  use  of  services  which  are  the  objects  of  exploitation of  trafficking  in human  beings,  on  the 
prevention of trafficking in human beings, accompanied, if necessary, by adequate proposals.” 
134 COM(2016) 719 final. 
135 BE. 
136 European Parliament resolution of 10 February 2021 on the implementation of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing 
and combatting trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims; 2020/2029(INI). 

47 

 
 
                                                 
This legislative change would adopt a stricter approach to the knowledge requirement for the use of 
exploited services for all forms of exploitation. The difference with sub-option (ii) is the addition of 
serious negligence.  

Two Member States137 adopt a similar standard only for sexual exploitation and one138 has an even 
stricter  standard  (strict  liability),  but  for  sexual  exploitation  only.  Accordingly,  all  twenty-six 
Member States to which the Directive applies would have to introduce new rules.  

Some  Member  States  and  stakeholders  consider  that  lowering  or  eliminating  the  knowledge 
requirement may make it  easier to  prove the crime in  court. However, the data from  the Member 
States, which have adopted this approach does not allow to conclude this. 

Serious negligence is currently an exception in EU legal instruments, where conducts are generally 
criminalised  based  on  intent  to  commit  the  offence  or  of  actual  knowledge  of  specific 
circumstances.  Only  one  EU  legal  instrument  includes  the  “serious  negligence”  standard:  the  EU 
Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law139.  

The serious negligence standard may cause issues of legal certainty, especially in crimes committed 
by physical persons. Negligence would have to be based on indicators about the founded “reasons 
to  know”  the  person  was  a  victim  and  on  the  seriousness  of  their  negligence.  Including  detailed 
indicators in the articles of a Directive is not practical. At the EU level, such a legislative change 
would have to be accompanied by guidance in the recitals of the Directive and/or guidelines to be 
adopted after the legislative modification.  In absence of indicators, Member States would have to 
develop  them  in  their  legislation  or  jurisprudence,  leading  to  differing  interpretations  of  this 
standard and lack of harmonisation.  

Identifying indicators is complicated for cases of sexual exploitation and may be even more in cases 
of  labour  exploitation,  for  example,  if  the  buyers  of  very  cheap  clothes  had  founded  reasons  to 
know  that  they  were  obtained  from  victims  trafficked  for  labour  exploitation  (if  it is  later  proven 
that the supply chain of the brand included victims of trafficking. 

(iv)  Criminalisation of the use of exploited services without knowledge requirement 

This legislative change would adopt the strictest approach to the use of exploited services. It would 
suffice that perpetrators use exploited services even if they did not know and did not have reasons 
to  know  that  the  person  was  a  victim  of  trafficking.  This  legal  standard  corresponds  to  a 
requirement of strict liability. 

137 DE, FI. 
138 CY. 
139 Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the 
environment through criminal law, OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 28–37. 

48 

 
 
                                                 
All  twenty-six  Member  States  to  which  the  Directive  applies  would  have  to  introduce  new  rules 
with  this  approach.  One  Member  State  adopts  this  standard,  but  only  for  sexual  exploitation.140 
Three Member States141 adopt the “equality model”, which criminalises any use of sexual services, 
regardless of whether the person is a victim of trafficking. This model does not focus specifically on 
trafficking, but it indirectly includes the use of exploited services. 

Strict  liability  is  used  only  exceptionally  in  criminal  law,  mostly  for  minor  offences  that  do  not 
involve imprisonment. Strict liability was never used in an EU legal instrument.  

Criminalisation provisions generally require intent, knowledge or, exceptionally at least a form of 
negligence, It is important to note that the only Member State that adopts a strict liability approach, 
although for sexual exploitation only, is one of the only two Member States who have a common 
law legal system142.  

In  consultations,  a  number  of  Member  States  and  stakeholders  expressed  their  views  not  to  go 
beyond the standard of knowledge, as it is not deemed appropriate for criminal law. Some Member 
States and stakeholders consider the rules on the criminalisation of the use of exploited services at 
odds with victims’ rights, as they may result in marginalisation, further vulnerability and increased 
dependence of victims on their traffickers. Although the victims’ activities are not criminalised per 
se,  the  users  of  these  are  breaching  the  law.  Accordingly,  victims  would  have  to  exercise  their 
activities (e.g. forced prostitution, forced labour) in a concealed manner. This brings them closer to 
the traffickers, hampering the identification and the provision of protection, assistance and support 
services.   

Some stakeholders and Member States consider that removing the knowledge element may make it 
easier  to  prove  the  crime  in  court.  The  data  from  the  only  Member  State  which  removed  the 
knowledge element does not allow to come to this conclusion. 

(v) Requirement of different knowledge element depending on the form of exploitation 

This approach would differentiate between different forms of exploitation either: 

-  Using recklessness (“had reasons to know”) for sexual exploitation and knowing use for other 

forms of exploitation143; or 

-  Using strict liability (no knowledge requirement) for sexual exploitation and knowing use for 

other forms of exploitation. 

These  approaches  would  avoid  the  issues  related  to  the  use  of  services  resulting  from  labour 
exploitation mentioned in sub-option (iii) by keeping the standard for these to knowing use.  

140 CY 
141 FR, IE, SE. 
142 The other one is IE. 
143 Similarly to DE and FI. 

49 

 
 
                                                 
On  the  other  hand,  as  mentioned  in  sub-option  1,  a  different  approach  based  on  the  forms  of 
exploitation  would  result  in  a  different  treatment  of  the  demand  for  cheap  labour  (which  fosters 
labour  exploitation)  and  the  demand  for  sexual  services  (which  fosters  sexual  exploitation). 
Moreover, the data collection does not support that standards stricter than knowledge (even only for 
sexual  exploitation)  be  it  under  recklessness  or  strict  liability,  lead  to  higher  numbers  of 
prosecutions or convictions. 

5.2.2.6.5.2.2.6. 

 Introducing in the Directive an obligation for Member States 
to  collect  and  report  data  on  trafficking  in  human  beings  to  the  Commission 
every year 

Despite  improvements,  persisting  gaps  in  the  data  collection  prevent  statistics  from  capturing  the 
whole scale of trafficking in human beings within the EU. The evaluation found that there is a lack 
of data on the number of persons accessing protection and support; the number of victims accessing 
compensation; and the number of confiscated assets. Furthermore, considerable time lapse between 
the  Commission’s  biannual  data  collection  and  the  date  of  publication  of  the  report  (usually  two 
years)  hinders  an  up-to-date  monitoring  of  the  evolution  of  the  situation  (horizontal  problem  1, 
driver 4).  

The recitals of the Directive mention that, in order to evaluate the results of anti-trafficking action, 
the  EU  should  continue  to  develop  its  work  on  methodologies  and  data  collection  methods  to 
produce comparable statistics. Article 19 of the Directive further includes gathering statistics among 
the tasks of NREM. However, the Directive does not include a formal obligation to collect data on a 
regular basis, or any indication on the type of data that should be collected.  

Under this policy option, Member States would be formally required to collect data on trafficking in 
human beings and report those statistics to the Commission on an annual basis in order to have a 
more up-to-date overview and monitoring of the scale of the phenomenon, as well as of emerging 
trends. The amended provision would explicitly  mention  the categories of disaggregated data that 
Member  States  should  collect  as  a  minimum,  such  as  the  forms  of  exploitation,  sex,  age  and 
citizenships  of  the  victims  and  of  the  traffickers  (suspects,  prosecuted  and  convicted).  This 
legislative measures would contribute to improving the monitoring of trafficking in human beings at 
the EU level (horizontal objective 1).  

Stakeholders consulted on the policy options agreed to the effectiveness of this measure. As part of 
the case studies interviews, they highlighted the importance of having common indicators in order 
to ensure a systematic data collection. Two public authorities highlighted the need to avoid creating 
additional burden on Member States to collect data.  

50 

 
 
 
It should be underlined that all Member States already collect and transmit data to the Commission 
every  two  years.  The  Commission  moved  from  a  biannual  to  an  annual  data  collection  in  2021. 
Nearly all Member States144 were able to provide data on all the main indicators by October 2022. 

5.2.3.  Policy  option  3:  Legislative  action  at  EU  level  in  combination  with  non-legislative 

measures 

Policy  Option  3  consists  in  the  non-legislative  measures  of  P.O.1  combined  with  the  legislative 
measures  and  selected  sub-options  of  P.O.2.  This  policy  option  would  be  in  line  with  the  EU 
comprehensive  approach  to  combating  trafficking  in  human  beings  through  concrete  legal,  policy 
and operational initiatives, set out in the EU Strategy.  

Table 5 – Policy Option 3 (non-legislative and legislative measures) 

Objectives 

Non-legislative and legislative measures 

Reinforcing  the  criminal  justice  response 
to the crime, including in the cross-border 
context 

  Non-legislative  measure  2  –  Setting-up  of  a  Focus 
Group  of  specialised  prosecutors  against  trafficking 
in human beings 

  Non-legislative measure 3 – Close cooperation with 
the technology companies including online platforms 

  Legislative measure 1, sub-option (i) – Introducing 
the  online  dimension  as  part  of  the  definition  of 
trafficking in human beings 

  Legislative  measure  2,  sub-option  (i)  –  Including 
forced marriage and illegal adoption in the list of the 
forms of exploitation 

  Legislative  measure  3,  sub-option  (i)  –  Ensuring 
that  legal  persons  may  be  subject  to  some  of  the 
sanctions,  which  are  currently  optional 
the 
Directive,  for  the  standard  offence  and  to  the  other 
(currently  optional)  sanctions  when  the  offence  is 
aggravated  by  one  of  the  circumstances  included  in 
the Directive 

in 

Ensuring that victims of trafficking receive 
and 
support 
assistance, 
adequate 
protection across the Member States 

  Non-legislative measure 1 and 1(ii) – Establishing a 
Knowledge  and  Expertise  Hub  and  developing 
guidelines  on  National  Referral  Mechanisms  and 
setting-up of a European Referral Mechanism 

  Legislative  measure  4  –  Making  it  mandatory  for 
Member  States  to  set  up  formal  National  Referral 
Mechanisms  and  create  national  focal  points  for 
victims’ referrals 

144 DE committed to provide data by December 2022. As of October 2022, data was missing on convicted persons for 
PT and on victims for SE.  

51 

 
 
                                                 
Reducing  the  demand  for  the  exploited 
services of trafficked victims  

  Non-legislative measure 4 – Organising an EU-wide 

awareness raising campaign 

adequate 

Ensuring 
and 
monitoring  of  trafficking  in  human  beings 
(horizontal) 

detection 

  Legislative measure 5, sub-option (ii) – Mandatory 
criminalisation  of  the  knowing  use  of  exploited 
services related to all forms of exploitation 

  Non-legislative  measure 1 and 1(i)  - Establishing a 
Knowledge  and  Expertise  Hub  and  developing 
guidelines on data collection on trafficking in human 
beings in the EU 

  Legislative  measure  6  –  Introducing  an  obligation 
for  Member  States  to  collect  and  report  data  on 
trafficking in human beings to the Commission every 
year,  including  by  specifying  the  indicators  for  such 
data collection. 

As for P.O.2, the legislative measures under P.O.3 specifically address the aspects of the Directive, 
which do not adequately respond to new or emerging trends (such as the online dimension or other 
forms of exploitation) and considerably hinder the achievement of the objectives of the Directive. 
These  legislative  measures  also  focus  on  those  provisions  of  the  Directive,  which  left  too  much 
discretion to Member States in their transposition, either because they were not sufficiently detailed 
or because they were left optional. As a result, those measures were transposed in an uneven way 
across  the  Member  States,  which  contributed  to  legal  uncertainty  and  difficulties  in  cross-border 
cooperation.  The  specific  sub-options,  which  are  part  of  P.O.3  are  considered  to  target  the 
legislative  gaps  found  in  the  evaluation  in  the  most  effective  way,  taking  into  account  potential 
trade-offs for Member States and the outcomes of the consultations with stakeholders.  

The non-legislative measures described under P.O.1 would provide support to national authorities 
in transposing and implementing the amended provisions of the Directive. At the same time, these 
measures  would  contribute  to  improving  the  general  transposition  and  implementation  of  the 
Directive, in particular the provisions that would not be modified. 

The  introduction of the online dimension  in  the Directive  (legislative  measure 1, sub-option (i)) 
was widely supported by  stakeholders  consulted on the policy options as  part of  case studies and 
targeted interviews who considered that it would be important to introduce an explicit reference to 
the  online  dimension  in  the  Directive.  This  measure  would  be  complemented  by  enhanced 
cooperation  between  the  Commission  and  internet  companies  within  the  EU  Internet  Forum,  in 
cooperation  with  the  Member  States  and  the  EU  Agencies.  This  would  allow  to  have  a 
comprehensive approach by:  

- 
strengthening the legal framework when the crime if committed with the use of technology; 
-  enhancing the operational capacity of national authorities to break the digital business model 

of traffickers; and  

52 

 
 
 
- 

increasing  awareness  of  online  companies  of  the  risks  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  on 
their platforms, with the aim to improving the detection and removal of trafficking in human 
beings related content. 

It  should  be  underlined  that  the  online  dimension  is  a  relatively  new  phenomenon,  which  has 
become  more  important  within  the  past  years.  Reinforcing  the  focus  on  this  aspect  through 
legislation  as  well  as  prevention  and  awareness  raising  measures,  in  cooperation  with  the 
technology companies and national authorities, would also contribute to increasing the knowledge 
of the phenomenon and how to better address it.  

The forms of exploitation would be extended in the definition to include forced marriage and illegal 
adoption  (legislative  measure  2,  sub-option  (ii))  as  the  existing  Directive  already  refers  to  these 
criminal conducts in its Recitals but they do not appear explicitly in the definition.  

The sanctions against legal persons would be strengthened by requiring mandatory transposition of 
the measures, which are currently optional in Article 6 of the Directive, either for the commission of 
the  “standard”  trafficking  offences,  or  when  the  offence  is  committed  with  an  aggravated 
circumstance  (legislative  measure  3,  sub-option  (i)).  While  some  stakeholders  expressed  doubts 
regarding  the  added  value  of  such  measure  in  practice,  others,  including  public  authorities, 
underlined its deterrent effect as legal persons would be less likely to resort to exploitative working 
conditions.  This  legislative  measure  would  be  complemented  and  reinforced  by  various  non-
legislative measures, such as work with Member States within the newly created European Platform 
Tackling  Undeclared  Work  within  the  European  Labour  Authority  or  enhanced  cooperation  with 
companies from the high risk sectors.   

The  mandatory  establishment  of  formal  National  Referral  Mechanisms  and  creation  of  national 
focal  points  for  victims’  referrals  (legislative  measure  4)  would  go  hand  in  hand  with  the  non-
legislative  measure  to  develop  guidelines  on  minimum  requirements  and  standards  that  National 
Referral Mechanisms would have to meet, and would contribute to harmonising referrals at the EU 
level. This would also facilitate the setting-up of a European Referral Mechanisms, which is one of 
the key actions of the Strategy. 

The  introduction  of  an  obligation  for  Member  States  to  collect  and  report  data  on  trafficking  in 
human beings to the Commission every year within the Directive (legislative measure 6) would be 
accompanied with the developing of guidelines in order to support Member States in harmonising 
their approach to  collecting data and possible organisation of workshops within the framework of 
the Knowledge and Expertise Hub.  

Finally, Member States would be required to criminalise the use of services which are the object of 
exploitation  with  the  knowledge  that  the  person  is  a  victim  of  trafficking  in  human  beings 
(legislative  measure  5,  sub-option  (ii)).  While  the  stakeholders  consulted  on  the  policy  options 
highlighted  the  difficulties  to  prove  knowledge,  they  also  agreed  on  the  importance  to  punish  the 
behaviour of those knowingly using the services or goods exacted from victims of trafficking. Some 
stakeholders  mentioned  that,  from  a  legal  perspective,  it  was  crucial  to  keep  the  requirement  of 
“knowledge”. This legislative measure would be accompanied by other measures, including the EU-
wide awareness-raising campaign, aimed at discouraging the demand that fosters trafficking. 

53 

 
 
The  Focus Group of specialised prosecutors  against  trafficking  in  human beings as  a major non-
legislative measure would allow Member States to exchange approaches and practices in relation to 
different legislative measures, in addition to the activities mentioned under P.O.1.    

5.3. 

Options (legislative measures) discarded at an early stage 

5.3.1.  5.3.1.  Equality model 

Some  stakeholders  consider  that  the  equality  model145  indirectly  addresses  the  use  of  exploited 
services. It consists in the criminalisation of the purchase of sexual services regardless of whether 
the person is a victim of trafficking. It is in force in some Member States146, either as stand-alone 
approach to reducing demand for sexual (not necessarily exploited) services, or in combination with 
rules  criminalising  the  use  of  exploited  services.  It  is  not  considered  among  the  possible  legal 
modifications  because  it  would  entail  legislating  on  a  different  conduct  (the  purchase  of  sexual 
services, prostitution) than trafficking. The higher rates of convictions under the equality model are 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  elements  of  trafficking  do  not  need  to  be  proven  in  court.  It  suffices  that 
sexual  services  were  purchased  from  any  person,  regardless  of  whether  they  were  trafficking 
victims, and this is a far less complex conduct to prove in court. 

The  legal  basis  of  the  Directive  is  Article  83  TFUE,  which  includes  trafficking  and  sexual 
exploitation.  The  purchase  of  sexual  services  is  beyond  trafficking  and,  hence,  the  scope  of  the 
Directive.  

5.3.2.  5.3.2.  Other  legislative  changes  discarded  at  an  early  stage  related  to  assistance  of 

victims and confiscation 

Some  legislative  changes  were  considered  as  part  of  the  evaluation  and  impact  assessment  but 
discarded  at  an  early  stage,  including  modifications  of  the  provisions  referring  to  the  gender-
specific  aspects  of  trafficking,  the  specific  vulnerabilities  of  the  victims,  including  disabilities,  to 
the  protection  of  victims  participating  in  criminal  proceedings,  as  well  as  to  victims’  access  to 
compensation.  The  evaluation  found  that  these  aspects  are  already  appropriately  addressed  in  the 
Directive  since  Article  11  of  the  Directive  includes  a  range  of  measures  to  ensure  assistance  and 
support  to  victims.  Recitals  17  to  22  provide  further  detail  on  the  assistance  and  support  that 
Member States should provide to victims of trafficking. Most Member States have transposed the 
provisions included in Article 11 and have national measures to provide assistance and support. The 
Directive has contributed to increasing the range of services available in Member States for victims 
of trafficking. The shortcomings described in the evaluation are mainly linked to the weaknesses in 
the  implementation  of  the  Directive.  Therefore,  they  should  be  addressed  as  part  of  the  non-
legislative measures proposed by this initiative and as part of the implementation of the Strategy.   

145 In force in FR, IE, SE and, partly FI. 
146 FI, IE.  

54 

 
 
 
                                                 
Deficiencies in seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of trafficking in human being offences are 
addressed in new Commission proposal for a Directive on asset recovery and confiscation147. 

6.  6. WHAT  ARE  THE  IMPACTS  OF  THE  DIFFERENT  POLICY  OPTIONS  AND  WHO  WILL  BE 

AFFECTED? 

None of the policy options are expected to have an environmental impact, as already underlined in 
the Evaluation Roadmap/Inception Impact Assessment148. Therefore, this criteria is not addressed in 
the analysis below.  

6.1. 

6.1. 

Security impact 

P.O.1  is  expected  to  contribute  to  reinforcing  the  internal  security  within  the  EU.  The  measures 
proposed as part of this option are generally aimed at enhancing the implementation of the current 
Directive, which provides for a common framework at the EU level to fight against one of the most 
serious  crime,  often  committed  within  the  framework  of  organised  crime.  The  non-legislative 
measures would increase the capacity of national authorities and involvement of the private sector, 
in particular technology companies, in order to better prevent and fight against trafficking in human 
beings. However, P.O.1 would not address the legislative gaps, which were found in the context of 
the evaluation and hinder the level of security provided by the Directive.  

P.O.2  is  expected  to  have  a  stronger  impact  on  security  than  P.O.1  due  to  the  fact  that  Member 
States  would  be  legally  bound  by  these  measures.  P.O.2  would  ensure  a  higher  level  of 
harmonisation of the criminal law against trafficking in human beings in Member States and thus, a 
higher  level  of  security  for  citizens.  The  legislative  changes  related  to  the  criminalisation  of 
trafficking  offences  when  committed  online  (legislative  measure  1),  of  additional  forms  of 
exploitation  (legislative  measure  2),  sanctions  against  legal  persons  (legislative  measure  3)  and 
the criminalisation of the use of services exploited from victims (legislative measure 5) would be 
the  legal  basis  of  law  enforcement  and  judicial  response.  In  addition  to  fostering  more 
investigations, prosecutions and convictions, those measures would also act as a deterrent and as a 
result reduce the incidence of the crime.  

P.O.3 is considered to have the highest impact on security as it would combine the separate impacts 
on  security  of  P.O.1  and  P.O.2.  While  strengthening  the  criminal  law  response  to  trafficking  in 
human  beings  is  essential  to  reduce  the  crime,  this  needs  to  be  accompanied  by  policy  measures, 
which aim at  enhancing  cross-border cooperation among law  enforcement and judicial authorities 
and with the private sector.  

6.2. 

6.2. 

Social impact 

147 COM/2022/ 245 final. 
148 Fighting human trafficking – review of EU rules (europa.eu) 

55 

 
 
   
                                                 
P.O.1  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  society,  especially  as  it  would  aim  at  reducing  the  harm 
suffered  by  victims,  including  children.  It  would  improve  the  functioning  of  the  referral 
mechanisms  within  the  Member  States  and  ensure  better  national  coordination  among  assistance 
and  support  services  and  cross-border  cooperation.  It  would  enhance  the  capacity  of  stakeholders 
likely to come into contact with victims of trafficking, to identify victims at an early stage and refer 
them to adequate services. This would be further reinforced by other activities that could take place 
within the framework of the Knowledge and Expertise Hub. Such activities would address the gaps 
in the implementation of the Directive in relation to victims’ rights, such as the fact that assistance 
and  support  services  are  not  sufficiently  tailored  to  the  specific  needs  of  victims,  the  non-
prosecution and non-punishment of the victims, difficulties for victims to access compensation and 
protection of the victims in criminal proceedings.  

Awareness raising campaigns at the EU level and on the safe use of the internet would also benefit 
to  society  as  a  whole.  By  promoting  education  and  raising  awareness  of  consumers  and  potential 
users  of  services  and  cheap  labour  exacted  from  victims  of  trafficking,  these  measures  would 
eventually aimed at changing individuals’ behaviours, reducing demand that fosters trafficking, as 
well as the vulnerability of persons at higher risk of becoming victims.  

P.O.2  would  have  a  positive  social  impact,  as  it  would  contribute  to  ensuring  a  higher  level  of 
safety of citizens against crime and fight impunity of criminals. The obligation for Member States 
to establish National Referral Mechanisms (legislative measure 4) is the legislative measure with 
the highest potential in terms of impact on society since it would reinforce the current text of the 
Directive  with  a  view  to  improve  the  assistance  and  support  to  victims  of  trafficking  in  human 
beings. However, it would not be sufficient in itself to harmonise practices across Member States. 
Criminalising  the  use  of  exploited  services  (legislative  measure  6)  would  contribute  to  reducing 
and discouraging the demand for exploited services of victims of trafficking.   

The impact of P.O.3 on society is expected to be significantly higher than P.O.1 and P.O2, mainly 
due  to  the  combination  of  non-legislative  and  legislative  measures.  Developing  guidelines,  for 
example,  would  help  national  authorities  in  transposing  and  implementing  the  new  obligation  to 
establish National Referral Mechanisms. It would allow a higher level of harmonisation of practices 
across  Member  States  and,  therefore,  a  better  protection  of  the  victims,  both  at  the  national  and 
transnational  levels.  Moreover,  the  social  impact  of  the  criminalisation  of  the  knowing  use  of 
exploited services  would be increased by  non-legislative measures, which would aim  at  changing 
societal behaviours through education and awareness raising to reduce demand.   

6.3. 

6.3. 

Economic 

Trafficking in human beings causes significant costs for the economy and the society. In 2016, the 
estimated  total  cost  was  over  EUR  2.7  billion  in  the  EU.  This  figure  includes  assistance  and 
support  services  to  victims,  coordination  and  law  enforcement  activities  as  well  as  the  lost 
economic output of the victims who do not participate in the legal economy and the lost quality of 

56 

 
 
life  for  the  victims149.  Stepping  up  the  fight  against  trafficking  in  human  beings  would  generally 
result in reducing the scale of the crime and its costs on society and the economy.  

Table 5 – Summary of costs and benefits for the policy options 

Options 

Costs 

Benefits 

P.O.1 

Up to EUR 2 290 000 in one 
year,  including  one-off  cost 
for  the  EU-wide  awareness 
raising  campaign  (EUR  250 
000) 

Improved implementation of the EU legal and policy framework.  

Better  coordination  of  practices  for  the  identification  and  referral  of 
victims within and across Member States and to collect data 

Better cross-border judicial cooperation across Member States  

Increased awareness of the phenomenon and cooperation with the private 
sector, including technology companies 

P.O.2 

Approximately  EUR  127 
235 011 per year 

Strengthened legal framework to:  

-  Address the legislative gaps of the Directive; 
- 

fight against trafficking in human beings, including in the digital 
space  and  for  additional  forms  of  exploitation;  sanction  legal 
persons;  
referring the victims to assistance and support;  
reducing the demand; and   

- 
- 
-  monitor the situation of trafficking in human beings in the EU  

P.O.3 

Approximately  EUR  129 
275 011 per year 

Approximately EUR 1 122 643 213 (maximum estimate). 

Aggregated and complementary benefits of P.O.1 and P.O.2. 

Increased implementation of the current Directive and Strategy 

Strengthened  legal  framework  in  order  to  better  respond  to  new  and 
emerging threats and address the legislative gaps of the Directive 

The overall amount of P.O.1 is estimated to be up to EUR 2 290 000 a year to be financed through 
regular EU funding. 

149 European Commission, Study on the economic, social and human costs of trafficking in human beings within the EU 
(2020), p.104. Available at: link. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
P.O.1  would  have  a  limited  economic  impact  on  businesses  and  companies  since  some  of  the 
measures, such as the enhanced cooperation with the Commission within the framework of the EU 
Internet Forum and the EU-wide awareness raising campaigns would require voluntary engagement 
of the internet companies, businesses and employers.  

Support  to  the  Knowledge  and  Expertise  Hub  on  Combatting  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  for 
improving the policy and operational work addressing the cross-border and transnational challenges 
related to trafficking in human beings is already planned through procurement contract the Internal 
Security  Fund  Thematic  Facility  work  programme  for  2021  and  2022,  although  no  procurement 
contract  has  been launched  yet.  Its  budget  for the first  two  years is  estimated  to  be up to EUR  4 
million.  

The work of the Focus Group of specialised prosecutors would mainly concern the organisation of 
one  or  two  meetings  per  year  and  the  development  of  guidelines  and  handbooks  on  the  specific 
issues discussed during the meetings. This would require limited additional resources, which would 
be mainly sustained by the Commission and Eurojust. The cost of the meetings is estimated to be 
maximum EUR 40 000 per year, when these take place in person.  

Cooperation  with  the  internet  companies,  including  in  the  context  of  the  EU  Internet  Forum,  is 
already ongoing and would not require additional budget. The EU-wide awareness raising campaign 
would also be financed through EU budget under the Internal Security Fund. The estimated cost for 
this campaign is EUR 250 000.  

The  economic  impact  of  P.O.2  would  mainly  relate  to  administrative  costs  linked  to  the 
transposition  and  implementation  of  new  legislative  measures.  The  aggregation  of  the  available 
estimated costs for Policy Option 2 would amount to an estimate of  EUR 127 235 011 per year. 
However, it is not possible to have an overall estimate of the cost of all the individual legislative 
measures, especially when data is not available. 

Legislative  measures  1  and  2  are  criminalisation  measures,  which  respectively  consist  in  the 
introduction  of  an  explicit  reference  to  the  use  of  the  internet  for  the  commission  of  trafficking 
offences and the addition of further forms of exploitation in the definition of trafficking in human 
beings. The use of technology to commit trafficking offences already falls within the scope of the 
Directive.  In  addition,  some  Member  States  have  already  included  some  additional  forms  of 
exploitation  within  their  legal  systems  (e.g.  forced  marriage  and  illegal  adoption)  and  victims  of 
trafficking  for  “other  forms”  of  exploitation  amount  to  11%  of  the  total  number  of  victims 
registered in the EU. As such, these two criminalisation measures do not imply additional costs for 
the Member States. However, it is likely that the increased focus on the online dimension and on 
further  forms  of  exploitation  would  result  in  a  higher  number  of  investigations,  prosecutions  and 
convictions.  It  is  difficult  to  estimate  in  concrete  terms  the  extent  of  such  increase,  if  any,  as  the 
number of cases does not just depend on criminalisation measures, but also on the level of criminal 
activities and the effectiveness of the law enforcement response in Member States. Moreover, it is 
not possible to estimate how many victims are concerned by the online dimension of trafficking in 
human beings, including among those registered as the use of technology varies from case to case 
and often only concerns one or few elements of the trafficking chain. It is however estimated that 
every  additional  investigation  on  top  of  the  current  average  would  cost  EUR  77  711,  each 

58 

 
 
additional prosecution would cost EUR 56 379 and each additional conviction would cost EUR 52 
838150.  

Statistics  from  the  2015-2020  reporting  period  indicate  that  the  average  number  of  victims  of 
trafficking  for  “other  forms”  of  exploitation,  including  forced  marriage  and  illegal  adoption,  per 
year  was  626.  Based  on  this  number,  the  costs  of  legislative  measure  2,  sub-option  (i)  can  be 
roughly estimated at  EUR 117 048 083 per year  for national  authorities.  It  should be underlined 
that this figure represents the maximum amount that this measure could cost, as disaggregation of 
the specific forms of exploitation covered by the “other forms” category is not available.  

These costs would be outweighed by the benefits brought to society as a whole by identifying and 
protecting  victims  of  trafficking,  prosecuting  and  convicting  traffickers  and  confiscating  criminal 
instrumentalities and proceeds).  

Legislative measure 3 concerns the mandatory transposition of some or all the sanctions on legal 
persons. This would generate procedural steps to put in place such measures and their enforcement. 
Three of the optional measures that would become mandatory (exclusion from entitlement to public 
benefits or aid; temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of commercial activities; 
and  temporary  or  permanent  closure  of  establishments  which  have  been  used  for  committing  the 
offence)  would  have  negligible  costs.  Such  costs  would  be  by  far  outweighed  by  the  benefits  of 
reducing the possibilities to  infiltrate the legal  economy, and of ensuring  a fairer  economy where 
companies acting by the rules benefit from the reduction of competition from businesses which take 
advantage of forced labour. The other two sanctions (placing under judicial supervision and judicial 
winding up) would imply more resources for procedures and enforcement at the judicial level. This 
would  be  justified  by  the  need  to  step  up  the  criminal  justice  response  to  trafficking  offences 
committed for the benefit of legal persons. It is difficult to estimate the costs of making some of the 
currently optional sanctions on legal persons in the Member States mandatory to transpose. This is 
mainly  because  Member  States  have  never  reported  any  data  on  investigations,  prosecutions  or 
convictions of legal persons for trafficking offences. In the absence of figures of conviction of legal 
persons (and let alone of the sanctions imposed on them), it is not possible to estimate the costs that 
this measure would entail. Under sub-option (i), Member States which have not yet transposed the 
optional  sanctions  of  the  exclusion  from  entitlement  to  some  or  all  public  benefit151  and  the 
temporary  or  permanent  closure  of  the  establishments  that  have  been  used  to  commit  the 
infringement152 would have to transpose them. All Member States would have to transpose the other 
optional  sanctions  in  the  context  of  aggravating  circumstances,  unless  these  sanctions  are  already 
available for standard trafficking offences. However, these sanctions would be applicable in a more 

150 The estimated cost of police amounts to a total of EUR 623 789 396 or EUR 77 711 per victim in the EU in one year. 
Prosecution costs for trafficking offences are estimated at EUR 154 196 901 in total, EUR 19 210 per victim and EUR 
56 379 per prosecution. Costs of conviction (i.e. the average cost per day and average number of days a court would 
spend  on  a  trafficking  case)  are  estimated  at  EUR  71  490  256  in  total,  EUR  8  906  per  victim  and  EUR  52  838  per 
conviction.  European  Commission,  Study  on  the  economic,  social  and  human  costs  of  trafficking  in  human  beings 
within the EU (2020), p.55. Available at: link. 
151 AT, BG, DK, EE, FI, FR, DE, IE, LV, LT, LU, NL, RO, SK, SI and SE.  
152 AT, BG, CZ, DK, HR, EE, FI, DE, HU, IE, IT, LV, NL, PL, SK, SI and SE.  

59 

 
 
                                                 
limited number of cases. Additional transposition and implementation costs would by incurred by 
Member  States  for  sub-option  (ii),  as  they  would  have  to  transpose  all  the  optional  sanctions  on 
legal persons. None of the Member States have transposed all of the optional sanctions. Finally, the 
cost  related  to  the  transposition  of  sub-option  (iii)  would  be  the  same  as  for  sub-option  (iii), 
although these measures would only have to be applicable when the offence is committed with an 
aggravating circumstance.  

Legislative  measure  4  concerns  the  formalisation  of  National  Referral  Mechanisms  and  the 
appointment of National Focal Points for the referral of victims. All Member States but one have a 
formal or informal mechanism currently in place. The Member State that does not have a referral 
mechanism153  would  incur  the  costs  of  establishing  one.  There  is  no  data  to  estimate  the  cost  of 
establishing  a  mechanism.  However,  as  the  concerned  Member  State  already  carries  out 
decentralised referral  and assistance services, the costs incurred would be limited.  Member States 
which have an informal referral mechanism would incur the costs of formalisation154. This would 
result in limited costs, which would be offset by the benefits of harmonised procedures at the EU 
level,  especially  in  cross-border  cases.  Three  Member  States  have  either  recently  established 
(Portugal)  or  are  currently  in  the  process  of  establishing  a  formal  national  referral  mechanism 
(France and Ireland, respectively). This formalisation consists the elaboration and implementation 
of protocols defining the procedures for the identification and referral of child victims155, an official 
document including indicators for the identification of victims and defining the roles of all relevant 
stakeholders156, or expanding the list of organisations competent for the identification and referral 
of  victims  and  formally  involving  designated  civil  society  organisations157.  These  measures  are 
generally accompanied by a modification of the existing legislation (e.g. criminal code). While this 
does not indicate the cost of the formalisation of the national referral mechanism, Portugal allocates 
EUR 1 600 000 every year for victim support services, which contributes to the functioning of the 
national  referral  mechanism.  In  France,  the  National  Referral  Mechanism  is  based  on  based 
practices  and  consists  in  formalising  existing  cooperation  among  stakeholders  involved  in  the 
identification and referral of victims. The appointment of a central focal point would have a limited 
economic impact on the Member State that does not have a national  referral mechanism in place. 
Moreover,  Member  States  already  have  designated  National  rapporteurs  and/or  equivalent 
mechanisms  who  could  act  as  national  focal  points.  These  additional  resources  are  by  far 
outweighed by the benefits related to better coordination, which would lead to a more efficient and 
cost-effective provision  of referral  and  assistance services, as well as facilitate the setting-up of  a 
European Referral Mechanism.  

Legislative measure 5 consists in the criminalisation of the use of services exacted from victims of 
trafficking. This measure would have an impact on law enforcement and judicial authorities only in 

153  While  Germany  has  some  types  of  mechanisms  in  place  for  the  identification  and  referral  of  victims,  the 
competences to implement these mechanisms lie with the Länder and therefore are not centralised.   
154 This is the case, for example, for Hungary. See European Commission, Study on Reviewing Member States’ National 
and Transnational Referral Mechanisms (2020), Publications Office of the European Union, p.19. Available at: link. 
155 Portugal. 
156 France. 
157 Ireland.  

60 

 
 
                                                 
the Member States that do not already have a provision on this matter or have one that covers only 
some forms of exploitation. It is estimated that the incurred cost would be about EUR 10.6 million 
per year in total158 for the seven Member States that currently do not have any provision on the use 
of  services159.  These  figures  would  be  lower  for  countries  that  already  criminalise  the  use  of 
services limited to some forms of exploitation160. Since this measure aims at discouraging demand 
for  exploitation,  its  effective  implementation  is  expected  to  reduce  the  number  of  trafficking 
offences  and  consequently  the  costs  related  to  the  investigation,  prosecution  and  convictions 
thereof. Demand reduction would also reduce the number of victims and hence the costs related to 
their support.  

Legislative measure 6 consists introducing an obligation for Member States to collect  and report 
data regarding trafficking in human beings on a yearly basis. The national statistical authorities of 
all  Member  States  already  gather  statistics  and,  since  2021,  transmit  them  every  year  to  the 
Commission  in  the  context  of  the  EU-wide  data  collection  on  trafficking  in  human  beings. 
Therefore, no significant additional costs are estimated. The EUROSTAT data collection is already 
budgeted by the Memorandum of Understanding between Directorate General Migration and Home 
Affairs  and  EUROSTAT  for  2022.  As  of  2023,  it  will  fall  under  the  EUROSTAT  budged  for 
criminal statistics.  

P.O.3 would amount to an aggregated estimate of EUR 129 275 011.  P.O.3 would have a higher 
economic impact, as it would combine the estimated costs for P.O.1 and P.O.2. The cost related to 
the  legislative  measures,  which  are  part  of  P.O.3  would  be  similar  to  the  cost  of  P.O.2. 
Nevertheless,  it  is  clear  from  the  analysis  of  P.O.2  that  legislative  measure  2  sub-option  (i) 
(addition  of forced marriage and illegal  adoption among the forms  of  exploitation criminalised in 
the Directive) would have a lesser cost than sub-option (ii), which would criminalise more forms of 
exploitation,  thereby  creating  an  obligation  for  national  authorities  to  initiate  investigations  and 
criminal proceedings in a higher number of cases. At the same time, the combination of legislative 
and non-legislative measures would further improve the capacity of law  enforcement and judicial 
authorities to deprive traffickers from the proceeds of their illegal activities and from infiltrating the 
legal economy. Moreover, improving the fight against trafficking would reduce the costs incurred 
by  the  crime  for  the  society,  since  fewer  number  of  victims  would  necessitate  less  interventions 
from specialised services as well as from law enforcement, health services and social protection161.  

The  benefits  of  this  initiative  would  mainly  consist  in  reducing  the  societal  cost  by  ensuring  that 
victims  of  new  forms  of  exploitation  are  identified,  assistance  and  supported;  enhancing  demand 
reduction; and ensuring more focus on the online dimension and improving the referral of victims to 
appropriate  services.  Moreover,  the  initiative  will  contribute  to  ensuring  a  fairer  economy  where 

158 The estimation of costs for this measure is based on the data collected in the context of the evaluation and adapted in 
proportion to the population of the Member States that currently do not have legislation on the use of services in place. 
It was made solely for the purpose of this Impact Assessment and should not be considered as official data. 
159 AT, BE, CZ, ES, IT, PL, SK. 
160 EE, IE, LU, LV, NL and EL.  
161 European Commission, Study on the economic, social and human costs of trafficking in human beings within the EU 
(2020). Available at: link. Also see the evaluation.  

61 

 
 
                                                 
legal  persons  convicted  for  trafficking  offences  are  deprived  from  the  proceeds  of  their  illegal 
activities and cannot participate in the EU market, for instance by being prevented from receiving 
public benefits.  This  report makes  an attempt at quantifying the general  benefits  of this initiative. 
However, it not possible to give a disaggregated analysis of the benefits per policy option. 

The cost of the lost economic output is estimated at EUR 59 537 per victim and EUR 479 973 675 
in  total  in  the  EU  per  year162.    These  costs  are  linked  to  the  fact  that  100%  of  the  potential 
economic  output  is  lost  to  the  victim  and  to  economy  and  society  when  an  adult  person  is  in 
trafficking  or  when  the  victim  is  in  specialised  services  or  helping  law  enforcement.  Some 
economic output potential is also lost for several years after trafficking, as the prevalence of being 
unemployed or unable to work due to sickness by the physical violence, sexual violence and threats 
suffered  during  the  trafficking.  Therefore,  measures  aimed  at  reducing  the  scale  of  trafficking 
would result in a higher amount of people being able to participate in the economy as a result of not 
becoming victims of trafficking. In addition, improving the early identification of, and the quality of 
assistance  and  support  services  provided  to  victims  would  probably  increase  the  possibility  of 
victims  to  access  the  labour  market  and  stay  in  employment,  thus  also  facilitating  their  re-
integration into society.  

Moreover,  victims  of  trafficking  are  subject  to  physical  violence,  sexual  violence  and  threats  that 
reduce the length and quality of life.  The cost of the loss of quality of life include physical injuries 
sustained by the victims and homicides committed during trafficking, fear, depression and anxiety 
during  trafficking  and  mental  health  harms  post-trafficking.  It  is  estimated  at  EUR  80  063  per 
victim and EUR 642 669 538 in total per year in the EU.  

Therefore, by reducing the number of victims of trafficking  and increasing the number of persons 
who can participate in the legal economy, as well as by improving the quality of life of the victims, 
the  benefits  brought  by  this  initiative  would  amount  to  an  estimate  of  EUR  1  122  643  213.  This 
estimate also include to a certain extent lost profits for traffickers, who would not benefit from the 
exploited  labour  and  services  of  victims.  As  P.O.3  has  an  incremental  character  as  compared  to 
P.O.1  and  P.O.2,  its  benefits  would  certainly  be  maximised  as  compared  to  the  other  policy 
options.  As  a  result,  the  costs  of  P.O.3  for  national  authorities  and  the  EU  (EUR  129  275  011) 
would be outweighed by the quantified benefits.     

6.4. 

6.4. 

Fundamental rights 

All  policy  options  are  expected  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  fundamental  rights,  as  they  all 
contribute to preventing and fighting trafficking in human beings, and to protecting the victims of 
the  crime,  which  is  prohibited  by  the  Charter.  They  also  strengthen  the  protection  of  other 
fundamental  rights  enshrined  in  the  Charter,  including  the  right  to  human  dignity  (Article  1),  the 
right to the integrity of the person (Article 3) and in particular the prohibition of making the human 
body and its parts a source of financial gain (Article 3(c)), the prohibition of inhuman or degrading 
treatment or punishment (Article 4), prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 5), the right to 

162 Ibid n°141, p.84.  

62 

 
 
                                                 
liberty and security (Article 6) and the rights of the child (Article 24). The gender-specific and child 
sensitive  approach  is  integrated  in,  and  streamlined  throughout  all  the  measures  proposed  in  the 
policy  options,  which  contributes  to  promoting  the  principle  of  equality  (Title  III  of  the  EU 
Charter), in particular equality between women and men (Article 23).   

Nevertheless, P.O.2 and P.O.3 would have a higher impact than P.O.1, due to the fact that they are 
legally  binding  and  impose  further  obligations  on  the  Member  States  in  criminalising  certain 
conducts,  which  are  particularly  harmful  for  the  victims.  Moreover,  P.O.2  and  P.O.3  would  both 
keep  the  gender-specificity  of  the  current  text  of  the  Directive  and  address  forced  marriage  as  a 
form  of  exploitation  that  affects  mostly  women  and  girls.  P.O.2  and  P.O.3  do  not  provide  for 
provisions  specifically  targeting  any  specific  group,  such  as  persons  with  disabilities  or  asylum 
seekers. It is sufficient that groups are not adversely affected by, and that their position is taken into 
account as part of, the proposed legislative measures.  

It could be argued that stricter measures, e.g. to consider the use of technology to commit one of the 
elements of the offence as an aggravating circumstance (legislative measure 1, sub-option (ii)) or 
to  criminalise as  many forms  of exploitation  as possible (legislative  measure 2, sub-option (ii)), 
would  be  more  beneficial  when  it  comes  to  the  safeguarding  of  fundamental  rights.  However,  as 
mentioned  in  relation  to  the  analysis  of  the  different  options  for  the  criminalisation  of  the  use  of 
exploited services, stricter criminal law approaches do not necessarily result in better protection of 
fundamental rights, as they are sometimes more difficult to apply in practice. Legislative measure 
5, sub-option (ii) would increase the protection of victims as compared to the baseline. At the same 
time, it would not go beyond the threshold of “knowledge” therefore respecting the usual required 
level of participation under criminal law. Therefore, P.O.3 is consider to have the highest impact on 
fundamental rights.  

7.  7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

The  assessment  of  each  policy  option  includes  numeric  ratings  of  the  magnitude  of  the  expected 
effects vis-à-vis the baseline scenario in relation to each criterion and impact considered. Whereas 
the baseline scenario has been, by definition, rated with ‘0’ in relation to each criterion, the other 
three policy options have been scored on a scale from 1 to 3 where 1= Small extent / 2=Moderate 
extent  /  3=High  extent.  A  score  of  0  means  that  the  option  would  have  the  same  effect  as  the 
baseline  scenario.  The  ratings  have  been  based  on  the  triangulation  of  both  qualitative  and 
quantitative  data  collected  throughout  the  evaluation  and  Impact  Assessment  by  means  of  desk 
research, interviews, focus groups and an online survey with EU bodies and representatives from 
the  Member  States  and  civil  society  organisations,  two  technical  workshops,  and  the  Public 
Consultation. 

Different  weights  have  been  allocated  to  different  criteria  and  impacts  based  on  their  relative 
importance. More precisely, the effectiveness and efficiency criteria were prioritized based on the 
fact  that  it  was  deemed  as  highly  important  for  the  policy  options  to  be  effective  towards  the 
achievement of the specific objectives, as well as cost-effective (i.e. expected benefits overweight the 
costs).  Similarly,  security  and  fundamental  rights  impacts  have  been  prioritised  since  social  and 
economic impacts are consequences of the positive impacts on the overall security of EU citizens, 

63 

 
 
businesses and public authorities. The security, social, economic and fundamental rights impacts of 
the policy options are described in Section 6.   

In  the  table  below,  numbers  in  brackets  depict  the  relative  weight  of  each  criterion  and  type  of 
impact  for  the  Multi-Criteria  Analysis.  The  criteria  used  to  assess  the  effects  have  been  rated  in 
relation to each specific objective whereas the types of impacts have been rated in relation to each 
policy option as a whole. 

 Criteria 

Types of impacts 

  Effectiveness                                     (Weight 4) 
  Efficiency                                            (Weight 4)  
  Necessity                                            (Weight 3) 
  Coherence                                          (Weight 3) 
  Subsidiarity and proportionality     (Weight 4) 

  Security                           (Weight 4) 
  Social                               (Weight 2) 
  Economic                        (Weight 2)  
  Fundamental rights       (Weight 4) 

Table 6 – Comparison of policy options 

Criteria  and  type  of 
impacts 

Direction 

Weight 

BS (PO 0) 

PO 1 

PO 2 

PO 3 

Rating 

Criteria 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Necessity 

Coherence 

Subsidiarity and 
proportionality 

Types of impacts 

Security 

Social 

Economic 

Fundamental rights 

Total (relative to the 
weight) 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

4 

4 

3 

3 

4 

4 

2 

2 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1.75 

2.5 

2.5 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

69.5 

2 

3 

2.5 

3 

3 

2.5 

2.5 

2.5 

3 

81 

3.75 

5.5 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

100 

7.1. 

7.1. 

Effectiveness 

The  effectiveness  of  each  policy  option  is  assessed  against  each  of  the  specific  objectives  of  this 
initiative.  

7.1.1.  7.1.1.  Ensuring  adequate  prevention,  detection  and  monitoring  of  trafficking  in 

human beings 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
P.O.1  is  expected  to  increase  the  capacity  of  national  authorities  to  detect  trafficking  in  human 
beings  through  measures,  which  are  aimed  at  reinforcing  cooperation  among  stakeholders,  which 
are likely to come into contact with victims. However, P.O.1 would go to a smaller degree beyond 
the  baseline  scenario  since  it  only  contains  non-legislative  measures,  which  are  linked  to  the 
implementation of the Strategy.  

P.O.2 would be more effective than P.O.1 due to the legal obligations it would include. Notably, 
making the data collection on trafficking in human beings mandatory and clarifying some aspects of 
the  data  collection  in  the  Directive  (legislative  measure  6)  would  increase  the  level  of  legal 
certainty  among  national  authorities  regarding  the  gathering  of  statistics.  As  a  consequence,  it 
would increase knowledge about trafficking in human beings.   

P.O.3 would maximise the effectiveness of P.O.1 and P.O.2, as the non-legislative measures as part 
of the Knowledge and Expertise Hub would support national  authorities in  better transposing and 
implementing the legislative measures.  

7.1.2.  7.1.2.  Reinforcing  the  criminal  justice  response  to  the crime,  including  in  the  cross-

border context 

P.O.1 would reinforce the criminal justice response to trafficking in human beings, notably through 
the  formal  Focus  Group  of  specialised  prosecutors.  The  Focus  Group  would  foster  cooperation 
among  judges  and  prosecutors  from  different  Member  States  and  non-EU  countries  through  the 
sharing  of  expertise  and  best  practices.  Fostering  cooperation  with  the  internet  industry  in  the 
context  of  the  EU  Internet  Forum,  in  cooperation  with  Member  States  and  EU  Agencies,  in 
particular Europol, would also increase the capacity of national authorities to fight the crime online.  

The  evaluation  found  that  certain  aspects  of  the  criminal  justice  response  to  the  crime  are  not 
sufficiently and/or adequately addressed in the Directive. P.O.2 would aim at addressing these gaps, 
in particular when it comes to explicitly addressing the digital dimension of the offence, currently 
only implicitly covered by the Directive (legislative measure 1, sub-option (i)). With respect to the 
criminalisation of additional forms of exploitation (legislative measure 2), both sub-options (i) and 
(ii)  would  contribute  to  a  stronger  response  to  the  crime.  However,  the  criminalisation  of  only 
forced marriages and illegal adoptions as exploitative purposes reflects the most pressing concerns 
and may be easier to achieve in practice since the recital already mentions that these forms could be 
covered  by  the  definition  of  trafficking.  The  list  of  the  forms  of  exploitation  would  remain  non-
exhaustive, which means that Member States would still have the option to include more purposes 
of trafficking than those explicitly mentioned in the Directive. Moreover, with a stricter approach to 
the  sanctions  against  legal  persons,  P.O.2  would  increase  the  criminal  justice  response  for  cases 
when  trafficking  offences  are  committed  for  the  benefit  of  companies  or  businesses.  Requiring 
Member  States  to  ensure  that  legal  persons  will  be  subjected  to  the  sanctions,  which  are  already 
provided for in  Directive 2009/52/EC  (legislative  measure 3 sub-option (i)) is  deemed to  be the 
most effective measure.  Member States should  already have  adopted such sanctions in  their legal 
system for cases of illegal employment of third-country nationals. They would only have to expand 
their  application  to  trafficking  offences.  At  the  same  time,  sub-option  (i)  would  go  further  than 
sub-option (iii) in holding legal persons accountable for trafficking offences, since the introduction 

65 

 
 
of the remaining optional sanctions would become mandatory when the offence is committed with 
an aggravating circumstance.  

P.O.3  would  combine  the  effectiveness  of  P.O.1  and  P.O.2,  which  is  why  it  is  considered  to  be 
more effective.  

7.1.3.  7.1.3.  Ensuring  that  victims  of  trafficking  receive  adequate  assistance,  support  and 

protection across the Member States 

P.O.1 would contribute to ensuring that victims have actual access to adequate assistance, support 
and  protection  services  across  the  Member  States.  It  includes  concrete  measures  to  improve  the 
early identification and  referral  of victims, which would be developed and implementing in  close 
cooperation  with  all  relevant  stakeholders,  including  national  authorities  and  civil  society 
organisations.  

P.O.2 would formally establish mechanisms for the early identification and assistance, support and 
protection  of  victims,  in  cooperation  with  relevant  support  organisations  (legislative  measure  4). 
Yet,  P.O.3  would  be  more  effective  in  ensuring  that  victims  of  trafficking  receive  adequate 
assistance, support and protection across the Member States, as the harmonisation of practices and 
procedures  for  the  identification  and  referral  of  the  victims  would  be  considerably  limited  if 
Member States do not have guidance at the EU level that would provide them with support in its 
application at the national level.  

7.1.4.  7.1.4.  Reducing  the  demand  for  the  exploited  services  of  victims  of  trafficking  in 

human beings  

P.O.1  would  contribute  to  reducing  the  demand  for  the  exploited  services  of  trafficked  victims 
through  the  organisation  of  an  EU-wide  awareness  raising  campaign  and  through  the  enhanced 
dialogue with the online platforms and technology companies. However, the evaluation found that it 
is very difficult to  assess the effectiveness of awareness-raising campaigns and other activities on 
reducing demand. Moreover, awareness-raising activities at the EU level, whether offline or online, 
may not sufficiently take into account the circumstances in Member States, for example in terms of 
vulnerability and high-risk sectors.  

P.O.2 would provide a legal basis for a law enforcement and judicial response to the knowing use 
of services exacted from victims of trafficking for all forms of exploitation (legislative measure 5 
sub-option  (ii)).  Its  deterrent  effect  on  potential  users  of  exploited  services  is  expected  to 
effectively reduce the demand that fosters trafficking for all forms of exploitation. Article 18(4) of 
the Directive already considers that the criminalisation of the knowing use of services would reduce 
demand  and  therefore  enhance  prevention  of  trafficking.  Requiring  Member  States  to  criminalise 
the knowing use of services related to all forms of exploitation would not prevent Member States 
who wish to go further to do so. The effectiveness of this legal option might be hampered by the 
difficulties to prove the knowledge that the person was a victim of trafficking. The evaluation and 

66 

 
 
impact  assessment  have  shown  that  this  approach  had  different  degrees  of  success  in  the  eight 
Member States  which have already  adopted it, ranging from high numbers163 of prosecutions and 
convictions  in  some  Member  States  to  zero  prosecutions  in  others164.  However,  based  on  the 
evaluation  and  Impact  Assessment,  it  is  not  possible  to  conclude  that  stricter  rules  (sub-options 
(iii), (iv) and partly (v)) led to higher numbers of prosecutions and convictions for such offences. 
The criminalisation of the use of services would contribute to holding users and buyers of services 
equally accountable all over the EU for their role the trafficking chain. In addition, it would cover 
the  different  purposes  of  trafficking  in  human  beings,  i.e.  sexual  exploitation  and  labour 
exploitation,  as  well  as  organ  removal,  as  opposed  to  sub-option  (i),  which  would  only  address 
sexual  exploitation. Finally, this option would contribute to  shifting the focus of investigations to 
high-risk sectors, environments and groups.  

P.O.  3  is  the  most  in  line  with  the  comprehensive  approach  to  prevention  and  demand  reduction 
envisaged in EU legal and policy instruments, as it includes both non-legislative measures such as 
awareness-raising, education and training, as  well as criminal  law measures targeting the users of 
exploited services.   

For all the objectives of the Impact Assessment, P.O.3 is considered to be the most effective policy 
option, as it would combine the positive impact of P.O.1 and P.O.2.  

7.2 

Efficiency 

All the non-legislative measures of P.O.1 are considered to be efficient as they would contribute to 
improving  the  implementation  of  the  Directive.  Moreover,  as  highlighted  in  section  6.3  on  the 
economic impact, P.O.1 is not expected to create any costs or additional burden on Member States 
or businesses as the estimated amount of EUR 2 290 000 a year, including EUR 250 000 as a “one-
off” cost for the EU-wide awareness raising campaign, would be covered under regular EU funding.  

The  Knowledge  and  Expertise  Hub  would  cover  other  activities  that  fall  under  P.O.1,  such  as 
developing  guidelines  on  National  Referral  Mechanisms  and  on  data  collection,  as  well  as 
cooperation  within  the  framework  of  a  European  Referral  Mechanism  and  supporting  awareness 
raising  campaigns.  Accordingly,  no  additional  funding  would  be  required.  These  measures  would 
be developed in close cooperation with national authorities and other relevant stakeholders, such as 
civil society organisations, and would aim at facilitating their tasks in the national and cross-border 
contexts, therefore increasing their efficiency.  

The  EU-wide  awareness  raising  campaign  would  be  organised  by  the  Commission  and  financed 
through the EU budget to fight against trafficking in human beings. Therefore, it would not incur 
any  costs by national  authorities, civil  society  organisations  and the private sector. Moreover, the 
campaign would be fully in line with the objectives  of the Directive to discourage and reduce the 
demand that fosters all forms of exploitation and to reduce the risks of people becoming victims of 
trafficking. 

163 Lithuania reported 113 convictions since 2017. 
164 Malta reported 0 convictions since 2017; Bulgaria reported 3 convictions since 2017. 

67 

 
 
                                                 
Some of the legislative  amendments  under  P.O.2 are to  a  certain  extent covered in  national  legal 
systems.  The  added  value  of  EU  standard  setting  would  be  ensuring  harmonisation  of  the  legal 
systems of all Member States and facilitating cross-border cooperation. 

The  majority  of  stakeholders  consulted  as  part  of  the  survey165  and  the  public  consultation166 
confirmed  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  current  Directive167.  The  evaluation  found  that  the  costs 
associated  to  law  enforcement  and  judicial  activities  did  not  create  an  unnecessary  burden  on  the 
Member States.  

A stronger criminal justice response through more harmonised rules at the EU level would overall 
contribute to increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement and judicial anti-trafficking activities 
and  reduce  related  costs.  The  cost  of  new  measures  involving  criminalisation  is  expected  to  be 
limited,  although  it  is  difficult  to  estimate  in  precise  terms.  However,  the  costs  of  criminalising 
harmful  conducts  (estimated  at  EUR  127  235  011  per  year)  are  outweighed  by  the  benefits  this 
brings to the victims and society as a whole.  

P.O.3 is generally expected to be more efficient than P.O.2. The transposition and implementation 
of the legislative measures would be supported by a set of non-legislative measures. For example, 
the efficiency of legislative measure 4 (obligation to establish a formal national referral mechanism 
and  national  focal  points)  and  legislative  measure  6  (formalisation  of  the  data  collection  on 
trafficking in human beings) would be improved by the guidelines, which would be developed as 
part of the Knowledge and Expertise Hub. Moreover, the sub-options that were selected to be part 
of  P.O.3  are  the  ones,  which  would  incur  the  most  limited  administrative  costs  by  the  Member 
States, while also enhancing the effectiveness of the Directive.    

The overall increase in efficiency connected with P.O.3 allows to consider it as a preferred option 
despite its  higher costs due to  the combination of  P.O.1  and  P.O.2 (approximately  EUR 129 275 
011 per year).   

7.3 

Coherence 

The  evaluation  found  that  the  Directive  is  overall  coherent  with  other  relevant  EU  legislative 
instruments.  The  three  policy  options  are  expected  to  maintain  the  coherence  with  other 
initiatives168. 

The  evaluation  found  that  there  was  some  margin  for  better  alignment  with  the  Employers 
Sanctions  Directive  (Directive  2009/52/EC).  Both  P.O.2  and  P.O.3  would  be  in  line  with  this 
Directive,  as  they  would  introduce  the  sanctions  against  legal  persons  included  therein.  In 
particular,  making  some  of  the  optional  sanctions  under  Article  6  of  the  Directive  mandatory  for 

165 69% of them agreed that the implementation of the Directive did not cause any unnecessary burden.  
166 56% of them agreed that the implementation of the Directive did not cause any unnecessary burden.  
167 See section 4.1.2 of the evaluation and Annex 2 of the Impact Assessment.  
168 See the section 4.1.3.1 of the evaluation for the assessment of the coherence of the Anti-trafficking Directive with 
other relevant EU and international instruments.  

68 

 
 
                                                 
Member States to transpose (legislative measure 3 sub-option (i)) would improve the coherence of 
the Directive with Article 7(1) (c) of Directive 2009/52/EC.  

Requiring  Member  States  to  criminalise  the  knowing  use  of  services  exacted  from  victims  of 
trafficking (legislative measure 5, sub-option (ii)) would increase the coherence with Article 9(1) 
(d) of Directive 2009/52/EC, which prohibits the use by an employer of work or services exacted 
from  an  illegally  staying  third-country  national  with  the  knowledge  that  he  or  she  is  a  victim  of 
trafficking  in  human  beings.  This  legislative  change  would  fil  the  remaining  gap,  i.e.  employers 
who knowingly use the work or services exacted from victims of trafficking who are not illegally 
staying third country nationals. These would be covered by this legislative option. 

7.4 

Necessity 

The necessity of EU action in the area of fighting  trafficking in human beings is demonstrated in 
Section  3.2  and  in  the  evaluation.  All  the  policy  options  aim  at  strengthening  the  fight  against 
trafficking  in  human  beings  and  protection  of  its  victims  across  the  EU,  either  through  measures 
aimed at the implementation of the current Directive and/or through improving and modernising it 
with legislative amendments. The three policy options address the gaps identified in the evaluation. 

7.5 

Subsidiarity and proportionality 

Section 3.2 explains how this initiative meets the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The 
three  policy  options  would  contribute  to  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  Treaties,  i.e.  the  fight 
against  trafficking  in  human  beings,  which  is  a  particularly  serious  crime  with  a  cross-border 
dimension.  

P.O.1 aims at reinforcing the implementation of the current EU legal and policy framework through 
non-binding measures, which would not affect the scope for national decision-making. 

The legislative measures proposed as part of P.O.2 and P.O.3 fall within the scope of the existing 
legislation,  since  they  consist  in  amendments  to  the  Anti-trafficking  Directive.  Moreover,  these 
measures target specifically the aspects of the Directive, which do not adequately respond to new or 
emerging  trends  (such  as  the  online  dimension  or  other  forms  of  exploitation)  and  considerably 
hinder the achievement of the objectives of the Directive. It should be underlined that all Member 
States have transposed Article 2(1) and Article 2(3) in their national legislation, although some gaps 
persist with respect to the full transposition of the means, which are part of the definition, and the 
forms  of  exploitation.  Moreover,  these  legislative  measures  focus  on  those  provisions  of  the 
Directive,  which  left  too  much  discretion  to  Member  States  in  their  transposition,  either  because 
they were not sufficiently detailed (such as Article 11(4) and Article 19) or because they were left 
optional (Article 6 and Article 18(4)). 

Nevertheless, the level of proportionality of the measures proposed as part P.O.2 varies depending 
on the sub-options. Legislative measure 1, sub-option (i) would consist in updating the Directive 
in  order  to  explicitly  address  a  phenomenon  which  is  already  covered  under  the  definition  of  the 
trafficking  offences.  Therefore,  this  sub-option  is  considered  to  be  more  proportionate  than  sub-
option (ii), which would compel Member States to qualify the online recruitment, advertisement or 

69 

 
 
exploitation of victims of trafficking as an aggravating circumstance. Legislative measure 2, sub-
option  (i),  for  example, would  only  oblige  Member  States  to  criminalise  two  additional  forms  of 
exploitation, which are already referred to in the recital of the Directive, instead of four (sub-option 
(ii)). Legislative measure 3 sub-options (i), (ii) and (iii) would require Member States to transpose 
all  the  sanctions  on  legal  persons,  which  are  currently  optional,  either  for  standard  trafficking 
offences or when the offence is committed with an aggravating circumstance. Of all the sub-options 
proposed for legislative measure 5, sub-option (ii) is considered to be the most proportionate. It is 
the one with the least far-reaching implications for Member States, while going beyond the status 
quo, since the large majority of Member States already have corresponding regulation in place for at 
least sexual exploitation. 

8.  8. PREFERRED OPTION 

8.1. 

Policy  option  3  –  Legislative  measures  combined  with  non-

8.1. 
legislative measures 

The preferred option is P.O.3, which includes targeted amendments to the Directive as well as non-
legislative measures in line with the Strategy.  

Legislative  measure  1,  sub-option  1  will  allow  to  explicitly  address  one  of  the  main  challenges  in 
fighting trafficking in human beings, which is the digitalisation of the crime. It is preferred to sub-option (ii) 
as  the  online  dimension  of  trafficking  already  (implicitly)  falls  within  the  scope  of  the  definition  of 
trafficking.  It  is  considered  to  be  a  facilitator  of  the  constitutive  elements  of  the  offence  (i.e.  the  act,  the 
means and the purpose, which is the exploitation of the person) rather than a particularly grave circumstance 
in  which  the  crime  took  place.  This  was  confirmed  by  the  consultation  with  stakeholders  on  the  policy 
options, who indicated their preference for sub-option (i).  

While legislative measure 2, sub-option (ii) will increase the range of forms of exploitation that 
Member  States  are  obliged  to  criminalise,  sub-option  (i)  reflects  the  most  pressing  concerns  of 
consulted stakeholders in terms of challenges that need to be addressed in the area of trafficking in 
human  beings.  Forced  marriages  and  illegal  adoption  are  already  covered  in  the  definition  of 
trafficking under the recitals of the Directive, although Member States had no obligation so far to 
criminalise  them  as  exploitative  purposes.  Moreover,  this  option  acknowledges  the  increasing 
incidence  of  trafficking  for  these  purposes  in  the  EU.  It  will  not  preclude  Member  States  to 
criminalise the other forms of exploitation identified in the  evaluation and Impact  Assessment,  as 
the list in the Directive will remain non-exhaustive. It will also be more in line with the outcome of 
the consultations with stakeholders, who considered that it is important not to have a too extensive 
list of forms of exploitation in the Directive, in order to keep some flexibility with respect to what 
conducts and situations can qualify as exploitation.  

With  legislative  3,  Member  States  will  have  an  obligation  to  transpose  the  (currently  optional) 
sanctions,  which  are  also  addressed  in  the  Employers  Sanctions  Directive  and  will  have  some 
flexibility  in  transposing  the  other  sanctions  for  standard  trafficking  offences  (as  opposed  to  sub-
option  (ii)).  This  option  is  preferred  to  sub-option  (iii),  as  it  will  increase  the  range  of  effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive sanctions to which legal persons are subject to for committing standard 
trafficking  offences,  while  ensuring  that  the  other  sanctions  are  available  when  the  crime  is 
committed under aggravating circumstances. 

70 

 
 
Legislative measure 4 will contribute to harmonising identification and referral procedures across 
the  Member  States  and  facilitate  cross-border  cooperation,  notably  within  the  framework  of  a 
European  Referral  Mechanism.  Moreover,  the  guidelines  on  national  referral  mechanisms  will 
support Member States in implementing this measure in a consistent way at the EU level.  

Legislative measure 5, sub-option (ii) will allow to harmonise the EU rules on criminalising the 
knowing use of services exacted from victims of trafficking. It will go one step further than what is 
currently in the Directive and leave it up to the Member States to adopt stricter approaches, such as 
the ones presented in sub-options (iii), (iv) and (v) for sexual exploitation. This approach allows to 
avoid  any  risks  of over-criminalisation as offenders require  actual knowledge that the person is  a 
victim. 

Legislative measure 6 will further harmonise processes related to the data collection on trafficking 
in  human  beings  in  the  EU.  It  will  allow  to  clarify  some  aspects  of  the  data  collection  in  the 
Directive  and  will  increase  the  level  of  legal  certainty  among  national  authorities  regarding  the 
gathering  of  statistics.  As  a  consequence,  it  will  increase  knowledge  about  trafficking  in  human 
beings. This measure was widely supported by stakeholders consulted on the policy option and is 
already applied in practice in the Member States, at least to a certain extent.  

8.2. 

8.2.  REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) 

In  compliance  with  the  Commission’s  Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance  Programme  (REFIT), 
all  initiatives  aimed  at  revising  existing  EU  legislation  should  seek  to  simplify  and  reduce 
administrative  burden  on  Member  States.  The  Impact  Assessment  concludes  that  the  preferred 
option would have a limited burden, which would be offset by the positive impact of the measures 
on the prevention and fight against trafficking, and protection of the victims of this crime.  

The  legislative  amendments  to  the  Directive  are  aimed  at  improving  Member  States’  capacity  to 
fight the crime efficiently, notably in relation to threats and trends that have emerged and evolved 
within the past years. The initiative will further harmonise the legal landscape addressing trafficking 
across the Member States. New common and harmonised rules applicable to the Member States are 
expected to enhance cross-border cooperation, both in terms of investigations and prosecutions, as 
well as victims’ assistance and support. 

The  regulatory  burden  related  to  the  preferred  option  would  be  of  limited  scope,  as  it  mostly 
consists in improving existing provisions rather than creating completely new obligations. Member 
States already investigate, prosecute and punish the offence when it is committed online and have 
put in place specialised cyber-units and/or experts. While the Commission would foster cooperation 
with  the  internet  industry,  the  Member  States  and  relevant  EU  Agencies  with  respect  to  the 
responsibility of online platforms and service providers to detect, monitor and remove trafficking in 
human beings related content, any related regulatory obligations, such as  measures and protection 
against  misuse  of  online  platform  services  or  notification  of  suspicion  of  criminal  offences  by 

71 

 
 
providers of hosting services, would be  covered by  other legislative instruments,  in  particular the 
Digital Services Act169.  

Most of the regulatory and administrative burden on Member States would stem from the obligation 
to criminalise the knowing use of services which are exacted from victims of trafficking and to set-
up National Referral Mechanisms and appoint National Focal Points. Legislative measure 5, sub-
option  (ii)  would  mainly  create  a  regulatory  burden  on  the  Member  States  who  have  not  yet 
transposed this measure, or measures which go further, in their national law. Eight Member States 
would  already  be  compliant  with  it  and  therefore  would  not  have  to  undergo  any  change  in  their 
legislation. Eleven Member States would have to expand their rules to all forms of exploitation and 
nine Member States would have to transpose the new provision.  

Legislative measure 4 is not an entirely new obligation, as under the current text of Article 11(4) 
Member States already had to establish mechanisms aimed at the early identification, assistance and 
support of the victims. In fact, all but one Member States already have a formal or informal referral 
mechanism  in  place.  The  legislative  change  would  be  accompanied  by  non-legislative  measures, 
which  would  make  it  less  burdensome  for  Member  States  to  adjust  their  legislation  and  existing 
procedures and mechanisms already in place. 

Although the current Directive only provides that the tasks of the NREM shall include the gathering 
of statistics, all Member States already collect data on trafficking in human beings and transmit it to 
the Commission every year for the purpose of the EU-wide data collection. Therefore, introducing a 
requirement for Member States to collect data on specific indicators and on a regular basis as part of 
the  Directive  (legislative  measure  6)  would  not  trigger  significant  additional  burden.  This 
legislative  change  is  expected  to  simplify  the  work  of  the  National  Statistical  Authorities  and 
generally  improve  the  quality  and  availability  of  the  statistics.  Moreover,  the  developing  of 
guidelines, in close cooperation with relevant national authorities, would reduce the regulatory and 
administrative burden on national authorities.    

8.3. 

8.3.  Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach  

As  explained  in  the  above  sections,  this  initiative  will  not  entail  neither  administrative  costs  nor 
savings for the private sector. It  will not incur any costs for citizens. However, this initiative will 
improve  the  level  of  security  and  protection  of  citizens  in  the  EU,  in  particular  those  who  are 
victims of trafficking in human beings or at risk of becoming victims, through better assistance and 
support measures and prevention. As to adjustment costs, it will mostly concern public authorities.  

9.  9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

The Commission will monitor and evaluate the actual impacts of this initiative through the existing 
mechanisms under the current Directive. The monitoring of the new legislative provisions will start 
two years after the entry into force of the Directive at the latest. In addition, the Commission will 
continue to monitor the transposition and implementation of the provisions of the Directive that will 

169 See to this end for example Articles 18 and 23 of the Digital Services Act.  

72 

 
 
                                                 
not  be  modified  and  will  use  its  powers  conferred  by  the  Treaties,  including  infringements  as 
appropriate.  The  tasks  of  NREM  would  remain  the  same  under  Article  19  of  the  Directive, 
including the national coordination of anti-trafficking actions. They would continue to report to the 
Anti-Trafficking Coordinator in the context of the reporting carried out  by the Commission every 
two years on the progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings. This would include 
a  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  impacts  of  this  initiative,  which  should  be  carried  out,  in 
principle  not  earlier  than  five  years  after  the  deadline  for  transposition  to  ensure  that  there  is  a 
sufficiently  long  period  to  evaluate  the  effects  of  the  initiative  after  it  has  been  fully  transposed 
across all Member States. The results of the monitoring and evaluation of the actual impacts of this 
initiative  will  be  used  by  the  Commission,  Member  States,  in  particular  the  NREM,  civil  society 
organisations, EU Agencies as well as other EU institutions, among other stakeholders.  

This initiative aims at improving the collection and reporting of data by Member States, as well as 
the indicators on which such data is collected. The Commission will work closely with ESTAT, the 
NREM  and  National  Statistical  Authorities,  in  order  to  ensure  available,  reliable  and  comparable 
data.  

The Knowledge and Expertise Hub would also be useful forum to evaluate the different measures 
related to these proposed policy option. The Commission will continue to organise the two-yearly 
meetings of NREM and the EU Civil Society Platform against trafficking in human beings, as well 
as with the EU Agencies working against trafficking, which will also contribute to the monitoring 
and evaluation.  

As the criminalisation of the knowing use of services exacted from victims of trafficking in human 
beings is expected to have an impact in the Member States that have not yet adopted this measure, 
the revised article would include a provision requiring the Commission to assess the impact of the 
rules criminalising the knowing use of exploited services by submitting a report to the Parliament 
and the Council five-years after the transposition deadline.  

The  table  below  identifies  an  indicative  and  non-exhaustive  list  of  operational  objectives  and 
corresponding monitoring indicators for the measures identified under the preferred option. 

Table 7 – Operational objectives and corresponding monitoring indicators 

Specific Objectives 

Operational Objectives  

Indicators 

Data Sources 

Ensuring 
adequate 
prevention,  detection 
and  monitoring  of 
THB 

 

 

 

the 

Improving 
collection  on  THB 
national and EU Level 

data 
at 

Increasing  awareness  of, 
and knowledge of THB 

Improving 
the  detection 
and  early  identification  of 
the victims 

  Number  of  Member 
States collecting data for 
each 
THB-related 
indicators  as  compared 
to previous levels 

  Outreach  of  awareness-
raising  campaigns  on 
THB 

  Numbers  of  training  on 
THB  organised  by  the 

  Contributions 
Member 
through Eurostat 

from 
States 

  Biannual  reporting  by 
Member  States  and 
society 
civil 
organisations 
to  EU 
ATC  leading  to  the  
biannual 
Commission’s 

73 

 
 
the 
Strengthening 
justice 
criminal 
to  THB, 
response 
including 
the 
cross-border context 

in 

Ensuring  that  THB 
victims 
receive 
adequate  assistance, 
support 
and 
protection  across  the 
EU,  adapted  to  their 
specific needs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

capacity 

Improving 
of 
national authorities to fight 
THB,  especially 
the 
cross-border context 

in 

Improve  law  enforcement 
and judicial cooperation 

Improving  the  capacity  of 
national authorities to fight 
the crime online 

Improving  prosecution  and 
convictions 

Increasing  the  number  of 
victims 
and 
registered 

identified 

the 

early 
Improving 
identification  and  referral 
of  victims  to  assistance, 
support 
protection 
services 

and 

Improving 
the 
identification  and  referral 
of  victims  in  the  cross-
border context 

progress report  

  Commission’s  annual 
collection 
on 

data 
published 
Eurostat’s website 

  Reporting from the EU 
Agencies 
through 
regular  meetings  and 
in  the  context  of  the 
progress reports 

  Data 

collection  on 
THB  in  the  EU  and 
progress reports 

  Reporting 

from 

Europol and Eurojust 

  Feedback  received  in 
the  context  of 
the 
meetings  of  the  Focus 
Group  of  specialised 
prosecutors 
against 
THB  

from 

  Discussions 
and 
reporting 
the 
meetings and activities 
of  the  Focus  Group 
within EMPACT-THB  

  Data 

collection  on 
THB  in  the  EU  and 
progress reports 

  Data  collected  by  the 
on 
Commission 
Member 
States’ 
allocation  and  use  of 
by 
funding 
EU 
Member  States  in  the 
(e.g. 
field  of  THB 
AMIF, 
and 
EMPACT).  

ISF 

EU  Agencies  (CEPOL, 
Frontex,  EUAA,  ELA) 
and Member States 

  Number 

of 

investigations, 
prosecutions 
and 
convictions  for  THB  in 
the 
including 
against legal persons  

EU, 

  Number 

of 

cases 
referred  to  Europol  and 
Eurojust 

  Number  of  Joint  Action 
Joint 

Days 
Investigation Teams 

and 

  Number  of  meetings  of 
the  Focus  Group  of 
specialised  prosecutors 
and 
against 
number  of  instruments 
produced  as  a  result  of 
these meetings 

THB 

  Number 

of 

victims 

registered in the EU 

of 

  Number 
formal 
Referral 
National 
Mechanisms 
and 
National  Contact  Points 
set  up  in  the  Member 
States 

  Use  made  by  Member 
States  of  the  European 
Referral  Mechanism  in 
order  to  contact  other 
countries 

of 

  Number 
victims 
assistance, 
receiving 
support  and  protection 

74 

 
 
 
  Data 

collection  on 
THB  in  the  EU  and 
progress reports 

  Evaluation 

report 
monitoring  the  extent 
to  which  Member 
have 
States 
criminalised 
the 
of 
knowing 
services  exacted  from 
victims of THB 

use 

after being identified 

States 

  Use  of  EU  funding  by 
for 
Member 
actions  aimed  at 
the 
assistance,  support  and 
protection  of  victims  of 
THB 

the 
Reducing 
demand  that  fosters 
THB  for  all  forms  of 
exploitation 

  Reducing  the  demand  by 
criminalisation 
the 
knowing  use  of  services 
exacted  from  victims  of 
THB 

of 

  Number  of  Member 
States  who  criminalise 
the  knowing  use  of 
services  exacted  from 
victims for THB 

 

Increasing 
level  of 
the 
awareness  of  end  users  of 
the services exploited from 
victims of THB 

  Number of cases for the 
offence  of  the  knowing 
use  of  services  exacted 
from victims of THB 

  Number  of  awareness-
raising  activities  aimed 
at  reducing  the  demand 
for exploited services 

  Outreach 
activities 

of 

these 

75 

 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

DG  Migration  and  Home  Affairs  (DG  HOME)  is  the  lead  DG.  The  agenda  planning  (Decide) 
reference  assigned  to  the  evaluation  and  impact  assessment  is  PLAN/2021/11112.  There  is  no 
reference to the evaluation and impact assessment in the Commission Work Programme 2022.  

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The Terms of Reference for carrying out an external study to support the evaluation of the Directive 
on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims and an impact 
assessment for a legislative proposal on the topic were launched on 9 July 2021 with a deadline on 
6 August 2021. An evaluation committee consisting of staff from DG HOME selected an external 
contracor to conduct the study on 30 September 2021170. The kick-off meeting of the contract for 
the  study  took  place  on  27  October  2021.  The  contract  ended  on  21  July  2022  (following  an 
extension of approximately one month, as the contract was initially planned to terminate on 16 June 
2022).  

The combined evaluation roadmap and inception impact assessment for the initiative was published 
by  DG  HOME  on  the  Commission’s  “Have  your  say”  webpage171  on  5  August  2021  until  16 
September 2021. The Commission carried out a public consultation from 14 December 2021 to 22 
March 2022, which was also published on “Have your say” webpage.  

The  Inter-Service  Group  (ISG)  on  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings,  which  already  existed,  was 
composed  of    several  Directorate-Generals  within  the  Commission172.  The  meetings  of  the  ISG 
were  chaired  by  DG  HOME.  The  steering  group  was  regularly  consulted  over  the  course  of  the 
evaluation and impact assessment, in particular on the draft reports of the contractor responsible for 
carrying out the external study. The following list provides an overview of the work of the ISG:  

  The  ISG  was  consulted  in  June  2021  in  order  to  provide  feedback  on  the  draft  Terms  of 

Reference for the external study.  

170  The  call  for  service  was  issued  via  framework  contract  HOME/2020/ISFP/FW/EVA2/0074.  Three  contractors 
submitted  an  offer  to  carry  out  an  evaluation  and  impact  assessment  study.  The  evaluation  committee  considered  a 
number  of  criteria,  namely:  compliance  with  the  technical  specifications  described  in  the  Terms  of  Reference; 
demonstrated  understanding  of  the  objectives  and  tasks;  the  quality  of  the  preliminary  assessment  of  difficulties  and 
expected  results;  the  quality  of  the  proposed  methodology;  and  the  quality  of  the  project  management  and  team 
organisation. The Commission awarded the contract to EY/RAND. 
171 Fighting human trafficking – review of EU rules (europa.eu). 
172 Secretariat-General (SG); Legal Service (LS); Justice and Consumers (JUST); Education, Youth, Sport and Culture 
(EAC);  European  Civil  Protection  and  Humanitarian  Aid  Operations  (ECHO);  European  External  Action  Service 
(EEAS);  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion  (EMPL);  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs 
(GROW);  Mobility  and  Transport  (MOVE);  Neighbourhood  and  Enlargement  Negotiations  (NEAR);  Regional  and 
Urban  Policy  (REGIO);  Health  and  Food  Safety  (SANTE);  TRADE;  International  Partnerships  (INPTA);  Eurostat 
(ESTAT). 

76 

 
 
 
                                                 
  On 27 October 2021, the ISG was invited to the kick-off meeting of the external study with 

the contractor. 

 

In November 2021, the ISG was consulted on the open public consultation questionnaire.  

  On 19 January 2022, the ISG was invited to participate in the meeting to discuss the interim 
report  of  the  study,  drafted  by  the  contractor.  The  report  was  subsequently  accepted  after 
revisions were made to reflect the comments of the ISG. 

  On 4 April 2022, DG HOME invited the ISG to discuss the contractor’s first final report of 

the study. 

  The  ISG,  as  well  as  DG  HOME  relevant  units,  were  consulted  in  writing  throughout  the 
evaluation  and  impact  assessment  process  and  their  comments  to  the  external  study  were 
duly taken into account.  

  A  written  informal  consultation  with  the  ISG  on  the  Staff  Working  Documents  on  the 
Evaluation and Impact Assessment took place between 22 July 2022 and 2 August 2022 and 
ISG met on 29 August to discuss the changes.  

On  24  July  2022,  the  final  second  report  of  the  study  was  re-submitted  by  the  contractor  to  DG 
HOME for revisions and subsequently accepted. 

3.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB 

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board examined the Staff Working Document on the Evaluation and Staff 
Working Document on the Impact Assessment  through written procedure and provided a positive 
opinion with comments on 12 October 2022. 

DG  HOME  addressed  the  RSB  comments  by  including  more  information  on  the  scale  of  the 
problem and the extent to which it varies between Member States, notably by including more data 
on the number of victims in the EU and across the Member States, the main forms of exploitation, 
as  well  as  the  sex,  age  and  citizenship  of  the  victims.  Data  was  also  added  in  order  to  better 
illustrate  the  cross-border  and  transnational  dimension  of  trafficking  in  human  beings.  The 
challenges encountered by Member States in reporting and collecting data on trafficking in human 
beings were further elaborated. 

Examples  from  the  “Transposition”  assessment  were  added  to  the  main  report  in  order  to  show 
where the problems identified in the evaluation stem from gaps in the transposition of the Directive 
or  from  the  flexibility  given  to  the  Member  States  by  the  Directive  in  transposing  some  of  its 
provisions. Moreover, the description of the problem linked to the digital dimension of trafficking 
in human beings was reinforced with more concrete examples of data on the use of technology to 
commit  trafficking  in  human  beings  offences,  as  well  as  challenges  faced  by  law  enforcement 
authorities in order to address it. 

The dynamic baseline was strengthened by adding some data on the scale of trafficking in human 
beings and how it has evolved over the reporting period, as well as ongoing and recently adopted 
initiatives  related  to  the  area  of  trafficking  in  human  beings,  including  in  the  context  of  the 
implementation of the EU Strategy on Combatting Trafficking in Human Beings (2021-2025), and 
transposition of the Directive.  

77 

 
DG HOME added more information with respect to the views of  different stakeholders regarding 
the policy options and introduced a visual intervention logic, which establishes the links between 
the problems, the objectives and the policy options. The incremental character of the policy options 
was improved. The report was revised in order to make it clear that  Policy Option 1 goes beyond 
the baseline scenario as it focuses on actions that are not yet in force nor were clearly defined in the 
Strategy, and takes into account the findings of the evaluation, which highlighted that some of the 
main  challenges  stem  from  gaps  in  the  implementation  of  the  Directive.  DG  HOME  introduced 
tables in order to present the proposed measures for each policy option and how they relate to the 
objectives of the initiative. The presentation of the non-legislative measures in Policy Option 1 was 
revised (e.g. the  guidelines on National  Referral  Mechanisms and on  data  collection were moved 
under the Knowledge and Expertise Hub) and the description of some measures further elaborated. 
The report was further developed in order to clearly present which sub-options from Policy Option 
2 are part of Policy Option 3 and explain why it is the preferred option. 

The RSB considered that the cost benefit analysis should be further improved, especially as it did 
not  provide  overall  estimates  of  costs  and  benefits  for  each  options.  The  parts  on  the  economic 
impact and benefits of the initiative were considerably revised. The costs estimates included in the 
section on the efficiency and the annex of the costs and benefits were moved to the section on the 
economic impact of the initiative. The overall estimated cost of each policy option was added in a 
table and in the text of the report. DG HOME also made additional efforts to quantify the estimated 
benefits  brought  by  this  initiative,  based  on  the  findings  of  the  Commission’s  Study  on  the 
economic,  social  and  human  costs  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  (2020).  Evidence,  sources  and 
quality 

The main sources for the evaluation and Impact Assessment are the Commission’s biannual reports 
on the fight against trafficking in human beings and Studies on data collection on THB in the EU, 
as well as other reports and studies published by the Commission, the European Parliament and EU 
Agencies. The Evaluation and Impact Assessment are also based on the stakeholder consultations 
(Annex  2).  They  rely  on  the  feedback  received  from  the  consultation  on  the  Evaluation 
Roadmap/Inception  Impact  Assessment,  the  public  consultation,  the  organisation  of  two 
workshops,  one  with  the  EU  Network  of  National  Rapporteurs  and  Equivalent  Mechanisms 
(NREM) on 6 December 2021 and the other with the EU Civil Society Platform against Trafficking 
in Human beings 30 November 2021, as well as the meetings and joint meeting of the NREM and 
EU Civil Society Platform on 16-18 May 2022.  

The Evaluation and Impact Assessment also take into account the findings of the “Study to support 
the  evaluation  of  the  Directive  on  preventing  and  combating  trafficking  in  human  beings  and 
protecting its victims and an impact assessment for a legislative proposal on the topic”, which was 
commissioned  by  DG  HOME  and  developed  by  the  contractor  based  on  desk  research  and  the 
following  stakeholder  consultation  methods:  scoping  interviews,  desk  research,  online  survey, 
interviews and case studies.  

78 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT) 

This Annex presents the synopsis report of the consultation activities undertaken for the evaluation 
and impact assessment of the Anti-Trafficking Directive.  

1.  CONSULTATION ON THE ROADMAP/INCEPTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

The combined evaluation roadmap and inception impact assessment for the initiative was published 
by  DG  Migration  and  Home  Affairs  (DG  HOME)  on  the  Commission’s  ‘Have  your  say’ 
webpage173 on 5 August 2021 until 16 September 2021. The Commission received feedbacks from 
36 stakeholders. 

2.  MEETINGS  OF  THE  EU  NETWORK  OF  NATIONAL  RAPPORTEURS  AND  EQUIVALENT 

MECHANISMS AND THE EU CIVIL SOCIETY PLATFORM 

On  30  November  2021,  the  Commission  organised  a  virtual  meeting  of  the  EU  Civil  Society 
Platform  against  trafficking  in  human  beings  in  order  to  inform  the  evaluation  and  impact 
assessment of the Anti-trafficking Directive. On 6 December 2021, a virtual meeting was organised 
with the EU Network of National Rapporteurs and Equivalent Mechanisms (NREM). The meetings 
focused  on  the  challenges  that  affect  the  implementation  of  the  Anti-trafficking  Directive  and  its 
possible amendments, in order to inform its evaluation and impact assessment.  

The  topics  of  the  criminalisation  of  the  use  of  exploited  services  and  levels  of  penalties  in  the 
Directive were discussed during the meeting of the EU Network of NREM on 16 May. On 18 May, 
the  EU  Civil  Society  Platform  discussed  the  topics  of  the  criminalisation  of  the  use  of  exploited 
services, as well as national and transnational referral mechanisms. The NREM and Civil Society 
Platform  gathered  on  17  May  in  a  joint  meeting,  where  the  digital  dimension  of  trafficking  in 
human beings as well as trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation were addressed. All these 
discussions informed the evaluation and impact assessment.  

3.  CONSULATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EVALUATION 

3.1. Consultation strategy 

3.1.1. Public consultation 

The Commission carried out an open public consultation targeting the general public with the aim 
of collecting information, evidence, and views on the issues at stake and to feed into the evaluation 
questions.  The  questionnaire  was  available  in  all  official  languages  of  the  EU  institutions174  and 
remained  open  on  the  Commission’s  public  consultation  website  from  14  December  2021  to  22 
March  2022.  In  total,  124  responses  were  received.  In  addition,  75  contributors  submitted  a 
standalone written response.  

Of  the  124  contributions  received,  58  (47%)  were  submitted  by  non-governmental  organisations 
(NGOs). Thirty-two (26%) were submitted by EU citizens. Public authorities were the third largest 
group,  accounting  for  19  (15%)  of  responses.  This  was  followed  by  two  academic/research 

173 Fighting human trafficking – review of EU rules (europa.eu). 
174 Except Gaelic.  

79 

 
 
                                                 
institutions  (n=2,  2%),  one  non-EU  citizen,  one  environmental  organisation  and  one  trade  union 
(Figure 1).  

Figure 1: Public consultation responses by type of respondent 

By category of respondent

10; 8%

19; 15%

32; 26%

58; 47%

NGO

Other

EU citizen

Public authority

Academic/research institution Non-EU citizen

Environmental organisation

Trade union

Source: European Commission, About this Consultation175 

Almost  a  quarter  of  responses  came  from  Germany  (23%,  n=28).  The  second  largest  number  of 
contributions came from Spain (15%, n=18), followed by Belgium (10%, n=13) and Austria (10%, 
n=12).  This  was  followed  by  Italy  (6%,  n=8),  France  (5%,  n=6),  Finland  (5%,  n=6),  the 
Netherlands (3%, n=4), and Malta (3%, n=4). 18 countries had three or fewer contributions (Figure 
2).176   

175 European Commission, Have your Say – Fighting Human Trafficking: Review of EU rules. Available here.  
176 European Commission, Have your Say – Fighting Human Trafficking: Review of EU rules. Available here. 

80 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 2: Responses to public consultation by country 

18

13

12

30

28

25

20

15

10

5

0

8

6

6

4

4

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

i

n
a
p
S

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

e
c
n
a
r
F

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N
e
h
T

a
t
l
a
M

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

d
n
a
o
P

l

e
c
e
e
r
G

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

n
e
d
e
w
S

e
m
a
n
i
r
u
S

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

a
i
v
t
a
L

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

i

a
n
o
d
e
c
a
M
h
t
r
o
N

i

a
n
a
b
A

l

Source: European Commission, Have your Say177 

3.1.2. Online survey 

Within  the  framework  of  the  study  to  support  the  evaluation  of  the  Directive  on  preventing  and 
combating  trafficking in human beings  and protecting its victims and an impact  assessment for a 
legislative proposal on the topic, the external contractor launched an online survey, which aimed at 
collecting  both  comprehensive  and  specific  information  on  stakeholders’  views  regarding  the 
impact  of  the  Anti-trafficking  Directive  and  some  of  the  remaining  challenges  in  preventing  and 
combatting trafficking in human beings.  It  allowed to collect information from a large number of 
stakeholders,  and  to  gather  specific  contributions  that  would  not  be  possible  to  obtain  from 
interviews  alone.  Specifically,  the  online  survey  was  targeted  at  the  following  categories  of 
stakeholders: 

  National competent authorities (16 responded); 
  National Rapporteurs and Equivalent Mechanisms (14 responded); 
  National  law  enforcement  authorities  concerned  with  THB-related  crimes  (9 

responded);  

  National judicial authorities concerned with THB-related crimes (12 responded); 
  National authorities responsible for social services (1 responded); 
  Relevant civil society organisations (24 responded); 
  Other national authorities (4 responded). 

In total, 90 replies to the online survey were received. The survey was launched on 29  November 
2021 using the EY on-line survey tool Qualtrics, and remained open until 21 January 2022. 

2.1.3. Stakeholder interviews 

177 European Commission, Have your Say – Fighting Human Trafficking: Review of EU rules. Available here.  

81 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
The contractor carried out interviews with 29 stakeholders from 41 organisations across six main 
stakeholder  groups,  as  summarised  in  Table  1.  Topic  guides  and  the  content  of  interviews  were 
tailored to the expertise of the interviewee. Stakeholders were identified through suggestions from 
the  Commission,  a  stakeholder  mapping  process,  recommendations  from  the  interviewees,  and 
recommendations  from  members  of  the  study’s  expert  panel.  Key  information  was  coded  into  an 
evidence grid, in relation to each evaluation question.  

Table 1: Number of organisations consulted by stakeholder group 

Stakeholder group 

Number of organisations consulted 

EU Agency178 

EMPACT 

International organisation 

European civil soceity organisation179 

Business/employer association or representative 

Experts/academics 

Total:  

9 

1 

6 

5 

2 

6 

29 

3.2. Results of the consultation activities 

3.2.1. Public consultation 

A  summary  of  the  key  findings  from  the  public  consultation,  grouped  by  evaluation  criterion,  is 
provided below. It should be noted that this summary is not exhaustive and rather presents some of 
the key results of the public consultation.  

3.2.1.1. Effectiveness 

Most respondents to the public consultation considered that the Directive contributed to a small or 
moderate extent to reducing demand.180 

178 One of the stakeholders preferred to send a written response to the interview questionnaire, rather than participate in 
an interview.  
179 One of the stakeholders preferred to send a written response to the interview questionnaire, rather than participate in 
an interview. 
180 Question #3 of the public consultation asked respondents to what extent, in their view, the Directive contributed to 
reducing  demand  in  trafficking  in  human  beings  related  to  sexual  exploitation,  labour  exploitation,  exploitation  for 
criminal activities, removal of organs and forced begging. More than 40% (44%, n=54) of respondents reported that the 
Directive made either a ‘moderate’ (21%, n=26) or ‘small’ (23%, n=28) contribution to reducing the demand for sexual 
exploitation,  almost  20%  (n=24)  of  respondent  said  the  Directive  did  not  at  all  contribute.  Almost  one  third  of 
respondents  (32%,  n=40)  stated  that  the  Directive  made  a  small  contribution  to  reducing  the  demand  for  labour 
exploitation. A large portion of respondents did not know whether the Directive contributed to reducing the demand for 
THB in relation to the exploitation for criminal activities (44%, n=55), the removal of organs (56%, n=69) or forced 
begging (47%, n=58).   

82 

 
 
                                                 
61%  of  the  respondents  considered  that  the  Directive  should  criminalise  the  knowing  use  of 
services  exploited  from  victims  of  trafficking.  However,  respondents  had  more  diverging  views 
with  respect  to  the  extent  to  which  existing  national  laws  criminalising  the  knowing  use  of 
exploited services had contributed to reducing the demand for such services181.  

Almost  60%  of  the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  considered  that  the  Directive  had  only 
contributed to holding legal persons liable for THB offences to a ‘moderate’ or a ‘small extent’.182   

The  majority  of  the  respondents  (67%)  replied  that  the  Directive  had  contributed  to  allowing 
victims of trafficking to effectively report a case to a “small extent”.183 

3.2.1.2. Efficiency 

Almost half of the replies highlighted the cost-effectiveness of the Anti-trafficking Directive (43%, 
n=53). The majority of the respondents considered that the implementation of the Directive had not 
caused unnecessary administrative burden (56%, n=69).  

3.2.1.3. Relevance 

70%  (n=83)  of  the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  agreed  that  the  gender  dimension,  in 
particular  the  protection  of  women  and  girls,  should  be  more  prominently  articulated  in  the 
Directive. Twenty-three per cent (n=29) of respondents disagreed.184  

Almost  two thirds of respondents  (74%, n=92) agreed that he Directive should  introduce specific 
provisions  to  address  the  online  dimension  of  trafficking  in  human  beings,  including  online 
recruitment, advertisement and exploitation of the victims. Almost 20% (19%, n=24) disagreed.185 

3.2.1.4. Coherence  

Most of the  respondents (69%, n=86) considered that the  Anti-trafficking  Directive was coherent 
with the Victims’ Rights Directive (2012/29/EU). Nearly half of the respondents said that the Anti-
trafficking Directive was coherent also with the Employer Sanctions Directive (2009/52/EC) (43%, 
n=53)  and  the  Child  Sexual  Abuse  Directive  (2011/93/EU)  (39%,  n=48).  Almost  half  of  the 
respondents (42%, n=52) were of the view that the Anti-trafficking Directive was not coherent with 
the Residence Permit Directive (2004/81/EC).  

Respondents  to  the  public  consultation  mostly  found  that  the  Anti-trafficking  Directive  was 
coherent  with  the  UNTOC  and  its  supplementing  Protocol  (69%,  n=85),  the  ILO  Forced  Labour 
Convention, 1930 (No.29) (58%, n=72), the CEDAW (51%, n=63) and the UNCRC (43%, n=53). 

181  Only  one  respondent  (1%),  who  was  from  an  NGO,  responded  to  a  ‘very  high  extent’.  Five  (n=6)  per  cent  of 
respondents said to a ‘high extent’, 15% (n=19) to a ‘moderate extent’ and 21% (n=26) to ‘a small extent’. Forty per 
cent of respondents (n= 49) reported that existing national laws criminalising the knowing use of exploited services of 
victims  did  “not  at  all”  contribute  to  reducing  the  demand  for  such  services.  Nineteen  per  cent  (n=23)  responded  ‘I 
don’t know’ 
182 One respondent (1%) answered to a ‘very high extent’, 4% (n=5) of respondents answered to a ‘high extent’, 15% 
(n=19) answered to a ‘moderate  extent’, 44% (n=54) answered to a ‘small extent’, 16% (n=20) answered ‘not at all’ 
and 20% (n=25) answered ‘I don’t know’.   
183 ‘High extent’: 10% (n=13), ‘Moderate extent’: 17% (n=21), ‘Small extent’: 54% (n=67), ‘Not at all’: 8% (n=10), ‘I 
do not know’: 10% (n=13). 
184 About 10% (n=12) states ‘I don’t know’.  
185 Six per cent (n=8) replied ‘I don’t know’.  

83 

 
                                                 
3.2.1.5. Added value 

The  vast  majority  of  the  replies  underlined  the  added  value  brought  by  the  Anti-trafficking 
Directive.  Ninety-eight  percent  (n=122)  considered  that  EU-wide  cooperation  was  necessary  to 
effectively  combat  trafficking  in  human  beings.  Eighty-two  percent  (n=102)  considered  that  the 
Anti-trafficking  Directive  continued  to  bring  an  added  value  in  the  Member  States  in  combatting 
THB. 85% (n=105) replied that, without the Anti-trafficking Directive, it would be more difficult 
for Member States to tackle trafficking in human beings individually. Finally, 95% (n=118) agreed 
that the aim of preventing and combatting THB continued to require action at the EU level. 

3.2.2. Online survey 

3.2.2.1. Effectiveness 

Respondents  to  the  online  survey  considered  that  prevention  measures  targeting  victims  were 
effective  either  to  a  ‘moderate’  extent  (30%,  n=27)  or  to  a  ‘large’  extent  (32%  of  respondents, 
n=29).  Prevention  measures  targeting  child  victims  were  also  considered  relatively  effective,  but 
less  so  than  for  adults.  Thirty  per  cent  (n=27)  of  respondents  claimed  they  were  effective  to  a 
‘moderate’ extent, 23% (n=21) stated they were to a ‘large’ extent, and 10% (n=9) to a ‘very large’ 
extent. However, 22% (n=20) of respondents said that preventive measures targeting child victims 
were effective to a small extent. 

Some  survey  respondents  considered  that  preventive  measures  targeting  potential  offenders  were 
relatively  less  effective  than  measures  targeting  victims.  24%  (n=22)  of  the  respondents  claimed 
that they were effective to a ‘small’ extent and 13% (n=12) claimed they were not effective at all. 

22% (n=20) of the respondents answered that measures targeted at marginalised Roma people and 
LGBTIQ people were effective to a ‘large extent’ and 28% (n=25) to a ‘moderate extent’.186  

Most  online  survey  respondents  reported  that  compensation  schemes  in  their  Member  State  had 
been effective to a ‘small’ or ‘moderate’ extent for victims of trafficking.187 

Stakeholders had different views when it comes the effectiveness of witness protection programmes 
in  supporting  victims  of  THB.188  34%  of  the  respondents  said  such  programmes  were  effective 
either  to  ‘very  large’  or  a  ‘large  extent’,  while  20%  said  to  a  ‘moderate  extent’  or  to  a  ‘small 
extent’.  

More  than  half  of  respondents  considered  that  the  Directive  contributed  towards  an  increased 
number  of  convictions  against  THB  for  labour  exploitation  to  a  ‘moderate’  (30%,  n=27)  or  to  a 

186 Six per cent of respondents (n=5) answered that measures to assist, support and protect vulnerable groups, such as 
marginalised Roma people and LGBTIQ people had been effective in their Member State to a ‘very large extent’. Nine-
teen per cent of respondents (n=17) answered to a ‘small extent’. Seven per cent of respondents (n=6) answered ‘not at 
all’.  
187 The  majority of respondents suggested compensation  schemes  had been effective, although the largest percentage 
(29%, n=26) of respondents answered that this was to a ‘small extent’. Ten per cent (n=9) of respondents answered, ‘to 
a very large extent’, the same percentage who answered, ‘not at all’ (n=9). 
188 Eighteen per cent (n=17) respondents said that witness protection programmes in their country had been effective in 
terms  of  protecting,  assisting  and  supporting  victims  of  THB  to  a  ‘very  large  extent’,  16%  (n=14)  said  to  a  ‘large 
extent’, 19% (n=17) said ‘to  a  moderate  extent’, 13% (n=12) said to a ‘small extent’,  8% (n=7) said ‘not at all’ and  
25% (n=23) of respondents answered ‘I don’t know’. 

84 

 
                                                 
‘small  extent’  (30%,  n=27).189  More  than  one  third  (37%,  n=33)  of  respondents  said  that  the 
Directive  contributed  towards  increased  numbers  of  convictions  against  THB  for  sexual 
exploitation to a ‘moderate extent’.190 19% (n=17) said the Directive contributed to a ‘large extent’ 
and 17% (n=15) said to a ‘small extent’.  

Nearly  a  quarter  of  respondents  (23%,  n=21)  said  that  the  Directive  contributed  towards  an 
increased number of confiscations of THB-related proceeds to a ‘moderate extent’.191  

3.2.2.2. Efficiency 

The  majority  of  survey  respondents  agreed  on  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  Anti-trafficking 
Directive.  27%  (n=24)  of  the  respondents  considered  that  the  costs  of  implementing  it  did  not 
outweigh its benefits at all, 17% (n=15) said that the costs outweigh benefits only from a ‘small’ to 
a ‘moderate’ extent and only 12% (n=11) replied that the costs outweigh benefits from a ‘large’ to a 
‘very  large’  extent.192  The  highest  increases  in  resources,  dedicated  to  the  prevention  and  fight 
against THB at the national level, are associated with training and awareness-raising campaigns. 

However,  the  survey  found  that  available  funding  remained  insufficient  in  relation  to  prevention 
measures,  the  fight  against  the  crime,  as  well  as  the  assistance  and  support  to  victims  of 
trafficking.193 The need to increase the allocation of national funding to externalised services was 
also highlighted. 

Although survey respondents considered that the implementation of the Anti-trafficking Directive 
did  not  entail  a  significant  burden,  some  of  them  suggested  some  ways  to  further  simplify  it, 
notably  by  increasing  asset  seizures  and  confiscation  of  assets  from  the  proceeds  of  trafficking 
offences, which could be used to feed compensation schemes; improving inter-agency cooperation 
as well as focusing resources on prevention in order to address the root causes of trafficking.  

3.2.2.3. Relevance 

Overall, survey respondents considered that the Directive was still fit for purpose and addressed the 
main  concerns  related  to  trafficking  in  human  beings,  notably  in  relation  to  the  prevention  and 

189 Four out of 90 respondents stated that the Directive contributed towards an increased number of convictions against 
THB for labour exploitation to a ‘very large extent’, 12 respondents stated to a ‘large extent’, seven respondents said 
the Directive ‘did not all’ contribute. Thirteen respondents said ‘I don’t know’.   
190 Five out of 90 respondents (6%) stated that the Directive  contributed towards an increased number of convictions 
against THB for labour exploitation to a ‘very large extent’, six (7%) respondents said the Directive did not contribute 
‘at all’. Fourteen (16%) said ‘I don’t know’.  
191  Only  two  respondents  though  the  Directive  contributed  towards  an  increased  number  of  confiscations  of  THB 
related  proceeds  to  a  ‘very  large  extent’.  Fourteen  per  cent  (n=13)  responded  to  a  ‘large  extent’.  Thirteen  per  cent 
(n=12) said the Directive did not contribute ‘at all’.  
192 Twenty-seven per cent of respondents (n=24) said ‘not at all’, 6% (n=5) said ‘to a small extent’, 11% (n=10) said ‘to 
a moderate extent’, 9% (n=8) said ‘to a large extent’, 3% (n=3) said ‘to a very large extent’, 44% (n=40) said ‘I don’t 
know’. 
193 Nine percent (n=8) of respondents said that funding was ‘not at all’ sufficient with respect to the criminalisation of 
the crime; 18% (n=16) said it was sufficient ‘to a small extent’, while 29% (n=26) replied ‘to a moderate extent’, 13% 
(n=12) ‘to a large extent’, 7% (n=6) ‘to a very large extent’, 24% (n=22) ‘I don’t know’. With respect to the assistance 
and  support  to  victims  of  trafficking,  the  replies  were:  ‘not  at  all’  3%  (n=3),  ‘to  a  small  extent’  14%  (n=13),  ‘to  a 
moderate  extent’  36%  (n=32),  ‘to  a  large  extent’  22%  (n=20),  ‘to  a  very  large  extent’  7%  (n=6),  ‘don’t  know’  18% 
(n=16). With respect to  prevention, 4% (n=4) of respondents said that funding  was  ‘not  at all’ sufficient,  while 22% 
(n=20) said it was ‘to a small extent’, 38% (n=34) ‘to a moderate extent’,10% (n=9) ‘to a large extent’, 4% (n=4) ‘to a 
very large extent’ and 21% (n=19) ‘I don’t know’.  

85 

 
                                                 
criminalisation  of  the  offence,  as  well  as  the  protection  of  victims.  in  the  EU.194  39%  of  the 
respondents stated that the Directive is fit for purpose to a ‘large extent’. 33% per cent stated that it 
is fit for purpose to a ‘moderate extent’.  

The  vast  majority  of  respondents  said  that  the  Directive  did  not  sufficiently  address  the  online 
dimension  of  trafficking.  The  digitalisation  of  the  crime  was  the  most  commonly  identified 
challenge for the next 5 to 10 years among respondents.195 

65% of the respondents said that EU intervention would be necessary ‘to a very large extent’ (38%, 
n=35)  or  to  a  ‘large  extent’  (27%,  n=25)  in  order  to  enhance  cooperation  with  online  private 
companies to fight against trafficking.196 No respondent said that the EU intervention would not be 
necessary for this purpose.   

Trafficking in human beings in high-risk sectors was perceived as a significant issue that needs to 
be  addressed.  Most  respondents  considered  that  trafficking  of  people  in  high-risk  sectors  is  a 
problem  in  the  EU  to  a  ‘large’  or  ‘very  large’  extent.  None  of  them  said  that  it  was  ‘not  at  all’ 
relevant. 

3.2.2.4. Coherence 

Respondents  had  diverging  views  regarding  the  coherence  of  the  Anti-trafficking  Directive  with 
Directive  2004/81/EC  (Residence  Permits  Directive).  While  37%  of  them  agreed  that  the  two 
instruments were coherent from a ‘large’ to a ‘very large’ extent, 38% said that the two directives 
were ‘not at all’ coherent or coherent to a ‘moderate extent’. 197  

49%e percent (n=44) of the survey respondents considered that the Anti-trafficking Directive and 
Directive 2011/93/EU (Child Sexual Abuse Directive) were coherent to a ‘large’ or a ‘very large’ 
extent.198 

The Anti-trafficking Directive and the EU Asylum acquis were deemed to be coherent to a limited 
extent.199 

3.2.2.5. Added value 

The  survey  underlined  the  added-value  of  the  Anti-trafficking  Directive,  mainly  in  creating  a 
common  intra-EU  playground,  which  encouraged  Member  States  to  take  action  against  THB; 
discouraged traffickers to choose some Member States to others as countries of destination for the 

194 Nineteen per cent of respondents said the Directive is fit for purpose to a ‘very large extent’, 39% said to a ‘large 
extent’, 35% said to a ‘moderate extent’ and 5% said to a ‘small extent’. No respondent answered that the Directive is 
‘not at all’ fit for purpose. Four per cent answered ‘I don’t know’.  
195  25  respondents  mentioned  this  as  one  of  the  main  challenges  in  relation  to  the  fight  against  HB  in  the  next  5-10 
years. 
196 Fifteen per cent (n=14) of respondents answered to a ‘moderate extent’, 7% (n=6) answered to a ‘small extent’, and 
9% (n=10) answered ‘I don’t know’.  
197 ‘Not at all’ 10% (n=9), ‘to a small extent’ 10% (n=9), ‘to a moderate extent’ 18% (n=16), ‘to a large extent’ 27% 
(n=24), ‘to a very large extent’ 10% (n=9), ‘I don’t know’ 26% (n=23). 
198  ‘Not  at  all’  1%  (n=1),  ‘to  a  small  extent’  4%  (n=4),  ‘to  a  moderate  extent’  19%  (n=17),  ‘to  a  large  extent’  36% 
(n=32), ‘to a very large extent’ 13% (n=12), ‘I don’t know’ 27% (n=24). 
199 ‘Not at all’ 7% (n=6), ‘to a small extent’ 17% (n=15), ‘to a moderate extent’ 18% (n=16), ‘to a large extent’ 14% 
(n=13), ‘to a very large extent’ 3% (n=3), ‘I don’t know’ 41% (n=37). 

86 

 
                                                 
victims;  and  enhanced  cross-border  cooperation  and  the  exchange  of  good  practices  between 
Member States. 

3.2.3. Stakeholders interviews 

3.2.3.1. Effectiveness 

One  interviewee  from  an  international  body200  and  one  academic/expert  were  in  favour  of 
criminalising the knowing use of services exacted from victims of trafficking.201 

Three interviewees stressed that the Directive had contributed towards enhancing victims’ access to 
support and protection, especially for female victims.202 Several interviewees underlined the need 
for increased attention and resources addressing the vulnerabilities of LGBIQ people, and that more 
could be done to ensure that victims whose experiences do not correspond to common perceptions 
of victims (e.g. female victims and victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation) receive adequate 
support.203   

Several  interviewees  considered  that,  although  victims  are  in  principle  not  obliged  to  cooperate 
with law enforcement authorities, cooperation is sometimes necessary in practice for victims to be 
recognised as victims and receive assistance, support and protection.204 

Interviewees highlighted that the risks of punishment of victims who are exploited for the purpose 
of  criminal  activities  is  an  issue  in  several  Member  States.205  Two  interviewees  mentioned  that 
irregular migrants or persons who are under asylum procedures often fear to be forcibly returned.206   

Some interviewees mentioned that the concept of “forced labour” could be further clarified207, as its 
interpretation  is  often  left  to  national  law  or  courts,  which  can  lead  to  different  interpretations 
across the Member States208. 

3.2.3.2. Efficiency 

Interviewees pointed to the fact that the lack of funding can be a constraint to the implementation of 
the Anti-trafficking Directive. They highlighted that limited funding – both at the EU and national 
levels  -  hinders  Member  States’  capacity  to  deliver  effective  prevention  measures,  including 
awareness raising initiatives and training targeted at professionals likely to come into contact with 
THB victims. 

3.2.3.3. Relevance 

According to one interviewee from an international body, the gender-specific approach to the fight 
against trafficking is not always put into practice. Moreover, it often only concerns the assistance, 

200 Interviewee #14. 
201 Interviewee #27. 
202 Interviewees#17, #18, and #24.  
203 Interviewees #3, #6, #8, #17, and #12. 
204 Interviewees #8, #20, #27; submission to the OPC by LEFÖ.  
205 Interviewees #8), #14, #21, #25, #28, #29. 
206 Interviewees #8 and #11. 
207 Interviewees #20 and #28.  
208 However, it should be noted that there is a vast, existing guidance provided by the ILO’s Committee of Experts on 
the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. 

87 

 
                                                 
support  and  protection  of  the  victims,  while  failing  to  be  taken  into  account  in  the  context  of 
prosecutions and investigations.209 

3.2.3.4. Coherence 

Some  interviewees  underlined  that  it  is  not  always  clear,  which  of  the  assistance  and  support 
measures included in the Anti-trafficking Directive and those provided for by EU Asylum  acquis 
should prevail when it comes to victims of trafficking who are international protection applicants or 
beneficiaries.  

3.2.3.5. Added value 

Interviewees highlighted the added value of the Anti-trafficking Directive in ensuring coordination 
at  the  EU  level,  as  well  as  regarding  its  contribution  to  the  creation  of  transnational  referral 
mechanisms. 

3. Consultation in the context of the impact assessment 

The external contractor carried out individual interviews and case study group interviews in order 
to  assess  the  potential  impacts  of  the  proposed  policy  options.  The  organisations  and  type  of 
stakeholders consulted as part of this process is included in Table 2.  

Table 2: Interviewees consulted on potential impacts of policy options 

Individuals/Organisations consulted 

Types of stakeholders 

Council of Europe (CoE) 

International body 

European Labour Authority (ELA) 

European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) 

European  Union  Agency  for  Law  Enforcement  Training 
(CEPOL) 

Frontex 

EU Agency 

EU Agency 

EU Agency 

EU Agency 

La Strada International 

EU civil society organisation 

Red Cross EU 

EU civil society organisation 

Swedish expert on criminalisation of use of exploited services 

Expert/academic 

Victims Support Europe 

EU civil society organisations 

In  addition  to  individual  interviews,  the  external  contractor  carried  out  group  interviews  with 
national stakeholders in five selected Member States – France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, and 
Romania. The criteria for selection were described in detail in the study’s inception report delivered 
to the European Commission and included:  

209 Interviewee #3. 

88 

 
 
                                                 
  Number of registered victims of THB in the Member State; 
  Geographical position (Central, Southern, Northern and Eastern Europe); 
  Common types of exploitation found in the Member State; 
  Whether  the  Member  State  is  a  typical  country  of  origin  or  destination  for  victims  of 

THB. 

National  stakeholders  invited  to  participate  in  the  case  study  group  interviews  included  national 
competent  authorities  working  on  THB,  national  law  enforcement  authorities,  national  judicial 
authorities and social services working with victims of THB.  

Prior to the interviews, stakeholders had been asked to fill in a written questionnaire, in which they 
were asked to provide: 

-  Quantitative scores on the social, security, economic and fundamental rights impacts of each 

policy measure; 

-  Quantitative scores  on the necessity, effectiveness,  coherence, subsidiarity, proportionality 

and EU added value of each policy measure; 

-  Quantitative estimation of the expected cost of implementing each measure. 

89 

 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

1.  PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE 

The practical implications of the initiative for the Member States and the European Commission are 
summarised below: 

National authorities: 

  Revise  their  legislation  in  order  to  refer  to  the  digital  dimension  of  trafficking  in  human 

beings in the definition of the offence; 

  Criminalise  forced  marriages  and  illegal  adoptions  as  exploitative  purposes  of  the 

trafficking offence; 

  Ensure  that  legal  persons  upon  conviction  will  be  subjected  under  national  law  to  the 
exclusion from entitlement to some or all public benefits, aid or subsidies and temporary or 
permanent  closure  of  the  establishments  that  have  been  used  to  commit  the  trafficking 
offence,  and  to  temporary  or  permanent  disqualification  from  the  practice  of  commercial 
activities, placing under judicial supervision; and judicial winding-up, when the offence has 
been committed with an aggravating circumstance.  

  Criminalise  the  use  of  services  which  are  the  objects  of  exploitation,  with  the  knowledge 

that the person is a victim of trafficking in human beings. 

  Establish  or  adjust  existing  formal  National  Referral  Mechanisms  and  create  National 

Contact Points, on the basis of relevant guidelines. 

  Formalise the data collection on trafficking in human beings at the national level to collect 

data every year on the indicators specified in the Directive, as a minimum.  

  Participate in the activities of the Knowledge and Expertise Hub on Combatting Trafficking 
in  Human  Beings  and  the  Focus  Group  of  specialised  prosecutors  against  trafficking  in 
human beings.  

Practical implications for the European Commission: 

-  Support Member States in, and monitor the transposition and implementation of the revised 
provisions of the Anti-trafficking Directive, in addition to continuing the monitoring of the 
implementation of the provisions, which remain unchanged.  

-  Establishing a Knowledge and Expertise Hub on Combatting Trafficking in Human Beings, 
which  will  be  managed  by  an  external  contractor  with  an  expertise  in  the  field  of  anti-
trafficking in human beings.  

-  Carrying  out  several  activities  as  part  of  the  Knowledge  Hub,  including  setting-up  a 
European Referral Mechanisms and developing guidelines on the establishment of National 
Referral Mechanisms; and organising workshops to improve the data collection on THB in 
the EU and developing guidelines. 

90 

 
 
-  Organise,  together  with  Eurojust,  the  meetings  of  the  Focus  Group  of  specialised 

prosecutors against trafficking in human beings.  

-  Organise meetings with the internet companies, in cooperation with the Member States and 

EU Agencies, within the EU Internet Forum.  

-  Organising  an  awareness-raising  campaign  targeting  the  demand  for  exploited  services  of 
victims,  in  particular  in  high-risk  sectors  and  high-risk  environments,  in  cooperation  with 
Member  States,  civil  society  organisations  and  the  private  sector  (e.g.  employers  and 
internet companies).  

2.  SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

Table 1: Overview of benefits for the preferred option 

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

Description 

Amount 

Direct benefits 

Comments 

Strengthened 
criminalisation 
of 
trafficking  in  human  beings 
and 
of 
harmonisation  of  EU  rules 
across Member States 

higher 

level 

No  data  available.  It  is  not  possible  to  provide 
quantified  estimates  for 
the  direct  benefits 
brought by criminalisation.  

The inclusion of the  use of the internet for 
the  commission  of  trafficking  offences   
and the addition of two additional forms of 
exploitation  within the Directive  will bring 
society  as  a  whole  by 
benefits 
to 
strengthening 
and 
identification 
protection of victims of trafficking, as well 
as the detection, prosecution and conviction 
of 
the 
traffickers  and  confiscation  of 
criminal instrumentalities and proceeds.  

the 

Reinforcing  the  sanctions  regime  on  legal 
persons  will  contribute  to  stepping  up  the 
criminal 
trafficking 
offences committed for the benefit of legal 
persons.  

justice  response 

to 

increasing 

Measures  aimed  at  strengthening 
the 
criminalisation  of  trafficking  in  human 
beings  and 
level  of 
harmonisation  of  EU  rules  across  Member 
States will provide a stronger legal basis of 
the  law  enforcement  and  judicial  response 
and as a result will reduce the incidence of 
the crime and number of victims. 

the 

N/A 

Improving  the  functioning 
and 
of 
coordination 
mechanisms  aimed  at  the 
and 
identification 
early 
referral  to  assistance  and 
of 
support 
victims 
of 
trafficking,  both  at 
the 
national and EU level 

91 

Requiring  Member  States 
to  establish 
formal  National  Referral  Mechanisms  and 
create  National  Contact  Points  will  have  a 
direct impact on the situation of victims. It 
will  ensure  better  coordination  among 
relevant  stakeholders  and  services,  which 
will  lead  to  a  more  efficient  and  cost-
and 
effective 
assistance services, as well as will facilitate 
the  setting-up  of  a  European  Referral 
Mechanism. It is not possible to estimate in 
concrete  terms  what  will  be  the  economic 
benefit of this measure. However, it can be 
the  harmonisation  of 
expected 

provision 

referral 

that 

of 

 
 
 
of 

Criminalisation 
the 
knowing  use  of  services 
exacted  from  victims  of 
trafficking in human beings 

N/A 

N/A 

Introducing an obligation in 
the  Directive  for  Member 
States  to  collect  and  report 
data on trafficking in human 
beings  to  the  Commission 
every year 

Indirect benefits 

Strengthen  the  fight  against 
trafficking  in  human  beings 
in the EU and improving the 
protection of its victims 

Total  costs  of  THB  for  one  year  in  the  EU 
amount  to  over  EUR  2.7  billion  for  the 
activities, 
coordination 
prevention,  specialised  services,  as  well  as  law 
enforcement,  health 
social 
protection and over EUR 300 000 per victim210. 

anti-trafficking 

services 

and 

of 

Overall,  by  reducing  the  number  of  victims  of 
trafficking and increasing the number of persons 
who  can  participate  in  the  legal  economy,  as 
well  as  by  improving  the  quality  of  life  of  the 
victims,  the  benefits  brought  by  this  initiative 
would amount to an estimate of EUR 1 122 643 
213. 

The cost of the lost economic output is estimated 
at  EUR  59  537  per  victim  and  EUR  479  973 
675 in total in the EU per year211.   

The cost of the loss of quality of life is estimated 
at  EUR  80  063  per  victim  and  EUR  642  669 
538 in total per year in the EU. 

procedures at the national and cross-border 
level  will  reduce 
to 
assistance and support of victims.  

the  costs  related 

that 

services  will  contribute 

The  criminalisation  of  the  knowing  use  of 
exploited 
to 
fosters 
the  demand 
discouraging 
trafficking  by  holding  buyers  and  users 
equally  accountable  all  over  the  EU  for 
their  role  in  the  trafficking  chain.  The 
effective implementation of this measure is 
expected 
the  number  of 
trafficking  offences  and  consequently  the 
costs related to investigations, prosecutions 
demand 
and 
reduction  would  also  cause  a  decrease  in 
the  number  of  victims  and  hence  of  the 
costs related to support and assistance.  

convictions. 

Effective 

reduce 

to 

increasing 

knowledge 

This  measure  is  aimed  at  improving  the 
monitoring of THB-related trends and, as a 
result, 
about 
trafficking  in  human  beings  in  order  to 
make  better  informed  policies.  The  yearly-
data  collection  will  contribute  to  more 
accurate  and  up-to-date  reporting,  as  the 
reporting period will be closer to the date of 
the publication of the data.  

The benefits of this initiative would mainly 
consist  in  reducing  the  societal  cost  by 
ensuring  that  victims  of  new  forms  of 
exploitation  are  identified,  assistance  and 
supported;  enhancing  demand  reduction; 
and  ensuring  more  focus  on  the  online 
dimension  and  improving  the  referral  of 
victims  to  appropriate  services.  Moreover, 
the  initiative  will  contribute  to  ensuring  a 
fairer  economy  where 
legal  persons 
convicted 
trafficking  offences  are 
for 
deprived  from  the  proceeds  of  their  illegal 
activities  and  cannot  participate  in  the  EU 
market,  for  instance  by  being  prevented 
from receiving public benefits. 

These  costs  of  the  lost  economic  input  are 
linked to the fact that 100% of the potential 
economic output is lost to the victim and to 
economy and society when an adult person 
is  in  trafficking  or  when  the  victim  is  in 
specialised 
law 
economic  output 
enforcement.  Some 

services  or  helping 

210 European Commission, Study on the economic, social and human costs of trafficking in human beings within the EU 
(2020). Available at: link. 

211 Ibid n°204, p.84.  

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
potential  is  also  lost  for  several  years  after 
trafficking,  as  the  prevalence  of  being 
unemployed  or  unable  to  work  due  to 
sickness  by  the  physical  violence,  sexual 
violence  and  threats  suffered  during  the 
trafficking.  Therefore,  measures  aimed  at 
reducing  the  scale  of  trafficking  would 
result  in  a  higher  amount  of  people  being 
able  to  participate  in  the  economy  as  a 
result  of  not  becoming  victims  of 
trafficking. In addition, improving the early 
identification  of,  and 
the  quality  of 
assistance and support services provided to 
victims  would  probably 
the 
possibility  of  victims  to  access  the  labour 
market  and  stay  in  employment,  thus  also 
facilitating their re-integration into society. 

increase 

Moreover, victims of trafficking are subject 
to  physical  violence,  sexual  violence  and 
threats that reduce the length and quality of 
life.    The  cost  of  the  loss  of  quality  of  life 
include  physical  injuries  sustained  by  the 
victims  and  homicides  committed  during 
trafficking,  fear,  depression  and  anxiety 
during  trafficking  and  mental  health  harms 
post-trafficking.  

Reinforcing  the  sanctions  against  legal 
persons  will  contribute  to  improving  the 
capacity  of  law  enforcement  and  judicial 
authorities  to  deprive  traffickers  from  the 
proceeds  of  their  illegal  activities.  It  will 
reduce  the  possibilities  for  traffickers  to 
legal  economy,  and  of 
infiltrate 
ensuring 
economy  where 
fairer 
companies acting by the rules benefit  from 
the 
from 
businesses  which  take  advantage  of  forced 
labour, thus benefiting the EU economy. 

competition 

reduction 

the 
a 

of 

Generally  speaking,  traffickers  will  make 
less profits from the exploitation of people, 
if the number of victims is reduced.    

The  criminalisation  of  the  knowing  use  of 
services,  combined  with  other  measures 
aimed at reducing the demand, in particular 
awareness-raising 
in 
cooperation  with  the  Member  States,  the 
private 
society 
and 
organisations,  will  benefit  both  the  society 

campaigns, 

sector 

civil 

Reinforce 
response 
persons  

the 
against 

criminal 
legal 

Traffickers’  revenues  for  trafficking  in  human 
beings  for  the  purpose  of  sexual  exploitation  in 
the EU are estimated at about EUR 14 billion in 
one year212. While there is no available estimate 
including 
for  other  forms  of  exploitation, 
labour, 
the  crime  are 
estimated to be high.  

the  proceeds  from 

Reducing  the  demand  for 
the  exploited  services  of 
victims of trafficking 

N/A 

212  This  is  a  high  estimate,  taking  into  account  the  estimated  number  of  hidden  victims.  European  Commission, 
Directorate-General  for  Migration  and  Home  Affairs,  Mapping  the  risk  of  serious  and  organised  crime  infiltrating 
legitimate businesses: final report, Disley, E.(editor), Blondes, E.(editor), Hulme, S.(editor), Publications Office, 2021, 
p. 10.  

93 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
 
and  the  economy,  as  it  will  likely  reduce 
the  demand  for  cheap  labour  and  goods 
the 
resulting  from 
victims,  as  well  as  for  sexual  services, 
among others.  

the  exploitation  of 

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

N/A 

N/A 

contribute 
the 

The  preferred  option  would 
generally 
to 
strengthening 
fight 
against trafficking in human 
beings and, in return, reduce 
the  costs  incurred  by  the 
crime for the society and the 
chances  for  traffickers  to 
profit  from  the  proceeds  of 
the  crime,  which  are  also 
lost  costs 
legal 
the 
for 
economy in the EU.  

The costs associated with the preferred option are presented in Table 2.  

No  costs  are  identified  for  citizens/consumers  and  businesses  since  the  costs  associated  with  the 
policy measures are directly impacting administrations at national level. It should be noted that the 
initial  proposal  for  the  Anti-trafficking  Directive  did  not  contain  a  financial  statement,  as  the 
Directive  was  not  deemed  to  have  an  impact  on  EU  budget.  The  evaluation  showed  the  cost-
effectiveness  of  the  Anti-trafficking  Directive,  which  did  not  entail  substantial  costs  on  Member 
States.  

3.  Table 2: Costs for the preferred option 

II. Overview of costs – Preferred option 

Citizens/Co
nsumers 

One-
off 

Recu
rrent 

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off 

Recu
rrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

Explicit  introduction 
online 
of 
the 
dimension 
of 
trafficking  in  human 
the 
beings 
definition 
the 
offence 

of 

in 

The use of technology to 
trafficking 
commit 
offences  already 
falls 
within  the  scope  of  the 
Directive. 
Member 
States  would  have  an 
obligation  to  explicitly 
address 
their 
it 
legislation,  which  will 
require 
limited 
some 
adjustments  in  national 
law.  

in 

 Member  States  already 
prosecute 
investigate, 
and  punish  the  offence 
when  it  is  committed 
online  and  a  number  of 
them  have  put  in  place 
cyber-units 
specialised 
and/or 
experts. 
However,  the  enhanced 
focus  on 
the  online 
dimension  may  lead  to 
increase  the  number  of 
and 
investigations 
prosecutions 
on 
offences 
trafficking 
committed  through,  or 
facilitated  by,  the  use  of 
internet.  It  is  difficult  to 
concrete 
in 
estimate 
terms  the  extent  of  such 

Direct 
costs 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A 

94 

 
 
Indirect 
costs 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A  N/A 

It 

increase,  if  any,  as  the 
number  of  cases  does 
just  depend  on 
not 
criminalisation 
measures,  but  also  on 
level  of  criminal 
the 
the 
and 
activities 
effectiveness  of  the  law 
enforcement  response  in 
Member  States. 
is 
however  estimated  that 
every 
additional 
investigation  on  top  of 
the 
average 
would cost EUR 77 711, 
additional 
each 
prosecution  would  cost 
EUR  56  379  and  each 
additional 
conviction 
would  cost  EUR  52 
838213. 
overall 
The 
estimated  cost  of  this 
measure  would  be  EUR 
186 928. 

current 

tools 

efforts 

measure 
to 

is 
This 
further 
expected 
national 
encourage 
to  step  up 
authorities 
in 
their 
the 
developing 
technological 
to 
fight  this  growing  trend. 
As a result, there may be 
indirect  costs  linked  to 
the  need  for  possible 
additional  resources  to 
fight  the  crime  online 
of 
(e.g. 
creation 
specialised 
units, 
developing  of  tools  and 
new technology, training 
of  law  enforcement  and 
other stakeholders, etc.). 

Criminalisation 
of 
forced  marriages  and 
illegal  adoptions  as 
exploitative  purposes 
of 
trafficking 
offence    

the 

Direct 
adjustment 
costs 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A 

adoptions 

Forced  marriages  and 
are 
illegal 
already 
implicitly 
covered in the definition 
of THB in the Directive, 
the 
far 
in 
constitutive  elements  of 

so 

as 

of 

for 

The  enhanced  focus  on 
the 
trafficking 
forced 
purposes 
marriages  and 
illegal 
adoption  may  lead  to  an 
increase  in  the  number 
investigations  and 
of 

213 The estimated cost of police amounts to a total of EUR 623 789 396 or EUR 77 711 per victim in the EU in one 
year. Prosecution costs for trafficking offences are estimated at EUR 154 196 901 in total, EUR 19 210 per victim and 
EUR  56  379 per prosecution.  Costs  of  conviction  (i.e.  the  average  cost  per  day  and  average  number  of  days  a  court 
would spend on a trafficking case) are estimated at EUR 71 490 256 in total, EUR 8 906 per victim and EUR 52 838 
per conviction. European Commission, Study on the economic, social and human costs of trafficking in human beings 
within the EU (2020). Available at: link. 

95 

 
                                                 
the  offence  are  fulfilled. 
Moreover, 
some 
Member  States  have 
already 
these 
included 
forms  of  exploitation 
within 
legal 
their 
systems,  either  as  a 
purpose 
the 
trafficking  offence  or  as 
stand-alone  offences,  or 
it  under 
they  address 
offences214. 
other 
Therefore, the regulatory 
and  administrative  costs 
of this measure would be 
limited. 

of 

to 

prosecution. 
As 
explained 
above 
in 
the  online 
relation 
dimension,  it  is  difficult 
to  estimate  in  concrete 
terms  the  extent  of  such 
increase,  if  any,  as  the 
number  of  cases  does 
not 
just  depend  on 
criminalisation 
measures,  but  also  on 
level  of  criminal 
the 
activities 
the 
and 
effectiveness  of  the  law 
enforcement  response  in 
is 
Member  States. 
however  estimated  that 
every 
additional 
investigation  on  top  of 
average 
the 
would cost EUR 77 711, 
each 
additional 
prosecution  would  cost 
EUR  56  379  and  each 
additional 
conviction 
would  cost  EUR  52 
838215.  

current 

It 

Statistics from the 2015-
2020 
reporting  period 
indicate  that  the  average 
number  of  victims  of 
for  “other 
trafficking 
forms”  of  exploitation, 
forced 
including 
marriage 
illegal 
adoption,  per  year  was 
626. 
by 
Therefore, 
multiplying  the  number 
of  average  cases  of 
“other 
of 
forms” 
the 
exploitation  with 
of 
costs 
estimated 

and 

214 For instance, five EU Member States (EE, EL, NL, SK, as well as DK) address forced marriages as an aggravating 
circumstance or as one of the purposes of trafficking in human beings. Fifteen Member States (AT, BE, BG, CY, DE, 
ES,  FR,  HR, IE,  IT, LU, MT, PT, SI, SE) have  specific provisions on forced  marriages  as a specific offence. Seven 
Member  States  only  rely  on  civil  law  or  on  general  provisions  of  criminal  law  without  any  reference  to  forced 
marriages, e.g. coercion and trafficking in human beings (CZ, FI, HU, LV, LT, PL and RO). SE specifically included 
“child  marriages” as a separate crime. See  Sara  De  Vido and Lorena Sosa,  Criminalisation of gender-based violence 
against  women  in  European  States,  including  ICT-facilitated  violence  (2021),  Directorate-General  for  Justice  and 
Consumers, European Commission. Available at: link.   
215 The estimated cost of police amounts to a total of EUR 623 789 396 or EUR 77 711 per victim in the EU in one 
year. Prosecution costs for trafficking offences are estimated at EUR 154 196 901 in total, EUR 19 210 per victim and 
EUR  56  379 per prosecution.  Costs  of  conviction  (i.e.  the  average  cost  per  day  and  average  number  of  days  a  court 
would spend on a trafficking case) are estimated at EUR 71 490 256 in total, EUR 8 906 per victim and EUR 52 838 
per conviction. European Commission, Study on the economic, social and human costs of trafficking in human beings 
within the EU (2020). Available at: link. 

96 

 
 
                                                 
that 
of 

estimated 

individual 

additional 
investigations, 
and 
prosecutions 
the 
convictions 
introduction 
new 
forms  of  exploitation 
would bring, the costs of 
legislative  measure  3, 
sub-option  (i)  can  be 
roughly 
at 
EUR  117  048  083  per 
year 
national 
authorities.  It  should  be 
this 
underlined 
figure 
the 
maximum  amount  that 
this  measure  could  cost, 
as  disaggregation  of  the 
specific 
of 
exploitation  covered  by 
the 
forms” 
category is not available.  

that 
represents 

“other 

forms 

for 

Indirect 
costs 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A  N/A 

them 

Member States will have 
to  transpose  into  their 
law  sanctions 
national 
against 
legal  persons, 
which  were  currently 
optional 
to 
for 
transpose.  All  Member 
States 
already 
have 
made  available  at  least 
one of these sanctions in 
their 
legislation. 
Moreover,  two  of  these 
sanctions  are  provided 
the  Employers 
for 
in 
Sanctions 
Directive. 
This means that Member 
States 
should  already 
have  at  least  these  two 
sanctions  available 
in 
their national law for the 
employment  of  illegally 
third-country 
staying 
nationals. 
Therefore, 
adjustment  costs  would 
be limited.  

Sanctions  on 
persons 

legal 

Direct 
costs 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A 

97 

and 

entitlement 

 This  measure  will 
generate 
procedural 
steps to put in place such 
their 
sanctions 
enforcement.  Three  of 
the  optional  measures 
become 
that  would 
(exclusion 
mandatory 
from 
to 
public  benefits  or  aid; 
temporary  or  permanent 
disqualification from the 
practice  of  commercial 
activities; and temporary 
or  permanent  closure  of 
establishments 
which 
for 
have  been  used 
committing  the  offence) 
would  have  negligible 
costs.  The  other 
two 
sanctions  (placing  under 
judicial  supervision  and 
judicial  winding  up) 
would 
imply  more 
resources  for  procedures 
and  enforcement  at  the 
judicial level.  

The  lack  of  data  on  the 
number  of  convictions 
of  legal  persons  and  the 
lack 
consequent 
of 
the  costs 
figures  on 
the 
for 
incurred 
the 
enforcement 

of 

 
 
 
 
the 

it  difficult 

corresponding  sanctions, 
together  with  the  fact 
issuance  of 
that 
sanctions depends on the 
judges, 
discretion  of 
make 
to 
realistic 
a 
provide 
estimation  of  how  many 
be 
sanctions  would 
issued 
the 
mandatory  regime  and, 
consequently,  of 
the 
overall  costs  related  to 
the legislative measure. 

under 

N/A  N/A 

N/A 

Indirect 
costs 

N/A  N/A  Legal  persons 
be 
would 
subject 
to 
penalties  with 
economic 
an 
only 
impact 
after 
a 
conviction for a 
trafficking 
offence 
committed 
their benefit. 

for 

Criminalise  the  use 
of services which are 
the 
of 
objects 
exploitation, with the 
knowledge  that  the 
person  is  a  victim  of 
trafficking  in  human 
beings 

Direct 
costs 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A 

this 
Direct  costs  of 
the 
to 
measure  relate 
obligation  for  Member 
States  to  criminalise  the 
knowing  use  of  services 
exacted  from  victims  of 
trafficking. 
Eight 
Member  States  would 
already  be  compliant 
with 
therefore 
it  and 
to 
would  not  have 
undergo  any  change  in 
their  legislation.  Eleven 
Member  States  would 
their 
to  expand 
have 
rules  to  all  forms  of 
exploitation  and  seven 
Member  States  would 
the 
to 
have 
new provision.   

transpose 

 This  measure  would 
have  an  impact  on  law 
enforcement and judicial 
authorities  only  in  the 
Member  States  that  do 
a 
already  have 
not 
provision  on  this  matter 
or  have  one  that  covers 
only  some 
forms  of 
exploitation.  Based  on 
the data collected by five 
Member  States  which 
already have a provision 
criminalising 
the 
of 
knowing 
exploited  services,  it  is 
estimated 
there 
would  be  about  200 
convictions 
additional 
per  year  and  that  the 
incurred  cost  of 
this 
measure  would  be  about 
EUR  10.6  million  per 
year 
the 
seven  Member  States 
that  currently  do  not 
have  any  provision  on 
the  use  of  services216. 

total  for 

that 

use 

in 

216  The  estimation  is  calculated  on  the  data  provided  by  BG,  HU,  LT,  MT  and  RO,  which  reported  a  total  of  171 
convictions  in  four  years  (2017-2020).  This  amounts  to  just  under  43  convictions  every  year  in  total  for  these  five 

98 

 
                                                 
 
These  figures  would  be 
lower  for  countries  that 
already  criminalise  the 
use of services limited to 
some 
of 
exploitation. 

forms 

N/A 

Indirect 
costs 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A  N/A 

Establish  or  adjust 
formal 
existing 
Referral 
National 
and 
Mechanisms 
create 
National 
Contact  Points,  on 
the  basis  of  relevant 
guidelines 

Direct 
costs 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A 

a 

All  Member  States  but 
one  have  a  formal  or 
informal 
mechanism 
currently  in  place.  The 
Member  State  that  does 
not  have 
referral 
mechanism  would  incur 
the  costs  of  establishing 
one.  There  is  no  data  to 
the  cost  of 
estimate 
a 
establishing 
mechanism. However, as 
the  concerned  Member 
State  already  carries  out 
referral 
decentralised 
and  assistance  services, 
the costs incurred would 
be 
limited.  Moreover, 
the  Member  States  that 
have an informal referral 
mechanisms  would  have 
to formalise it and those 
which  have  a  formal 
in 
mechanism  already 
place  would  need 
to 
make  some  adjustments. 
Three  Member  States 
recently 
have 
established  (Portugal)  or 
are  currently 
the 
process of establishing a 
formal  national  referral 
mechanism  (France  and 
respectively). 
Ireland, 
This 
formalisation 
consists  the  elaboration 
and  implementation  of 
the 
protocols  defining 
the 
procedures 

either 

for 

in 

Member  States.  When  put  in  relation  to  the  overall  population  of  the  five  Member  States  (roughly  39  million),  this 
amounts to almost one conviction for every 907 000 people each  year. When put in relation to the population of the 
seven Member States that would have to introduce new legislation (180 700 000 in total for AT, BE, CZ, IT, ES, PL, 
SK),  this  amounts  to  a  total  of  roughly  200  new  convictions  every  year  in  such  Member  States.  Multiplying  the 
estimated  cost  of  each  conviction  (EUR  52  838,  see  footnote  45)  for  the  200  new  convictions,  the  total  yearly  cost 
would  be just  under  EUR  10.6  million.The  estimation  of  costs  for  this  measure  is  based  on  the  data  collected  in  the 
context of the evaluation and adapted in proportion to the population of the Member States that currently do not have 
legislation on the use of services in place. It was made solely for the purpose of this Impact Assessment and should not 
be considered as official data. 

99 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                  
by 
of 

and 
identification 
referral 
child 
of 
victims217,  an  official 
including 
document 
indicators 
the 
for 
identification  of  victims 
and defining the roles of 
relevant 
all 
stakeholders218, 
or 
expanding 
list  of 
the 
organisations  competent 
for the identification and 
referral  of  victims  and 
formally 
involving 
designated  civil  society 
organisations219.  These 
measures  are  generally 
a 
accompanied 
modification 
the 
existing  legislation  (e.g. 
criminal  code).  While 
this does not indicate the 
cost  of  the  formalisation 
of  the  national  referral 
mechanism, 
Portugal 
allocates EUR 1 600 000 
every  year  for  victim 
support  services,  which 
the 
contributes 
the 
functioning 
national 
referral 
mechanism.  In  France, 
the  National  Referral 
Mechanism  is  based  on 
based 
and 
practices 
consists  in  formalising 
cooperation 
existing 
stakeholders 
among 
the 
involved 
identification 
and 
referral of victims. 

to 
of 

in 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A  N/A 

N/A 

formalise 

Member States will have 
their 
to 
processes  to  collect  data 
on  THB,  which  may 
require  some  level  of 
some 
adjustment 
Member  States.  They 
will  have 
transmit 
to 
data  on  a  minimum  set 
the 
of 

indicators 

to 

in 

N/A 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A 

100 

Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
adjustment 
costs 

in 

an 
Introducing 
the 
obligation 
for 
Directive 
to 
Member  States 
collect  and 
report 
data on trafficking in 
human  beings  to  the 
Commission 
every 
year 

217 Portugal. 
218 France. 
219 Ireland.  

 
                                                 
to 

via 

Commission  every  year. 
However, 
Member 
States  already  gather 
statistics  on  THB  and 
transmit 
the 
them 
Commission  every  two 
years  and,  since  2021, 
through 
every 
year 
their 
Eurostat 
Statistical 
National 
This 
Authorities. 
measure  will  not  change 
Member  States’  existing 
practices  to  a  significant 
extent.  The  cost  will 
the 
probably 
same than the one that is 
already  planned  through 
national  budget  for  such 
a task.  

remain 

Indirect 
costs 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A  N/A 

N/A 

Direct 
adjustment 
costs 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A  N/A  

in 

States’ 
Member 
the 
participation 
Knowledge 
and 
Expertise  Hub  will  be 
non-constraining. 
It 
involve 
would  mainly 
the National Rapporteurs 
and 
Equivalent 
Mechanisms  and  relate 
to  their  tasks  within  the 
Directive,  notably 
the 
measuring  of  results  of 
anti-trafficking  actions, 
including  the  gathering 
in  close 
of  statistics 
with 
cooperation 
relevant  civil 
society 
organisations  active  in 
this field. Therefore, this 
measure  will  not  incur 
any  costs,  which  would 
not be covered under the 
dedicated EU budget. 

Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
adjustment 
costs 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A  N/A 

N/A 

to 

The level of engagement 
judicial  authorities 
of 
to  each 
will  depend 
States’ 
Member 
willingness 
get 
involved.  Costs  related 
to  the  organisation  of 
meetings 
other 
activities will be covered 
the  Commission 
by 
(and/or  Eurojust  for  the 

and 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A  N/A 

101 

in 

of 

the 
Engagement 
the 
activities 
Knowledge 
and 
Expertise  Hub  on 
Combatting THB  

the 
the 
of 

in 

Engagement 
activities 
of 
Focus  Group 
specialised 
prosecutors 
THB 

against 

 
group 

focus 
of 
prosecutors).  There  will 
be  one  or  two  meetings 
of  the  Focus  Group  of 
prosecutors  per  year  of 
one  or  two  days  each, 
which  limits  the  amount 
of  resources  needed  to 
participate. 

Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
adjustment 
costs  

Indirect 
adjustment 
costs 

Administr
ative costs 
(for 
offsetting) 

Total   

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A  N/A 

N/A 

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

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A 

N/A  N/A  N/A 

N/A 

4.  RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 

III. Overview of relevant Sustainable Development Goals – Preferred Option(s) 
Relevant SDG 

Expected progress towards the Goal 

Comments 

N/A 

N/A 

SDG  5.2  –  Eliminating  all 
forms of violence against all 
women  and  girls 
the 
public  and  private  spheres, 
trafficking  and 
including 
sexual  and  other  types  of 
exploitation 

in 

Strengthened  fight  against  trafficking  in  human 
beings  within  the  EU,  in  particular  when  it  is 
facilitated by the use of technology, including for 
the  recruitment,  advertising  and  exploitation  of 
the  victims  online,  as  well  as  to  criminalise 
additional 
exploitation,  which 
particularly  affect  women  and  girls  (forced 
marriages). 
the 
Strengthened  criminal 
knowing  use  of  services  exploited  from  victims 
of  trafficking  for  all  forms  of  exploitation, 
including sexual exploitation.  

law  response 

forms 

of 

to 

8.7 

Taking 
– 
SDG 
immediate 
effective 
and 
measures to eradicate forced 
labour,  end  modern  slavery 
and  human  trafficking  and 
secure  the  prohibition  and 
the  worst 
elimination  of 
labour, 
forms  of 

child 

Reduced  demand  for  exploited  services  of 
victims,  including  sexual  services,  through  an 
EU-wide  awareness 
raising  campaign  and 
enhanced  cooperation  with  online  platforms  and 
services.  

justice 

response 

Strengthened  criminal 
to 
trafficking  in  human  beings  for  all  forms  of 
exploitation, including for forced labour, through 
enhanced 
among 
Member  States  and  further  harmonisation  of  EU 
rules,  notably  in  terms  of  available  sanctions 
against legal persons.  

cross-border 

cooperation 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
including 
recruitment  and 
use of child soldiers, and by 
2025  end  child  labour  in  all 
its forms.  

SDG  16.2  –  Ending  abuse, 
exploitation,  trafficking  and 
all forms of violence against 
and torture of children 

Strengthened  criminal 
the 
knowing  use  of  services  exploited  from  victims 
of  trafficking  for  all  forms  of  exploitation, 
including labour exploitation.  

law  response 

to 

Reduced  demand  for  exploited  services  of 
victims,  including  cheap  labour,  through  an  EU-
wide  awareness  raising  campaign  and  enhanced 
cooperation with online platforms and services.  

Increased awareness of, and action by companies 
and businesses to discourage the demand for, and 
detect trafficking in their  value chains.  

 N/A 

Strengthened  fight  against  trafficking  in  human 
beings  within  the  EU,  in  particular  when  it  is 
facilitated by the use of technology, including for 
the  recruitment,  advertising  and  exploitation  of 
the  victims  online,  as  well  as  to  criminalise 
additional  forms  of  exploitation,  which  may 
particularly affect children (forced marriages and 
illegal adoption). 

Increased  awareness  of,  and  action  by  internet 
companies  to  monitor,  detect  and  remove  THB-
related  content,  and  awareness-raising  activities 
on  the  safe  use  of  the  internet  by  children  to 
avoid  the  risks  of  them  falling  victims  of 
trafficking online.  

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS 

1. EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

1.1. Evaluation questions 

In accordance with the Terms of Reference drawn up by the European Commission, RAND Europe 
in  collaboration  with  Ernst  &  Young  (EY)  conducted  a  study  to  support  the  evaluation  of  the 
Directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims and 
an  impact  assessment  for  a  legislative  proposal  on  the  topic  (request  for  service  No  29  - 
HOME/2020/ISFP/FW/EVA2/0074). 

The  methodological  approach  derived  from  a  careful  analysis  of  the  37  evaluation  questions 
presented in Table 1 and the production of evaluation grids separated by each of the five evaluation 
criteria  as  they  are  stipulated  by  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  (effectiveness,  efficiency, 
relevance, coherence  and EU Added Value).  Building on the evaluation questions, the evaluation 
grids included: 

a.  Judgment criteria: statements that need to be confirmed or disconfirmed by the analysis. 
b.  Analytical  approach:  the  type  of  analysis  used  to  answer  the  evaluation  question.  The 

proposed analysis informed the type of information collected. 

c.  Indicators: quantitative and qualitative measures supporting the analysis and informing the 

judgement criteria. 

d.  Data  sources:  quantitative  and  qualitative  sources  of  indicator  variables  used  in  the 

analysis. 

The evaluation grids have been treated as a ‘live’ document throughout the research process. This 
means  they  have  undergone  revisions  throughout  the  early  research  process  to  ensure  that  the 
questions were phrased in a manner that supports the aims of the evaluation in best way possible.  

In this report, the evaluation criteria are addressed according to the order of the Better Regulation 
Guidelines.  The  evaluation  questions  are  arranged  by  criterion  in  Table  ,  along  with  cross-
references to the section of this report where each is addressed.  

Table 1: Evaluation questions (EQ) 

Number 
Effectiveness 

EQ 

4 
7 

5 

Prevention and reducing risk of victimisation 
What is the contribution of the Directive to preventing THB? 
To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  contributed  to  ensuring  adequate 
training  of  law  enforcement  officials,  judges  and  prosecutors,  legal 
councillors  and  officials  likely  to  come  into  contact  with  victims  or 
potential victims of THB, including child victims of trafficking? 
Demand reduction and criminalising knowing use 
To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  contributed  to  discouraging  and 
reducing  the  demand  that  fosters  all  forms  of  exploitation?  To  what 
extent the concrete measures taken to reduce the risk of people becoming 

104 

 
 
 
 
Number 

6 

9 

10 

11 

12 

15 

8 

17 

18 

13 

14 

EQ 
victims of THB, including research, information, awareness-raising, and 
education have been effective?    
What measures have been put in place in national laws to establish as a 
criminal offence the use of services of victims, with the knowledge that 
the  person  is  a  victim  of  trafficking  in  human  beings?  To  what  extent 
such  measures  have  been  effective  to  reduce  demand  for  exploited 
services of victims? 
Protection, assistance and support to address needs 
To  what  extent  the  mechanism  established  under  the  Directive  have 
contributed  to  ensuring  access  to  assistance,  support,  and  protection 
measures,  in  particular  women  and  girls  trafficked  for  the  purpose  of 
sexual  exploitation?  To  what  extent  have  mechanisms  for  referral  of 
trafficked victims worked efficiently in cross-border cases? 
To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  contributed  to  the  assistance,  support 
and  protection  of  child  victims  of  trafficking?  To  what  extent  have 
mechanisms  and  child-sensitive  assistance  and  support  measures  been 
effective?  Have  they  contributed  to  integrated  services  having  been 
made available to child victims? 
To  what  extent  has  the Directive  contributed  to  attending  to  victims  of 
trafficking  with  special  needs,  including  related  to  disability  and/or 
psychological, physical or sexual violence? 
To what  extent has  the Directive contributed to  the assistance, support, 
and  protection  of  other  relevant  groups  of  victims  of  trafficking  in 
human  beings,  including  people  with  disabilities,  marginalised  Roma 
people and  lesbian,  gay, bisexual,  trans,  non-binary, intersex and queer 
(LGBTIQ) people?       
To what extent do victims need to cooperate in the criminal proceedings 
to access assistance and support?   
To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  contributed  to  the  protection  of 
trafficked victims in cross-border cases and within Member States?   
Protection,  assistance  and  support  to  victims  involved  in  the 
criminal justice system 
To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  contributed  to  access  of  victims  to 
witness protection programmes or other similar measures?   
To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  contributed  to  preventing  secondary 
victimisation of victims of trafficking during criminal investigation and 
proceedings?   
Victim compensation and non-prosecution 
To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  contributed  to  allowing  a  victim  of 
trafficking to access and claim adequate compensation?     
To what extent has the Directive contributed to ensuring that victims of 
trafficking  are  not  prosecuted  or  penalised  for  their  involvement  in 
criminal  activities  that  they  have  been  compelled  to  commit  as  a 
consequence of being trafficked? 
Investigations, prosecutions, penalties and confiscation of assets 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
Number 
16 

22 

19 

21 

20 

23 

2 

24 

to  ensuring 

EQ 
that 
To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  contributed 
investigation into or prosecution of trafficking offences is not dependent 
on reporting or accusation by a victim and that criminal proceedings may 
continue even if the victim has withdrawn his or her statement? 
To  what  extent  has  the  Directives  contributed  to  allowing  a  victim  of 
trafficking  to  effectively  report  a  case  and  bring  a  case  to  court? What 
have the obstacles been for victims to seek redress?   
To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  contributed  to  efficient  penalties  on 
trafficking inhuman beings in the Member States? To what extent do the 
penalties  in  place  have  an  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive 
character? 
To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  contributed  to  the  seizure  and 
confiscation  of  instrumentalities  and  proceeds  from  offences  of  THB? 
Has  the  Directive  contributed  to  the  use  of  seized  and  confiscated 
instrumentalities  and  criminal  proceeds  to  support  victims’  assistance 
and protection, including compensation of victims?   
The liability of legal persons 
To  what  extent  has  the  Directive  contributed  to  holding  legal  persons 
liable?  To  what  extent  are  the  penalties  in  this  regard  effective, 
proportionate, and dissuasive?    
Barriers to the effectiveness of the Directive 
With reference to the above questions, to what extent has the Directive 
been interpreted and enforced in a consistent and harmonised way in the 
Member  States?  To  what  extent  does  this  influence  achieving  their 
objectives  as  regards  preventing  and  combatting  THB?  To  what  extent 
do insufficiencies in interpretation and enforcement cause distortions as 
regards the achievement of the above aim? Is there sufficient uniformity 
in  the  key  concepts  relevant  to  the  effective  implementation  of  the  EU 
legal framework?   
Which main factors (e.g., the quality of implementation by the Member 
States, action by stakeholders) have contributed to or stood in the way of 
achieving the objectives of the Directive? 
Has the Directive led to any other significant changes, either as regards 
implementation  and  enforcement  or  otherwise,  from  the  perspective  of 
victims? 

Efficiency  

25 

26 

27 

If  identifiable,  what  have  the  costs  and  benefits  (monetary  and  non-
monetary) associated with compliance with the Directive in the Member 
States been - as regards the aim of preventing and combatting THB? 
Is  availability  of  funding  a  constraint  for  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive as regards the achievement of the above aim? 
Have the Member States provided sufficient funding if relevant actions, 
such as support services, are externalised to other stakeholders, such as 
regional or local authorities or non-governmental organisations? 

106 

 
 
 
Number 
28 

29 

30 

Relevance 

EQ 
What  good  practices  of  cost-effective  implementation  of  the  Directive 
can be identified in the Member States? 
If  identifiable,  what  are  likely  to  be  the  costs  (monetary  and  non-
monetary) of non-implementation of the Directive as regards preventing 
and combatting THB? 
To  what  extent  is  there  potential  for  (legislative,  non-legislative) 
simplification  and  reduction  of  regulatory  costs  and  burdens  as  regards 
the  achievement  of  the  above  aim?  What  would  be  the  risks  of  such 
reductions? 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

Overall assessment of fitness for purpose, extent to which Directive 
meets needs and concerns that remain to be addressed 
To  what  extent  are  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Directive  fit  for 
purpose? 
To what extent do the original objectives of the Directive correspond to 
the  current  needs  of  the  society  within  the  EU,  reflect  current  policy 
trends, taking into account developments at EU and international levels, 
and fit the EUs institutional, legal, economic and political landscape as 
regards the achievement of the above aim? 
If  identifiable,  what  are  the  remaining  concerns  to  be  addressed  with  a 
view  to  effectively  preventing  and  combatting  THB  in  the  Member 
State?  To  which  degree  are  these  addressed  by  the  EU  legislation 
described above? 
Is  THB,  including  in  the  online  domain,  addressed  under  the  national 
laws  and  court  or  administrative  practice  of  the  Member  State?  If  it  is 
not  addressed  or  it  is  addressed  only  partially,  what  forms  are  left 
unaddressed?   
Has the Directive been adapted to legal, technological and other progress 
in the field of preventing and combatting trafficking in human beings?    
Is the Directive relevant to all forms of exploitation? For example, does 
it  address  how  trafficking  of  vulnerable  groups,  such  as  women  and 
children  or  in  high-risk  sectors  such  as  domestic  work,  agriculture, 
hospitability,  fishing  or  the  garment  industry  should  be  tackled  in  the 
national laws and court or administrative practice of the Member State? 
What forms of exploitation are left unaddressed? 
Child rights and gender perspective  
Is THB addressed with a gender perspective and a child-rights approach 
in the Member States? Which provisions are applicable to it? If it is not 
addressed  or  it  is  addressed  only  partially,  what  forms  are  left 
unaddressed?   
Relevance to stakeholders 
Has the Directive been relevant for the different stakeholders affected as 
regards the achievement of the above aim and how?  In particular, how 
relevant is the directive to relevant stakeholders and what is their level of 
support  for  it  in  terms  of  the  aim  of  preventing  and  combatting 
trafficking in human beings? 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
Number 
39 

40 

Coherence 

EQ 
What are the Member State authorities’ expectations for the role of the 
EU as regards the achievement of the above aim? 
What  are  other  stakeholders’,  such  as  non-governmental  organisations’ 
expectations  for  the  role  of  the  EU  as  regards  the  achievement  of  the 
above aim? 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

Where  relevant,  to  what  extent  is  the  Directive  coherent  with  other 
Directives as regards preventing and combatting THB? 
To  what  extent  is  the  Directive  satisfactorily  integrated  and  coherent 
with  other  relevant  EU  laws  and  policies,  such  as  in  the  context  of  the 
EU  Asylum  Acquis?  Is  there  scope  for  further  integration  with  other 
policy objectives? How do these policies affect (positively or negatively) 
the  implementation  of  the  EU  legislation  relevant  to  preventing  and 
combatting trafficking in human beings? 
To  what  extent  is  the  Directive  coherent  with  the  objectives  of  the 
Treaties,  including  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  EU,  as 
regards the achievement of the above aim? 
To  what  extent  has  the  objective  of  preventing  and  combatting  THB 
been  successfully  integrated  into  EU  funds?  (Asylum,  Migration  and 
Integration  Fund  (AMIF),  International  Security  Fund  (ISF),  European 
Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats (EMPACT)) 
To what extent is the Directive coherent with other relevant international 
obligations  and  standards  (such  as  the  United  Nations  Convention 
against  Transnational  Organized  Crime  and  its  supplementing  Protocol 
to  Prevent,  Suppress  and  Punish  Trafficking  in  Persons,  Especially 
Women  and  Children,  the  ILO  Forced  Labour  Convention,  1930 
(No.29),  the  Convention  on  the  Elimination  of  Discrimination  against 
Women  (CEDAW)  and  UN  Conventions  on  the  Rights  of  the  Child 
(UNCRC) and on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)? 

EU Added Value 

46 

What has been the EU added value of the Directive as regards the aim of 
preventing  and  combatting  trafficking  in  human  beings  in  particular? 
What  would  the  situation  have  been  in  the  Member  States  if  there  had 
been  no  EU  legislation  applicable  (compared  to  what  could  have  been 
achieved by the Member States alone at national and/or regional levels, 
as well as through international agreements and cooperation)? 

2.2. Impact assessment 

Assessing the potential impact of policy options included the following stages:  

5.  Problem definition and assessment; 

6.  Analysis of the EU’s right to act; 

7. 

Identification of policy objectives and detailed formulation of retained policy options; 

8.  Assessment of the impact of policy options; 

108 

 
9.  Ranking and comparison of policy options. 

2.3. Description of data collection methods methodology  

1.3.1. Evaluation 

The  evaluation  of  the  Directive  was  informed  by  the  collection  and  analysis  of  qualitative  and 
quantitative data obtained through the following methods:  

  Mapping  and  analysis  of  transposition  of  the  Directive  into  national  law.  By  using  a 
network of national correspondents, the external contractor conducted desk research regarding 
the  transposition  of  the  Directive  into  Member  States  land  compared  it  to  data  shared  by  the 
European  Commission  on  the  state  of  transposition  in  2016.  The  full  analysis  is  presented  in 
Annex 6. 

  Analysis  of  quantitative  data  shared  by  EUROSTAT  on  trends  in  THB  from  2013-2020 

across the EU27. 

  Documentary review of more than 100 sources. Key desk resources include (i) reports, studies 
and  other  publications  addressing  trafficking  in  human  beings;  and  (ii)  information  shared  by 
DG HOME on EU funding streams (i.e., AMIF, ISF). The complete list of sources reviews for 
the Staff Working Document on the evaluation is presented at the end of this Annex. 

  Public  consultation  of  EU  citizens  that  ran  from  14  December  2021  until  22  March  2022.  A 

total of 124 contributions were received. 

  Online  survey  that  ran  from  29  November  2021  to  15  January  2022.  A  total  of  90  responses 
were  received.  Participants  included  Member  State  national  competent  authorities  (16); 
National  rapporteurs  and  equivalent  mechanisms  (NREM)  (14),  national  LEAs  (9),  national 
judicial authorities (JAs) (12), other national authorities (5), CSOs (24) and other (10). At least 
one response from each Member State was received. 

  Interviews with 29 stakeholders were performed. Five interviews (4 EU agencies, 1 CSO) were 
performed during the inception phase to inform the scope, framework and data collection tools 
of  the  study.  A  further  24  interviews  were  performed  during  the  evaluation  phase.  One 
included 
additional  stakeholder  chose 
representatives from EU agencies (6), EMPACT (1), European CSOs (5), international bodies 
(5), academics/experts (6), and business/employer associations (1).  

in  writing.  Stakeholders 

to  submit  responses 

  Two stakeholder workshops with the EU Civil Society Platform against THB (Workshop 1) 

and NREM (Workshop 2).  

  Analysis  of  data  on  EU  funding  of  THB  projects  from  2014-2020  under  the  Asylum, 

Migration, and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the Internal Security Fund (ISF).  

  Feedback  on  the  Roadmap/Inception  Impact  Assessment.  From  5  August  2021  to  16 
September 2021, the EC sought feedback on the inception impact assessment underpinning this 

109 

 
evaluation.220  The  36  responses  received  from  CSOs  (24),  EU  citizens  (4),  public  authorities 
(3), non-EU citizens (2) and other (3) were also analysed221.   

Further details on the data collection activities can be found in the synopsis report in Annex 4.  

1.3.2. Impact assessment  

  Interviews  with  (4)  EU  agencies  and  (3)  EU  level  civil  society  organisations  were 
performed. One additional interview with a senior advisor at a National Rapporteur’s office 
was conducted.  Interviews were  aimed at  collecting views on the nature and extent of the 
likely impacts and feasibility of the identified policy options for the stakeholder groups who 
might be affected. 

  Case  studies  of  five  Member  States  (FR,  IT,  HU,  NL,  RO).  A  description  of  the  case 
study  selection  methodology  can  be  found  in  the  synopsis  report  (Annex  2).  The  case 
studies included group interviews with national authorities from the selected Member States 
on possible impacts of the identified policy measures. 

2.4. Limitations  

The data collected for the evaluation and impact assessment has several limitations that should be 
borne in mind when interpreting the findings. These limitations are summarised below, along with 
the mitigation measures taken to address them where possible.   

  Measuring  effectiveness  with  limited  available  data:  Given  some  of  the  data  gaps  (see 
evaluation  and  Annex  5),  it  was  sometimes  challenging  to  validate  some  of  the  expert 
judgements and stakeholder opinions, which made measuring the effectiveness challenging. 
For  example,  there  was  a  lack  of  monitoring  data  on  the  effectiveness  of  prevention 
measures, such as awareness raising campaigns, research and information.  

  Subjectivity of stakeholders’ views: Data collected from  stakeholders, including through 
interviews,  surveys,  and  workshops  represents  subjective  views,  rather  than  objective 
conclusions.  To  help  mitigate  this,  the  report  relies  on  the  triangulation  of  various  data 
sources  (as  outlined  in  this  Annex).  In  addition,  stakeholders  consulted  as  part  of  the 
evaluation and impact assessment for interviews, workshops, and the online survey included 
people with relevant expertise in the field of trafficking in human beings, who are used to 
giving evidence as part of their professional roles.  

  Selection bias of stakeholders: There may be a certain degree of selection bias, especially 
regarding interviewees.  Participants’ views might  not  be representative of all stakeholders 
affected by the Directive. To help mitigate this, stakeholders at all levels were selected for 
participation (in consultation with DG HOME), including at the EU, national, international 
and  civil  society  level.  Through  the  consultations,  in  particular  the  online  survey,  it  was 
possible to gather perspectives from all Member States.  

  Attributing  outcomes  to  the  Directive:  attributing  outcomes  in  the  area  of  combatting 
trafficking  in  human  beings  to  the  existence  of  the  Directive  can  be  challenging.  The 
evaluation  and  impact  assessment  assess  the  Directive’s  contribution  to  preventing  and 

220 European Commission, Fighting human trafficking – review of EU rules. Available here. 
221  European Commission, Fighting human trafficking – review of EU rules. Available here. 

110 

 
                                                 
 
combatting trafficking in human beings based on how the  available  evidence compares to 
the intervention logic (see Annex 7 to the evaluation).   

  Assessing trends and statistics related to the phenomenon of THB: As outlined in more 
detail  in  the  evaluation  and  Annex  5,  there  are  a  number  of  gaps  in  the  available  data  on 
THB. In an effort to fill gaps as much as possible, this report relies on a variety of available 
data  sets,  including  data  gathered  by  ESTAT  from  2013-2020  and  inputs  provided  by 
Member  States  in  response  to  request  for  data  from  the  European  Commission.  The 
consultation of several available data sources helped map important gaps.   

111 

 
 
2.5. Methodology of the data collection on trafficking in human beings for 2013-2020 

The data provided in this Impact Assessment has been collected by Eurostat from the EU Member 
States  via  the  national  statistical  offices.  The  European  Commission  ensured  a  coordinated 
approach  to  the  data  collection  at  national  level,  by  involving  the  national  rapporteurs  and/or 
equivalent mechanisms on trafficking in human beings together with relevant authorities and civil 
society  organisations.  Eurostat  provided  support  for  this  study  through  data  management  and 
quantitative analysis of statistics, whereas the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs 
provided the analysis.  

Data in this Impact Assessment is drawn from administrative sources.  

For traffickers and suspected traffickers, the sources of data include police, prosecutors, and courts. 
For  victims,  the  sources  of  data  include  police,  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs),  border 
guards, immigration officers, and labour inspectors, among others.  

Registered  victims  are  composed  of  two  categories:  presumed  and  identified.  In  line  with  earlier 
data  collections,  victims  are  referred  to  as  ‘presumed’  when  they  meet  the  criteria  of  Directive 
2011/36/EU but have not been formally identified by the relevant authority as victims of trafficking 
in human beings or who have declined to be formally or legally identified as trafficked. Victims are 
considered  ‘identified’  for  persons  who  have  been  formally  identified  as  victims  of  trafficking  in 
human beings by the relevant formal authority in Member States’, this is to say after a process that 
establishes  that  they  are  victims;  often,  but  not  always,  involving  the  police.  ‘Identified’  and 
‘presumed’  victims  are  referred  together  as  ‘registered  victims’.  The  actual  number  of  victims  is 
likely to be significantly higher than the number registered and reported in data collections.  

Data  was  requested  for  2013-2020  from  the  EU  Member  States  on  the  number  of  registered 
(presumed and identified) victims of trafficking in human beings and on the number of traffickers 
who  were  suspected,  prosecuted  or  convicted,  taking  into  account  their  sex,  age,  nationality  and 
forms of exploitation. In addition, with regard to suspects, data on prosecutions and convictions for 
the use of services which are the object of exploitation of victims of trafficking in human beings, 
additional sex and age breakdown was requested.  

Member States were also asked to provide metadata giving further information on the data that was 
supplied.  

Data is publically available in the following documents: 

  Eurostat (2013) Trafficking in human beings - 2013 edition. Link. 
  Eurostat (2015) Trafficking in human beings – 2015 edition. Link.  
  Report  on  the  progress  made  in  the  fight  against  trafficking  in  human  beings  (2016)  as 
required under Article 20 of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking 
in human beings and protecting its victims {SWD(2016) 159 final} (COM(2016) 267 final). 
Links: here and here.  

  European Commission, Study on Data collection on trafficking in human in the EU (2018), 

Publications Office of the EU. Link 

  European Commission, Study on Data collection on trafficking in human in the EU (2020), 

Publications Office of the EU. Link.  

2.6 Methodology for the calculation of the costs and benefits  

112 

 
The  costs  and  benefits  of  the  policy  options  were  mainly  calculated  based  on  the  European 
Commission’s Study on the economic, social and human costs of trafficking in human beings within 
the EU (2020)222. The estimation of the costs and benefits of the  policy options was made by 
Directorate  General  Migration  and  Home  Affairs  solely  for  the  purpose  of  the  Impact 
Assessment and should not be considered as official data.  

The Commission’s study on the economic, social and human costs of trafficking in human beings 
aims at measuring the cost of trafficking in human beings in the EU. This sections summarises the 
methodology followed by the study223.  

Three  main  types  of  costs  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  were  identified:  use  of  services 
(coordination  and  prevention,  specialised  services,  law  enforcement,  health  services  and  social 
protection);  lost  economic  output;  and  lost  quality  of  life.  Three  phases  are  distinguished:  in 
trafficking; in specialist services; and, post-trafficking. 

The Study adopts and builds on the existing scientific methodology for costing. The approach taken 
to  estimates  is  conservative.  Where  there  are  doubts  about  the  quality  of  data,  costs  are  not 
included. The cost is thus an underestimate.  

The Study identified the victims of trafficking. For some costs (coordination, law enforcement and 
specialised services), it was possible to investigate the costs generated by trafficking directly. For 
the  other  costs,  the  Study  investigated  costs  by  following  the  victim’s  journey  from  forms  of 
exploitation, to types of violence experienced, to hurts to physical  and mental health, and then to 
the costs generated, for example by increased use of services. 

Several  sources  of  data  are  used:  administrative  statistics  on  registered  victims  of  trafficking  in 
human  beings  in  Member  States;  published  scientific  literature;  original  analysis  of  quantitative 
data  sets;  original  collection  of  information  across  the  EU;  Eurostat  held  information;  European 
Commission documents; and other scientific studies.  

Data  on  the  number,  age,  sex,  and  form  of  trafficking  of  registered  victims  of  trafficking  is 
extracted from the European Commission (2018) Data Collection on Trafficking in Human Beings 
in the EU. Data is fundamentally centred around registered victims in 2016.  

The scientific literature on trafficking in human beings that contained quantitative information was 
systematically  reviewed.  This  was  used  to  provide  a  profile  of  the  extent  to  which  victims  of 
trafficking  suffered  physical  violence,  sexual  violence  and  threats,  disaggregated  by  the  form  of 
trafficking.  

Surveys of populations that share similarities with victims of trafficking were analysed to provide 
additional  information  on  how  harms  from  physical  violence,  sexual  violence  and  threats  had 
consequences for use of health and welfare services, for the extent of employment, and for quality 
of  life  including  physical  injuries,  substance  dependence  and  long-term  mental  health.  This 
included surveys of crime, mental health and physical health, as well as of victims of trafficking. 
The datasets were analysed to quantify the extent to which people who had experienced each type 
of  violence  were  more  likely  to  experience  each  harm  outcome.  The  analyses  used  regression 

222European Commission, Study on the economic, social and human costs of trafficking in human beings within the EU 
(2020). Available at: link. 
223 Ibid n°216, p.109.   

113 

 
                                                 
models  that  adjusted  for  a  range  of  other  factors  that  could  explain  the  association.  Information 
from these surveys on the implications of specific types of harms was then applied proportionately 
to victims of trafficking. 

Directorate General Migration and Home Affairs carried out several calculations in order to obtain 
broad  estimates  of  the  costs  of  the  policy  options,  when  this  was  possible.  The  methodology 
followed  is  described  in  the  section  on  the  economic  impact  of  the  policy  options  of  the  Impact 
Assessment (section 6.3) and Annex 3.   

For instance, the estimated cost of police amounts to a total of EUR 623 789 396 or EUR 77 711 
per victim in the EU in one year. Prosecution costs for trafficking offences are estimated at EUR 
154 196 901 in total, EUR 19 210 per victim and EUR 56 379 per prosecution. Costs of conviction 
(i.e. the average cost per day and average number of days a court would spend on a trafficking case) 
are estimated at EUR 71 490 256 in total, EUR 8 906 per victim and EUR 52 838 per conviction224.  

The data on the cost of a police investigation is an average cost per day and the average number of 
days  a  police  officer  worked  on  a  case  (utilising  a  220-day  working  year).  Nine  Member  States 
provided  data.  For  each  of  the  Member  States  that  provided  data,  an  average  cost  per  case  was 
calculated,  then  a  cost  for  that  Member  State  that  took  into  account  the  number  of  registered 
victims in that country in 2016. The cost per case was the cost per day multiplied by the number of 
days. The cost for that Member State was the cost per case multiplied by the number of cases. For 
the police, the number of cases was taken to be the same as the number of registered victims. 

The data on the cost of a prosecution were an average cost per day and the average number of days 
a prosecutor spends on a case (utilising a 220-day  working  year). Three  Member States provided 
data. For  each of the Member States that provided data, an  average cost per case was  calculated, 
then a  cost  for that Member State that took into account  the number of registered victims in that 
country in 2016. The cost per case was the cost per day multiplied by the number of days. The cost 
for that Member State was the cost per case multiplied by the number of cases. For prosecutions, 
the number of cases was the number of prosecutions. 

The data on the cost of a conviction were an average cost per day and the average number of days a 
court would spend on a trafficking case (utilising a 220-day working  year). Three Member States 
provided  data.  For  each  of  the  Member  States  that  provided  data,  an  average  cost  per  case  was 
calculated,  then  a  cost  for  that  Member  State  that  took  into  account  the  number  of  registered 
victims in that country in 2016. The cost per case was the cost per day multiplied by the number of 
days. The cost for that Member State was the cost per case multiplied by the number of cases. For 
courts, the number of cases was the number of convictions.  

The estimated costs of the benefits brought by this initiative were calculated based on the cost of 
the lost economic input and the lost quality of life for victims of trafficking in human beings. This 
is  based  on  the  assumption  that  reducing  the  scale  of  trafficking  in  human  beings,  including  the 
number of victims, would mean that more people can participate in the legal economy because they 
are not trafficked and do not suffer from the harms caused by the trafficking in the post-trafficking 
phase.   

The Study on the economic, social and human costs of trafficking in human beings uses the concept 
of Gross  Development  Product  per  capita to  estimate the costs of the lost  economic input, which 

224 Ibid n°216, p.52 onwards. 

114 

 
                                                 
includes  not  only  wages  but  also  taxes  and  profits,  and  intrinsically  contains  adjustment  for  the 
balance of the population in employment or not. This methodology is based on definitions and data 
provided by ESTAT. The lost economic output is calculated when the victim is in trafficking and 
post-trafficking. The methodology is further described in the Study225. 

Victims of trafficking are subject to physical violence, sexual violence and threats that reduce the 
length and quality of life. These losses in quality and length of life may be considered ‘intangible’ 
in that they do not have a direct monetary value, but they matter to people. 

The approach in the Study on the economic, social and human costs of trafficking in human beings 
broadly follows the health-oriented framework of the Global Burden of Disease, in which disability 
weights are applied to particular injuries and health conditions in order to estimate their impact on 
Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). This is combined with the benchmark valuations provided 
by  the  European  Commission.  The  EU  offer  benchmarks  to  estimate  the  value  of  the  statistical 
value  of  a  human  life  and  of  the  value  of  a  year  of  life  lived  without  disability  (European 
Commission 2009). The value placed on a statistical life (VOSL) is 1-2 million euros. The Study 
takes the midpoint. The value placed on a year of life lived without disability (VOLY) in Europe is 
EUR 50 000-EUR 100 000. The Study takes the midpoint. The Study considers costs resulting from 
reduced quality of life at two stages in the journey of a victim of trafficking: while in trafficking 
and post-trafficking. 

The methodology to estimate the costs for the physical injuries, homicides and fear, depression and 
anxiety during trafficking, as well as mental health harms post-trafficking is further described in the 
Study on the economic, social and human costs of trafficking in human beings226. 

2.7. List of sources   

Document title 

Council  Directive  2004/81/EC  on  the  residence  permit  issued  to  third-country  nationals 
who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to 
facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities, 29 April 2004. 

Council  Directive  2004/83/EC  on  minimum  standards  for  the  qualification  and  status  of 
third  country  nationals  or  stateless  persons  as  refugees  or  as  persons  who  otherwise  need 
international protection and the content of the protection granted, 29 April 2004. 

Council  of  Europe  (2005),  Convention  on  Action  against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings, 
Warsaw, 16 May 2005. 

Council  of  Europe  (2011)  Convention  on  preventing  and  combating  violence  against 
women and domestic violence, Istanbul, 11 May 2011. 

Council  of  the  European  Union  (2009),  Council  Conclusions  on  establishing  an  informal 
EU Network of National Rapporteurs or Equivalent Mechanisms on Trafficking in Human 
Beings, Luxemburg, 4 June 2009. 

225 Ibid n°216, p.75 onwards.  
226 Ibid n°216, p.85 onwards.  

115 

 
                                                 
Council  of  the  European  Union,  Council  Framework  Decision  2002/629/  on  combating 
trafficking in human beings, 19 July 2002. 

Council of the European Union,  Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA on the fight 
against organised crime, 24 October 2008.  

Council of the European Union (2017), Council Conclusions on the continuation of the EU 
Policy  Cycle  for  organised  and  serious  international  crime  for  the  period  2018-2021,  10 
March 2017.  

Council of the European Union (2018), Internal Security Strategy for the European Union, 
Publications Office of the European Union. 

Council of the European Union (2019), Council conclusions on combating the sexual abuse 
of children, 8 October 2019.  

Council of the European Union (2021), Council conclusions setting the EU's priorities for 
the fight against serious and organised crime for EMPACT 2022 – 2025, 12 May 2021.  

Directive (EU) 2019/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules 
facilitating  the  use  of  financial  and  other  information  for  the  prevention,  detection, 
investigation  or  prosecution  of  certain  criminal  offences,  and  repealing  Council  Decision 
2000/642/JHA, 20 June 2019. 

Directive 2004/80/EC relating to compensation to crime victims, 29 April 2004. 

Directive  2004/81/EC  on  the  residence  permit  issued  to  third-country  nationals  who  are 
victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  or  who  have  been  the  subject  of  an  action  to 
facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities, 29 April 2004.  

Directive  2004/38/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  right  of 
citizens  of  the  Union  and  their  family  members  to  move  and  reside  freely  within  the 
territory  of  the  Member  States  amending  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1612/68  and  repealing 
Directives  64/221/EEC,  68/360/EEC,  72/194/EEC,  73/148/EEC,  75/34/EEC,  75/35/EEC, 
90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, L158/77, 29 April 2004. 

Directive  2009/52/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  providing  for 
minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-
country nationals, 18 June 2009. 

Directive  2011/93/EU  on  combating  the  sexual  abuse  and  sexual  exploitation  of  children 
and child pornography, 13 December 2011 

Directive  2011/95/EU  on  standards  for  the  qualification  of  third-country  nationals  or 
stateless  persons  as  beneficiaries  of  international  protection,  for  a  uniform  status  for 
refugees  or  for  persons  eligible  for  subsidiary  protection,  and  for  the  content  of  the 
protection granted, 13 December 2011. 

Directive  2012/29/EU  on  establishing  minimum  standards  on  the  rights,  support  and 
protection of victims of crime, 3 April 2014. 

Directive  2013/32/EU  on  common  procedures  for  granting  and  withdrawing  international 

116 

 
protection, 29 June 2013. 

Directive  2013/33/EU  laying  down  standards  for  the  reception  of  applicants  for 
international protection, 29 June 2013. 

Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the freezing and 
confiscation  of  instrumentalities  and  proceeds  of  crime  in  the  European  Union,  3  April 
2014. 

Eurojust  (2021),  Report  on  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings:  Best  practice  and  issues  in 
judicial 
at: 
https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/sites/default/files/assets/2021_02_16_thb_casework_report.
pdf. 

cooperation, 

available 

European Commission (2009), Impact Assessment - Commission Staff Working Document 
Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on preventing 
and  combating  trafficking  in  human  beings,  and  protecting  victims,  repealing  Framework 
Decision 2002/629/JHA. 

European  Commission  (2009),  The  Stockholm  Programme  -  An  open  and  secure  Europe 
serving and protecting citizens, 17024/09, Brussels, 2 December 2009. 

European  Commission  (2010),  Proposal  for  a  Directive  on  preventing  and  combating 
trafficking  in  human  beings,  and  protecting  victims,  repealing  Framework  Decision 
2002/629/JHA, COM(2010) 95 final, Brussels 29 March 2010.  

European  Commission,  (2012),  EU  Strategy  towards  the  eradication  of  trafficking  in 
human beings 2012-2016, COM(2012) 286 final, Brussels, 19 June 2012. 

European Commission, Eurostat (2015), Trafficking in human beings, Publications Office. 

European Commission  (2015),  Study on high risk groups  for trafficking in human beings, 
Publications Office.  

European  Commission  (2015),  Study  on  case-law  relating  to  trafficking  in  human  beings 
for labour exploitation, Publications Office.  

European  Commission  (2015),  Study  on  prevention  initiatives  on  trafficking  in  human 
beings, Publications Office. 

European  Commission  (2016),  First  Report  on  the  progress  made  in  the  fight  against 
trafficking  in  human  beings  as  required  under  Article  20  of  Directive  2011/36/EU  on 
preventing  and  combating  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  protecting  its  victims, 
COM(2016) 267 final, Brussels, 19 May 2016. 

European Commission  (2016),  Assessing  the impact  of  existing  national  law, establishing 
as a criminal offence the use of services which are the objects of exploitation of trafficking 
in  human  beings,  on  the  prevention  of  trafficking  in  human  beings,  in  accordance  with 
Article  23  (2)  of  the  Directive  2011/36/EU,  COM(2016)  719  final,  Brussels  2  December 
2016 

117 

 
European Commission (2016), Assessing the extent to which Member States have taken the 
necessary  measures  in  order  to  comply  with  Directive  2011/36/EU  on  preventing  and 
combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims in accordance with Article 
23 (1), COM(2016) 722 final, Brussels, 2 December 2016.  

European  Commission  (2016),  Study  on  the  gender  dimension  of  trafficking  in  human 
beings, Publications Office. 

European  Commission  (2016),  Study  on  comprehensive  policy  review  of  anti-trafficking 
projects funded by the European Commission, Publications Office. 

European  Commission,  Reporting  on  the  follow-up  to  the  EU  Strategy  towards  the 
Eradication  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  identifying  further  concrete  actions, 
COM(2017) 728 final, Brussels, 4 December 2017.  

European Commission (2018), Joint Statement of commitment to work together to address 
THB,  ensuring  a  coordinated,  coherent  and  comprehensive  response,  available  at: 
https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Publications/JHA-Joint-Statement-THB-
2018_EN.pdf. 

European  Commission  (2018),  Second  report  on  the  progress  made  in  the  fight  against 
trafficking in human beings (2018) as required under Article 20 of Directive 2011/36/EU on 
preventing  and  combating  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  protecting  its  victims, 
COM(2018) 777 final, Brussels, 3 December 2018. 

European Commission (2020), A Union of Equality: Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025, 
COM/2020/152 final, Brussels, 5 March 2020. 

European  Commission  (2020),  Action  plan  on  Integration  and  Inclusion  2021-2027, 
Publications Office. 

European  Commission  (2020),  Data  collection  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  in  the  EU, 
Publications Office. 

European  Commission  (2020),  EU  Strategy  on  victims'  rights  (2020-2025),  COM(2020) 
258 final, Brussels, 24 June 2020. 

European  Commission  (2020),  Study  on  reviewing  the  functioning  of  Member  States’ 
National and Transnational Referral Mechanisms, Publications Office. 

European Commission (2020), Study on the economic, social and human costs of trafficking 
in  human  beings  within  the  EU,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union  (Publications 
Office). 

European  Commission  (2020),  Communication  from  The  Commission  to  The  European 
Parliament,  The  Council,  The  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  And  The 
Committee  Of  The  Regions  on  the  EU  strategy  for  a  more  effective  fight  against  child 
sexual abuse, COM(2020) 607, Brussels, 24 July 2020.  

European  Commission  (2020),  Third  report  on  the  progress  made  in  the  fight  against 
trafficking  in  human beings  (2020) as required  under Article 20 of  Directive 2011/36/EU 
on  preventing  and  combating  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  protecting  its  victims, 

118 

 
COM(2020) 661 final, Brussels, 20 October 2020. 

European Commission, Staff Working Document accompanying the Third (2020) report on 
the progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings third report, SWD(2020) 
226 final, Brussels, 20 October 2020.  

European Commission (2021) Mapping the risk of serious and organised crime infiltrating 
legitimate businesses, Publications Office. 

European  Commission  (2021),  Communication  from  The  Commission  to  The  European 
Parliament,  The  Council,  The  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  And  The 
Committee Of The Regions on the EU Strategy on Combatting Trafficking in Human Beings 
2021-2025, COM(2021) 171 final, Brussels, 14 April 2021 

European  Commission  (2021),  EU  Policy  Cycle  to  tackle  organised  and  serious 
international  crime  -  European  Multidisciplinary  Platform  Against  Criminal  Threats 
(EMPACT) 2022–2025. 

European  Commission  (2021),  EU  Strategy  to  tackle  Organised  Crime  2021-2025, 
COM(2021) 170 final, Brussels 14 April 2021. 

European Commission (2021), Inception impact assessment - Ares(2021)4984017. 

European  Commission  (2021),  Communication  from  The  Commission  to  The  European 
Parliament,  The  Council,  The  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  And  The 
Committee Of The Regions on a renewed EU action plan against migrant smuggling 2021-
2025, COM(2021) 591 final, Brussels, 29 September 2021.  

European Commission (2022), Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council  on  asset  recovery  and  confiscation,  COM(2022)  245  final,  Brussels,  25  May 
2022. 

European Commission (2022), Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and 
of the Council on laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse, COM(2022) 
209 final, Brussels, 11 May 2022.  

European Commission (2022), Proposal for Directive of The European Parliament and Of 
the  Council  on  Corporate  Sustainability  Due  Diligence  and  amending  Directive  (EU) 
2019/1937, COM(2022) 71 final, Brussels, 23 February 2022.  

European  Institute  for  Gender  Equality  (EIGE)  (2018),  Gender-specific  measures  in  anti-
trafficking actions, Publications Office. 

European  Institute for Gender Equality  (EIGE) (2018),  Protecting  victims: An analysis  of 
the  anti-trafficking  directive  from  the  perspective  of  a  victim  of  gender-based  violence, 
Publications Office. 

European  Migration  Network  (2022),  Third-country  national  victims  of  trafficking  in 
human  beings:  detection,  identification  and  protection,  available  at:  https://home-
affairs.ec.europa.eu/whats-new/publications/third-country-national-victims-trafficking-
human-beings-detection-identification-and-protection_en 

119 

 
European  Parliament  (2021)  Report  on  the  implementation  of  Directive  2011/36/EU  on 
preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, European 
Parliament. 

European Parliament (2021), Resolution on the implementation of Directive 2011/36/EU on 
preventing  and  combatting  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  protecting  its  victims,  10 
February 2021.  

European Parliament (2021)  The differing EU  Member  States’  regulations  on prostitution 
and their cross-border implications on women’s rights, European Parliament. 

European  Parliamentary  Research  Service  (EPRS)  (2020),  Implementation  of  Directive 
2011/36/EU: Migration and gender issues, EPRS. 

European  Parliamentary  Research  Service  (EPRS)  (2021),  Understanding  EU  action 
against human trafficking, EPRS. 

European  Parliamentary  Research  Service  (EPRS)  (2016),  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings 
from a Gender Perspective Directive 2011/36/EU, EPRS. 

European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  (FRA)  (2019),  Children  deprived  of  parental 
care  found  in  an  EU  Member  State  other  than  their  own  –  A  guide  to  enhance  child 
protection focusing on victims of trafficking, Publications Office. 

European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights  (FRA)  (2017),  Out  of  sight:  migrant 
women exploited in domestic work, FRA. 

European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights  (FRA)  (2018),  Protecting  migrant 
workers from exploitation in the EU: boosting workplace inspections, FRA. 

Europol  (2014),  Trafficking  in  human  beings  and  the  internet,  Europol,  available  at: 
intelligence_notification_thb_internet_15_2014_public.pdf (europa.eu)  

Europol  (2015),  The  THB  financial  business  model,  Assessing  the  current  state  of 
knowledge 
at: 
https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/europol_thb_finacial_busi
ness_model_2015.pdf 

available 

Europol, 

2015, 

July 

Europol  (2016),  Situation  Report:  Trafficking  of  Human  Beings  in  Europe,  Europol, 
at: 
available 
https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/thb_situational_report_-
_europol.pdf 

Europol  (2020),  How  COVID-19-related  crime  infected  Europe  during  2020,  Europol, 
available  at:  https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/how_covid-19-
related_crime_infected_europe_during_2020.pdf. 

Europol (2020), The challenges of countering human trafficking in a digital era, available 
at: 
https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/the_challenges_of_counte
ring_human_trafficking_in_the_digital_era.pdf. 

120 

 
Europol  (2021),  Serious  and  Organised  Crime  Threat  Assessment  (SOCTA),  available  at: 
https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/socta2021_1.pdf. 

Europol  Migrant  Smuggling  Centre  (2020),  European  Migrant  Smuggling  Centre  4th 
Annual Report, available at: emsc_4th_annual_activity_report_-_2020.pdf (europa.eu) 

Eurostat (2015), Trafficking in human beings, Publications Office. 

Frontex  (2012),  Combating  human  trafficking  at  the  border  -  training  for  EU  Border 
Guards, available at: Combating human trafficking at the border  - training for EU Border 
Guards (europa.eu)  

Group  of  Experts  on  Action  Against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  (GRETA)  (2020), 
Compendium of Good practices in addressing trafficking in human beings for the purpose 
of labour exploitation, Council of Europe. 

Group  of  Experts  on  Action  Against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  (GRETA)  (2020), 
Guidance  Note  on  the  entitlement  of  victims  of  trafficking,  and  persons  at  risk  of  being 
trafficked, to international protection, Council of Europe. 

Group  of  Experts  on  Action  Against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  (GRETA)  (2019), 
Practical impact of GRETA’s monitoring work, Council of Europe. 

Group  of  Experts  on  Action  Against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  (GRETA)  (2018), 
Assistance to victims of human trafficking, Council of Europe. 

Group  of  Experts  on  Action  Against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  (GRETA)  (2017), 
Human Trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation, Council of Europe. 

Group  of  Experts  on  Action  Against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  (GRETA)  (2018), 
Trafficking in Children, Council of Europe. 

Group  of  Experts  on  Action  Against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  (GRETA)  (2015),  4th 
General Report on GRETA’s activities, Council of Europe.  

ICAT  (2019),  Human  trafficking  and  technology:  trends,  challenges  and  opportunities, 
Issue 07/09. 

International  Labour  Office  (ILO)  (2014)  Convention  29  on  Forced  Labour  and  its 
Protocol, ILO. 

International Labour Office (ILO) (2014), Recommendation 203 on Forced Labour, ILO. 

International  Labour  Office  (ILO)  (2017),  Global  estimates  of  modern  slavery:  forced 
labour and forced marriage, ILO. 

JHA (2021) Joint report of the JHA agencies’ network on the identification and protection 
of victims of human trafficking. 

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) (2017), Ministerial Council 
Decision  No.  6/17  Strengthening  Efforts  to  Prevent  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings, 

121 

 
MC.DEC/6/17. 

Organization  for  Security  and  Co-operation  in  Europe  (OSCE)  (2018),  Child  Trafficking 
and Child Protection: Ensuring that Child Protection Mechanisms Protect the Rights and 
Meet the Needs of Child Victims of Human Trafficking, OSCE. 

Organization  for  Security  and  Co-operation  in  Europe  (OSCE)  (2020),  Leveraging 
innovation  to  fight  trafficking  in  human  beings:  A  comprehensive  analysis  of  technology 
tools, OSCE. 

Organization  for  Security  and  Co-operation  in  Europe  (OSCE)  (2020),  Establishing 
National Focal Points to Protect Child Victims of Trafficking in Human Beings, OSCE. 

Organization  for  Security  and  Co-operation  in  Europe  (OSCE)  (2021),  Discouraging  the 
demand that fosters trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation, OSCE. 

Organization  for  Security  and  Co-operation  in  Europe  (OSCE)  (2021),  Applying  Gender-
Sensitive Approaches in Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, OSCE. 

Population Europe (2022), 10 Years After the Directive 2011/36/EU, Population and Policy 
Brief No 33.  

RACE  in  Europe  project  partners  (2014),Trafficking  for  Forced  Criminal  Activities  and 
Begging 
http://www.antislavery.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/trafficking_for_forced_criminal_activities_and_begging_in_europ
e.pdf. 

available 

Europe, 

at: 

in 

Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 
2018 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders, L303. 

Regulation  (EU)  No  604/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26 June 
2013  establishing  the  criteria  and  mechanisms  for  determining  the  Member  State 
responsible  for  examining  an  application  for  international  protection  lodged  in  one  of  the 
Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person. 

United  Nations  (1979)  Convention  on  the  Elimination  of  Discrimination  against  Women, 
United Nations publication. 

United Nations (1989) Conventions on the Rights of the Child, United Nations publication. 

United  Nations  (2000)  Convention  against  Transnational  Organized  Crime  and  the 
Protocols Thereto, United Nations publication. 

United  Nations  (2022)  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities,  United 
Nations publication. 

UNHCR  (2012),  Thematic  study  on  the  issue  of  violence  against  women  and  girls  and 
disability, United Nations publication.  

UNODC (2020), Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, United Nations publication. 

UNODC (2020), Interlinkages between Trafficking in persons and forced marriage, United 

122 

 
Nations publication. 

UNODC  (2021),  Compendium  of  Promising  Practices  on  Public-Private  Partnerships  to 
prevent and counter trafficking in persons, United Nations publications. 

UNODC  (2021),  The  effects  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  on  trafficking  in  persons  and 
responses to the challenges, United Nations publications. 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: STATISTICS 

1.  State of play: trends and extent of THB 

This section of the draft first final report sets out the state of play regarding the levels of and trends 
in THB. The analysis is based on data on THB provided by the EUROSTAT, covering the reporting 
period  2013-2020.  The  analysis  was  complemented  by  a  review  of  a  EC/Eurostat  2015  report  on 
THB, which provided insights into the situation in 2010-2012.227 The presentation of findings that 
follows excludes the United Kingdom  (UK) but  includes Denmark, thus  covering the situation in 
the EU27.228 

1.1.  Total number of victims: current situation and trends 

The  annual  number  of  registered  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  showed  relatively 
little  sign  of  variation  across  the  2013-2020  reporting  period.  The  total  number  of  victims 
registered during the period 2013-2020 was 55,314 in the EU27, with an average of 16 registered 
victims  per  million  inhabitants.  The  annual  number  of  registered  victims  showed  relatively  little 
sign  of  variation  across  the  2013-2020  reporting  period  (see  Figure  3),  with  the  lowest  number 
recorded  in  2015  (6,071  registered  victims)229  and  reaching  the  highest  value  in  2019  (7,777 
registered victims). The annual numbers are comparable, if generally slightly lower, to the number 
recorded in the EU27 in 2011 (n=7,440) and notably lower than the 2012 number (n= 8,853).230 

227 European Commission, Eurostat, Trafficking in human beings: 2015 edition, Publications Office, 2015. Available 
here.  
228 Note: At the time of writing, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war was predicted to impact on the extent of trafficking in 
human beings in Europe. However, no statistics were available to include in this report. For more information, please 
see Siegfried, K; Ukraine crisis creates new trafficking risks, UNHCR, 13 April 2022. Available here.  
229 Values for 2015 are significantly affected by the fact that data are not available for France, which recorded among 
the highest number of victims in the EU27. 
230 European Commission, Eurostat, Trafficking in human beings: 2015 edition, Publications Office, 2015. 

124 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 3: Trends in the number of registered victims in the EU (2013-2020)231 

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

The  actual  number  of  victims  is  likely  significantly  higher  than  reported  data  suggests,  as 
these statistics only capture victims that become known to one of the registering entities and many 
victims remain undetected.232  

Numbers of registered victims differs by Member State (see Figure 4). During the period 2013-
2020, the five Member States with the largest number of registered victims, in absolute numbers, 
were  the  Netherlands  (8,967),  France  (8,652),233  Italy  (6,927),  Romania  (5,742)  and  Germany 
(4,842). However, considering the proportion of victims as compared to the total population234 of 
the registering country, rather than on the absolute number of victims, the top five EU-27 Member 
States  in  the  period  2013-2018  were  Cyprus  (100),  the  Netherlands  (66),  Romania  and  Austria 
(both 36), and Malta (35).235  

231 Values for 2015 are significantly affected by the fact that data are not available for France, which recorded among 
the highest number of victims in the EU27. 
232 European Commission (2020), Data collection of trafficking in human beings in the EU. Available at: link. 

233 Data for 2015 not available and thus not included in the total. 
234 Number of victims per million inhabitants. 

235 Missing data: CZ (2017, 2018), FR (2015), SE (2017, 2018). 

125 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 4: Number of registered victims by Member State (2013-2020) 

0

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK

Three quarters of all victims in the EU were female (women and girls) (75%), ranging from 42% 
in Portugal to 92% in Bulgaria.236 There were two Member States (BE, PT) where the majority of 
victims recorded during this period were male (men and boys).  

The majority of all victims (79%) in the EU were adults.237 However, children were the majority of 
recorded victims in Hungary (54%) and in further five Member States (CZ, EE, EL, HR, RO) the 
proportion of children as a share of all victims where age group was reported exceeded one third.238 
A significant number of victims are EU citizens. Of the total registered victims, 56% were EU 
citizens,  although  the  share  of  non-EU  citizens  among  recorded  victims  increased  over  time.239 
Amongst the EU victims, 63% were registered in their country of citizenship, although this varied 
substantially across Member States. To give an example of countries with higher numbers of their 
own  citizens  among  registered  victims:  almost  three  fourths  (70%)  of  victims  with  Hungarian 

236 Victims whose sex was reported as “Unknown” excluded from this analysis. 
237 Victims whose age group was reported as “Unknown” excluded from this analysis. 
238 Children defined as persons younger than 18 years. 
239 For the purposes of this analysis, citizenships recorded as “autre europe est,” “autre europe ouest” and “other” were 
assumed to be non-EU victims. 

126 

 
 
 
                                                 
citizenship were registered in Hungary, much smaller shares of victims with Bulgarian (33%) and 
Romanian (44%) citizenship were registered in their respective countries. 

1.2.  Trends in types of trafficking 

1.2.1.   Overview of trends 

The  common  forms  of  exploitation  of  human  beings  trafficked  in  Europe  are  sexual 
exploitation and labour exploitation, which is  linked to  a sustained demand for sexual  services 
and  cheap  labour.  Figure  5  provides  an  overview  of  the  main  forms  of exploitation  in  the  EU27 
over  time.240  The  most  prevalent  form  was  consistently  sexual  exploitation,  although  its  share 
decreased somewhat from 76% in 2014 to less than 60% in later years.241 

Trafficking  for  purposes  other  than  sexual  exploitation  appear  to  be  increasing.  The 
proportion  of  labour  exploitation,  accounting  for  20%  of  all  registrations  during  2013-2020,  as  a 
share  of  all  registrations  initially  decreased  somewhat  over  time  but  later  increased  to  represent 
approximately one third of all victims in 2020. The proportion of “other” forms increased over time 
to represent approximately one fifth of all cases in 2018 and decreased thereafter to slightly more 
than 10% of all registrations.242 

240 See section 7.5 for a discussion of possible national differences in recording forms of exploitation, which may give 
rise to discrepancies and imprecisions in aggregate analyses. 
241  Cases  where  the  form  of  exploitation  is  indicated  as  unknown  (4%  of  all  cases)  excluded  from  analysis.  Data 
missing  for  the  following  country-years:  AT  (2017,  2018),  BG  (2017,  2018),  CZ  (2017, 2018),  EL  (2013,  2014),  FI 
(2017, 2018), FR (2015), IT (2013, 2014), PL (2015, 2016), RO (2015, 2016), SE (2017, 2018) 
242 The categorization of exploitation forms follows the 2013/2014 data collection questionnaire. For subsequent waves, 
this  analysis  includes  the  following  forms  of  exploitation  in  the  “other”  category:  benefit  fraud,  criminal  activities, 
forced  begging/use  for  begging,  other  forms  of  exploitation,  removal  of  organs,  unknown  form  of  exploitation.  See 
section 6.2.3  for a more detailed discussion of other types of exploitation. Note that both labour and other (i.e., non-
sexual  and  non-labour)  forms  of  exploitation  saw  a  notable  change  between  2018  and  2019.  It  is  possible  that  this 
development  is  at  least  partially  attributable  to  changes  in  data  collection.  Starting  in  2019,  the  heretofore  separate 
categories  "labour,  including  forced  labour”  and  “domestic  servitude”  were  seemingly  merged  in  a  new  reporting 
category “forced labour, including domestic servitude.” At the same time, the share of registrations recorded as “other” 
fell precipitously from 14% in 2018 to 5% in 2019. 

127 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 5: Trends in main forms of exploitation in the EU (2013-2020), as a % of the total 
number of victims registered 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Sexual

Labour

Other

The forms of exploitation differ by Member State. Figure 6 shows the distribution of cases by 
type of exploitation across the entire reporting period (2013-2020) by individual Member States. In 
the  majority  of  Member  States  (n=18),  sexual  exploitation  was  the  most  common  form.  In  five 
Member States (BE, LV, MT, PL, PT) labour exploitation was most prevalent and in another three 
Member  States  (LT,  SE,  SK)  the  most  frequently  reported  forms  of  exploitation  fell  under  the 
“other” category. In Finland sexual and labour exploitation were equally common. 

128 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6: Main forms of exploitation per Member State in 2013-2020, as a % of the total 
number of victims registered 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK

Sexual

Labour

Other

1.2.2.   Sexual exploitation 

Sexual exploitation is the most prevalent purpose behind THB in the EU (65% of all reported cases 
between 2013-2020),243 although as Figure 7 shows, the absolute number of registered victims of 
sexual  exploitation  decreased  between  2013  and  2020.  The  victims  of  sexual  exploitation  are 
overwhelmingly  female  (93%),  both  adults  and  minors,  to  the  point  that  trafficking  in  human 
beings  for  sexual  exploitation  has  been  defined  as  a  form  of  violence  against  women,  rooted  in 
gender inequalities.244 This is the case across all Member States.  

In  all  but  three  Member  States  (CZ,  HU,  NL)  female  victims  accounted  for  at  least  90%  of  all 
registered  victims.  The  share  of  female  victims  stayed  very  high  over  time,  exceeding  90%  in 
almost every year during the 2013-2020 reporting period (the exception was 2019 with 85% share 
of females) as well as during 2010-2012.245 The Member States registering the highest numbers of 
female victims of sexual exploitation in 2013-2020 were France (5,911), the Netherlands (5,535), 
Germany (3,753), Italy (2,795), and Romania (2,681). 

243 Cases with unknown form of exploitation were omitted from the analysis. 
244 European Commission (2020), Data collection of trafficking in human beings in the EU. Available at: link. 

245 European Commission, Eurostat, Trafficking in human beings: 2015 edition, Publications Office, 2015. 

129 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 7: Trends in the number of sexual exploitation victims in the EU27 (2013-2020) 246 

4231

4093

4208

3979

3857

3883

3157

3037

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Over the reporting period, children accounted for approximately one quarter of sexual exploitation 
victims  where  the  age  group  was  reported.  This  is  slightly  higher  than  the  share  of  child  victims 
across  all  types  of  exploitation.  There  was  little  change  in  the  value  of  this  indicator  over  time, 
decreasing somewhat from 27% in 2015 to 24% in 2020.247  It does, however, represent a notable 
increase from 2010-2012 when only 14% of registered victims of sexual exploitation were under 18 
years old.248 

1.2.3.   Labour exploitation 

Trafficking  for  labour  exploitation  is  the  second  main  cause  of  THB  in  the  EU  (21%).  Several 
Member States and CSOs report an increase in trafficking for labour exploitation,249 an assessment 
trend which is also borne out by ESTAT data indicating a notable increase in 2019 and 2020 (see 
Figure 8) (although it is possible that this development is at least partially attributable to changes in 
data  collection).  THB  for  labour  exploitation  entails  any  work  or  service  exacted  from  any 

246  Note:  2015  values  very  likely  affected  by  missing  data  from  France,  which  typically  registers  among  the  highest 
numbers of THB victims in the EU27. 
247 Data on age breakdowns by form of exploitation not available for 2013 and 2014. A disaggregated analysis of trends 
at  the  level  of  individual  Member  States  is  rendered  difficult  by  gaps  in  existing  data.  For  instance,  most  of  victims 
reported  by  Austria  are  recorded  with  their  age  group  unknown,  with  the  majority  of  the  much  smaller  remainder 
recorded as children.  
248  European  Commission,  Eurostat,  Trafficking  in  human  beings:  2015  edition,  Publications  Office,  2015, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2785/512112 
249 European Commission (2020), Data collection of trafficking in human beings in the EU. Available at: link. 

130 

 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself 
voluntarily.250  

Overall,  labour  exploitation  affects  mostly  men  (70%),  although  in  particular  sectors  women  are 
increasingly  exploited  (e.g.,  domestic  work,  care  activities  or  cleaning  services).  After  an  initial 
slight  increase,  the  share  of  men  among  victims  of  labour  exploitation  where  the  victim’s  sex  is 
reported  decreased  over  the  reporting  period,  from  73%  in  2013  to  65%  in  2020.  The  Member 
States registering the highest number of labour exploitation victims during the 2013-2020 reporting 
period were the Netherlands (1,957), Italy (998), France (974), Romania (953), and Spain (602). 

Figure 8: Trends in the number of labour exploitation victims in the EU27 (2013-2020)  

1914

1833

1063

875

860

934

988

947

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Labour exploitation  predominantly affects  adult victims, with children accounting for only 7% of 
victims of this type of exploitation where the victim’s age group was reported between 2013-2020. 
Over time, the share of children among victims of labour exploitation rose from 4% in 2015 to 12% 
in 2016, stayed broadly constant until 2018 and then decreased dramatically to only 4% in 2019 and 
2% in 2020.251 

250 ILO Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). 

251  Data  on  age  breakdowns  by  form  of  exploitation  are  not  available  for  2013  and  2014.  The  same  limitations 
pertaining  to  individual  MS  data  regarding  age  group  breakdowns  as  those  reported  in  the  section  on  sexual 
exploitation apply to labour exploitation as well. The decrease observed in 2019 and 2020 may also be at least partially 
attributable to data issues as both years saw a notable increase in the number of cases were age group was reported as 
unknown. 

131 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
1.2.4.   Other forms of exploitation 

As set out above, forms of exploitation other than sexual and labour-related accounted for 14% of 
THB  cases  where  the  form  of  exploitation  was  indicated.  The  share  of  these  other  forms  of 
exploitations grew from 8% in 2013 to 20% in 2018 and then decreased to 12% in 2020.  

Data  for  the  reporting  period  2015-2020  enable  a  further  disaggregation  of  this  “other”  category 
into additional specific forms  of exploitation, as shown in  Figure 9. Forms  of exploitation falling 
under  the  “other”  umbrella  term  included  criminal  activities  (3%  of  all  cases  during  2015-2020), 
forced begging (also 3%), and benefit fraud and removal of organs (both less than 1%). Cases with 
a  form  of  exploitation  marked  as  “other”  (i.e.,  not  indicating  any  of  the  specific  designations 
offered) accounted for 11% of all cases during the reporting period. 

Figure 9: Trends in all forms of exploitation in the EU (2015-2020), as a % of the total 
number of victims registered 

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Other forms of exploitation

Removal of organs

Forced begging/use for begging

Criminal activities

Benefit fraud

Labour included forced labour and domestic servitude

Sexual exploitation

1.3. Trends in the types of people who are trafficked 

1.3.1.   Victims by age 

In  2013-2020,  child  victims  constituted  around  one-fifth  of  all  registered  victims  in  the  EU27 
(21%)  where  the  victim’s  age  group  was  known.  The  age  group  of  the  victim  was  indicated  as 
“unknown”  in  12%  of  all  cases.  The  share  of  children  among  victims  increased  somewhat  over 

132 

 
 
 
 
time, growing from 18% in 2013 to 24% in 2020 (see Figure 10). This represents a continuation of 
a trend from previous years, as the share of children among registered victims was and 17% in 2011 
and 2012.252 

Figure 10: Trends in victims by age group in the EU27, as a % of the total cases of THB with 
age group reported (2013-2020) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

82%

81%

76%

79%

77%

79%

80%

76%

18%

19%

24%

21%

23%

21%

20%

24%

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Child

Adult

The  Member  States  with  the  highest  proportion  of  registered  child  victims  where  age  group  was 
known were  Hungary (54%), the Czech Republic (44%), Romania (42%), and Estonia and Spain 
(38%). Figure 11 provides an overview of the age group distribution of victims across all Member 
States. 

252 European Commission, Eurostat, Trafficking in human beings: 2015 edition, Publications Office, 2015. Available 
here.  

133 

 
 
 
  
                                                 
Figure 11: Victims by age group per Member State, as a % of the total cases of THB with age 
group reported (2013-2018) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK

Child

Adult

1.3.2.   Victims by sex 

In  2013-2020,  women  and  girls  represented  a  large  majority  of  victims  (75%)  whose  sex  was 
reported (Figure 12). The sex of the victim was indicated as “unknown” in 9% of all cases, though 
the  reporting  of  sex  appears  to  have  improved  over  time,  with  “unknown”  indicated  only  in  less 
than 5% of cases in  2020. The proportion of women as  a share of  all victims  decreased over the 
2013-2020  reporting  period,  declining  from  81%  in  2013  to  67%  in  2020,  although  similar 
fluctuation  could  be  seen  in  2010-2012  as  well.253  Female  victims  are  especially  endangered  by 
trafficking  for  the  purpose  of  sexual  exploitation,  while  men  are  usually  victims  of  labour 
exploitation.  

253 European Commission, Eurostat, Trafficking in human beings: 2015 edition, Publications Office, 2015. Available 
here.  

134 

 
 
 
  
                                                 
Figure 12: Trends in victims by sex in the EU27, as a % of the total cases of THB with sex 
reported (2013-2020) 

19%

17%

22%

22%

23%

25%

35%

32%

81%

83%

78%

78%

77%

75%

65%

67%

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Female Male

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on ESTAT data 

During the reporting period, the Member States registering the highest proportion of female victims 
were  Bulgaria  (92%),  Slovenia  (89%),  Hungary  (87%),  Austria  (85%)  and  Germany  (84%).  By 
contrast,  the  Member  States  with  the  highest  proportion  of  male  victims  were  Portugal  (58%), 
Belgium  (54%),  the  Czech  Republic  (48%),  Lithuania  (47%),  and  Slovakia  (44%).  Figure  13 
displays the categorisation of reported victims by sex in each Member State. 

Figure 13: Victims by sex per Member State, as a % of the total cases of THB reported (2013-
2020) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK

Female Male

Other

135 

 
 
 
 
 
  
1.3.3.   Victims by citizenship 

In 2013-2020, 56% of the registered victims with known citizenship information were EU citizens 
and 44% were non-EU citizens. In 2% of cases, the victim’s citizenship was recorded as unknown. 
As Figure 14 shows, the share of EU victims gradually decreased between 2013 and 2018 and then 
increased  somewhat  in  2020.254  In  2016  and  2018  the  number  of  registered  non-EU  victims 
eclipsed that of those with EU citizenship.  

Figure 14: Trends in victims by citizenship group in the EU27, as a % of the total cases of 
THB with citizenship reported (2013-2020) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

31%

29%

69%

71%

43%

57%

51%

48%

52%

50%

49%

52%

48%

50%

42%

58%

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU

non-EU

As Table 1 shows, the main countries of citizenship of EU victims were Romania (9,392), Hungary 
(3,565), Bulgaria (3,424), France (3,136), and the Netherlands (2,558).  

Table 1: Citizenship of victims of THB (EU citizens, 2013-2020) 

Country 

Number 

Romania 

Hungary 

Bulgaria 

France 

9392 

3565 

3424 

3136 

254  The  ratio  of  EU  and  non-EU  victims  in  2010-2012  was  similar  to  that  of  2013.  European  Commission,  Eurostat, 
Trafficking in human beings: 2015 edition, Publications Office, 2015, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2785/512112 

136 

 
 
 
  
                                                 
Netherlands 

Poland 

Germany 

Italy 

Slovakia 

Lithuania 

Portugal 

Latvia 

Croatia 

Spain 

Czech Republic 

Greece 

Estonia 

Finland 

Austria 

Belgium 

Ireland 

Slovenia 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Malta 

Sweden 

Luxembourg 

2558 

1551 

1262 

961 

605 

421 

387 

261 

218 

203 

176 

141 

76 

62 

56 

23 

21 

20 

18 

8 

6 

3 

1 

The  main  countries  of  citizenship  of  non-EU  victims  in  the  EU  were  Nigeria  (6,513),  China 
(1,417), Morocco (824), Ukraine (743), and Philippines (605) (see  

137 

 
 
Country 

Nigeria 

China 

Morocco 

Ukraine 

Philippines 

Brazil 

Moldova 

Pakistan 

India 

Albania 

Cameroon 

Uganda 

Afghanistan 

Colombia 

Guinea 

Vietnam 

Bangladesh 

Thailand 

Venezuela 

Tunisia 

Sierra Leone 

Serbia 

Algeria 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 

138 

Number 

6513 

1417 

824 

743 

605 

588 

473 

418 

406 

378 

375 

317 

303 

295 

291 

283 

279 

257 

228 

221 

217 

214 

205 

194 

 
 
Gambia 

Iraq 

Ghana 

Russia 

Egypt 

Syria 

Côte d'Ivoire 

Dominican Republic 

Paraguay 

Somalia 

Senegal 

Eritrea 

Nepal 

Peru 

Democratic Republic of the Congo 

North Korea 

Indonesia 

Turkey 

Angola 

North Macedonia 

Iran 

Belarus 

Vietnam 

Ethiopia 

Taiwan 

139 

193 

192 

190 

187 

172 

172 

161 

156 

150 

146 

140 

138 

130 

126 

124 

119 

109 

107 

93 

86 

84 

81 

77 

66 

60 

 
 
Mali 

Sri Lanka 

Honduras 

Comoros 

Nicaragua 

Kenya 

Zimbabwe 

Mongolia 

Equatorial Guinea 

Niger 

Tajikistan 

Benin 

Liberia 

Argentina 

Georgia 

Ecuador 

Kosovo 

Republic of the Congo 

Suriname 

Armenia 

Burkina Faso 

Cuba 

Guinea-Bissau 

Bolivia 

El Salvador 

140 

59 

57 

52 

49 

49 

46 

43 

39 

36 

35 

35 

33 

32 

27 

27 

26 

25 

24 

24 

23 

23 

23 

22 

21 

21 

 
 
Mauritius 

Sudan 

Uzbekistan 

Kyrgyzstan 

United Kingdom 

Madagascar 

South Africa 

Togo 

Burundi 

Tanzania 

Zambia 

Other 

20 

20 

20 

17 

16 

14 

14 

14 

13 

10 

10 

1,706 

). 

Table 2: Citizenship of victims of THB (non-EU citizens, 2013-2020)255 

255 Note: “Other” includes all nationalities  with  fewer than 10 individuals, those  marked as “other,” “autre Afrique,” 
“autre Europe est,” “autre Europe ouest,” and those marked as “stateless.” Entries marked as “Congo” subsumed under 
“Democratic Republic of the Congo.” 

141 

 
 
 
                                                 
Country 

Nigeria 

China 

Morocco 

Ukraine 

Philippines 

Brazil 

Moldova 

Pakistan 

India 

Albania 

Cameroon 

Uganda 

Afghanistan 

Colombia 

Guinea 

Vietnam 

Bangladesh 

Thailand 

Venezuela 

Tunisia 

Sierra Leone 

Serbia 

Algeria 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 

142 

Number 

6513 

1417 

824 

743 

605 

588 

473 

418 

406 

378 

375 

317 

303 

295 

291 

283 

279 

257 

228 

221 

217 

214 

205 

194 

 
 
Gambia 

Iraq 

Ghana 

Russia 

Egypt 

Syria 

Côte d'Ivoire 

Dominican Republic 

Paraguay 

Somalia 

Senegal 

Eritrea 

Nepal 

Peru 

Democratic Republic of the Congo 

North Korea 

Indonesia 

Turkey 

Angola 

North Macedonia 

Iran 

Belarus 

Vietnam 

Ethiopia 

Taiwan 

143 

193 

192 

190 

187 

172 

172 

161 

156 

150 

146 

140 

138 

130 

126 

124 

119 

109 

107 

93 

86 

84 

81 

77 

66 

60 

 
 
Mali 

Sri Lanka 

Honduras 

Comoros 

Nicaragua 

Kenya 

Zimbabwe 

Mongolia 

Equatorial Guinea 

Niger 

Tajikistan 

Benin 

Liberia 

Argentina 

Georgia 

Ecuador 

Kosovo 

Republic of the Congo 

Suriname 

Armenia 

Burkina Faso 

Cuba 

Guinea-Bissau 

Bolivia 

El Salvador 

144 

59 

57 

52 

49 

49 

46 

43 

39 

36 

35 

35 

33 

32 

27 

27 

26 

25 

24 

24 

23 

23 

23 

22 

21 

21 

 
 
Mauritius 

Sudan 

Uzbekistan 

Kyrgyzstan 

United Kingdom 

Madagascar 

South Africa 

Togo 

Burundi 

Tanzania 

Zambia 

Other 

20 

20 

20 

17 

16 

14 

14 

14 

13 

10 

10 

1,706 

Across  the  EU27,  approximately  one-third  (36%)  of  all  registered  victims  were  citizens  of  the 
country in which they are registered.256 Citizens of other EU countries accounted for approximately 
one fifth (21%) of all registered victims and non-EU citizens for approximately two fifths (44%) of 
registered  victims.  However,  this  EU-level  overview  obscures  important  differences  across 
individual  Member  States  (see  Figure  15).  In  some,  the  vast  majority  of  registered  victims  were 
citizens  of  that  country  –  this  was  particularly  the  case  for  Bulgaria  (100%),  Romania  (100%), 
Hungary (99%), Slovakia (96%), and Lithuania (91%). The Member States with the highest share 
of  citizens  of  other  EU  countries  among  registered  victims  were  the  Czech  Republic  (65%), 
Germany (48%), Ireland (41%), Slovenia (39%), and Austria (37%). Lastly, in a few countries, the 
vast  majority  of  registered  victims  were  non-EU  citizens.  This  was  notably  the  case  for  Sweden 
(96%), Malta (90%), Finland (86%), Denmark (87%), and Belgium and Italy (both 75%).  

256 No information on citizenship was available for 8% of all victims. Further, the citizenship of about 2% of victims as 
indicated as “unknown.” These records were excluded from the analysis presented in this paragraph. 

145 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 15: Victims by citizenship type per Member State, as a % of the total cases of THB 
reported (2013-2020) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK

Own

Other EU

non-EU

During 2015-2020,257 there was very little difference in the sex breakdown between EU and non-
EU  victims  until  2018.  Afterwards,  victims  with  EU  citizenship  were  notably  more  likely  to  be 
female than victims with non-EU citizenship, although sex information was not available for 7% of 
citizenship records during the reporting period.258 The majority of both  groups were female, with 
the  gap  between  the  share  of  women  in  the  EU  and  the  non-EU  group  reaching  14  percentage 
points in 2020 (see Figure 16). 

257  Sex breakdown of victims by citizenship group is not available for 2013 and 2014. 
258  One  implication  of  this  data  gap  is  that  the  share  of  females  arrived  at  by  looking  at  victims  with  citizenship 
information only is somewhat lower than the share of females when analyzing all victims with sex data (72% vs. 75%, 
respectively).  In  other  words,  female  victims  appear  to  be  slightly  less  likely  to  have  their  citizenship  information 
identified and recorded than male victims. 

146 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 16: Share of female victims by citizenship group among victims registered in the EU27 
(2015-2020) 

78%

75%

71%

76%

65%

54%

73%

67%

59%

79%

77%

76%

77%

76%

76%

76%

76%

76%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU

Non-EU

All victims

During  the  same  reference  period,  there  was  a  marked  difference  between  the  EU  and  non-EU 
groups  and  their  age  distribution  where  data  on  victims’  age  group  were  provided.  There  were 
notably  more  children  among  victims  with  EU  citizenship  than  among  victims  with  non-EU 
citizenship  and  the  difference  increased  over  time,  largely  due  to  the  decrease  in  the  share  of 
children  in  the  non-EU  group  (see  Figure  17).  Age  group  data  were  not  available  for  11%  of 
records with citizenship information.259  

259 Similarly to the discussion of sex breakdowns presented above, an analysis of records with both citizenship and age 
group data yields a share of 23% of children among all victims, whereas an analysis of records with only age group data 
yields a share of 21% of children among all victims. In other words, child victims appear to be slightly more likely to 
have their citizenship information identified and recorded than adult victims. 

147 

 
 
 
  
                                                 
Figure 17: Share of children by citizenship group among victims registered in the EU27 
(2015-2020) 

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

32%

30%

24%

14%

23%

17%

34%

36%

35%

37%

24%

23%

25%

21%

13%

10%

6%

7%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU

Non-EU

All victims

1.4.  Trends in criminal justice system indicators related to THB 

ESTAT  collects  data  on  a  variety  of  aspects  pertaining  to  the  criminal  justice  involvement  of 
individuals  in  connection  with  THB  cases.  Figure  18  shows  trends  in  three  headline  indicators 
related  to  the  processing  of  individuals  in  the  criminal  justice  system  –  suspects  individuals, 
prosecuted  individuals,  and  convicted  individuals.  Of  the  three,  the  number  of  recorded  suspects 
shows  the  most  pronounced  increase,  nearly  doubling  from  approximately  3,000  in  2013  to  just 
under  8,000  in  2019.  However,  much  of  this  increase  is  attributable  to  a  gradual  closing  of  data 
gaps. For instance, there are no data from Italy before 2017 and Italy alone recorded approximately 
2,000 suspects in 2017 and 2018.260 The number of recorded prosecuted individuals also rose over 
the reporting period, with a marked increase between 2014 and 2015 and a relatively  stable trend 
thereafter. Again, the observed rise appears to be primarily a function of the fact that 2015 is the 
first  year  in  which  data  from  France  are  available.  Lastly,  the  number  of  recorded  convicted 
individuals increased somewhat over the reporting period, with a precipitous drop recorded in 2018. 
As  with  the  previous  two  indicators,  even  this  is  largely  explicable  by  data  issues  –  no  data  are 
available  for  that  year  for  Belgium,  France,  and  the  Netherlands,  all  Member  States  with 
comparatively high numbers of recorded convictions in prior years. 

260 The increase recorded in 2019 is also largely attributable to data from Italy, which reported an increase of more than 
2,000 suspects from 2018 to 2019. 

148 

 
 
 
  
                                                 
Figure 18: Trends in headline criminal justice indicators related to THB cases (2015-2020) 

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

7924

7290

5919

5868

2942

2983

3159

3016

1892

1455

1830

1497

1580

3943

3187

2976

3484

3055

2384

1341

1734

1724

1295

693

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Suspected

Prosecuted

Convicted

1.4.1.  Individuals suspected of THB crimes 
Over  the  period  2015-2020,261  the  majority  of  individuals  suspected  of  THB  crimes  where  sex 
information  was  recorded  were  male  (73%).  As  Figure  19,  shows,  the  sex  breakdown  of  THB 
suspects  stayed  relatively  constant  over  time,  with  the  share  of  males  staying  between  69%  and 
76% in individual years. 

261 Data on the sex of suspects only began being available in 2015. The sex of suspects was recorded as “unknown” in 
5% of instances over the 2015-2020 period, although completeness of data improved substantially over time – in 2019 
and 2020 fewer than 1% of records indicated the sex of the suspect as “unknown”. 

149 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 19: Sex of individuals suspected of THB crimes in EU27 (by year, 2015-2020) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

74%

69%

74%

73%

72%

76%

26%

31%

26%

27%

28%

24%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Female Male

Correspondingly, men accounted for the majority of individuals suspected of THB crimes in all but 
one Member State (see Figure 20). The exception to the rule was Latvia where women accounted 
for  62%  of  recorded  suspects,  in  further  three  Member  States  (EE,  FI,  MT),  the  proportion  of 
women among suspects exceeded 40%. 

Figure 20: Sex of individuals suspected of THB crimes in EU27 (by Member State, 2015-2020) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

L
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

R
H

U I
E
H

T
I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

I

E S
S

K
S

Female Male

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Perhaps  unsurprisingly,  the  vast  majority  (96%)  of  those  suspected  of  THB  crimes  in  2015-2020 
were adults.262 As with gender, the age breakdown of suspects  stayed constant  over the reporting 
period, with the share of children among suspects staying between 2% and 5% in individual years. 
In four Member States, the share of children was notably higher than the EU average. In Estonia, 
children accounted for the majority of recorded suspects (53%); however, this needs to be viewed 
in  light  of  a  very  small  number  of  suspects  recorded  in  Estonia  in  2015-2020  (n=42).  In  further 
three Member States (CZ, HU, SE), the share of children exceeded 10%.263  

With respect to various types of exploitation, individuals were most frequently suspected in relation 
to  sexual  exploitation  (72%),  followed  by  labour  (18%)  and  other  (10%) types of exploitation.264 
However, as  Figure 21 shows, the share of sexual exploitation as an underlying reason decreased 
over  time  from  a  high  of  81%  in  2017  to  65%  in  2020.  This  was  contrasted  with  a  rise  in  the 
frequency of labour exploitation, reaching 24% of cases of suspects in 2020, and with a somewhat 
less notable rise in suspicions related to other forms of exploitation. 

Figure 21: Individuals suspected of THB crimes and underlying form of exploitation in EU27 
(by year, 2015-2020) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

4%

18%

14%

9%

7%

12%

8%

16%

12%

23%

12%

24%

78%

77%

81%

76%

65%

65%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Sexual

Labour

Other

Correspondingly,  in  most  Member  States  sexual  exploitation  was  the  most  commonly  recorded 
form  in  connection  with  suspects  (see  Figure  22).  The  Member  States  with  the  highest  shares  of 
sexual exploitation cases were Finland (100%), Hungary (97%), Greece (92%), Ireland (88%), and 
the  Czech  Republic  (87%).  However,  in  three  Member  States,  labour  exploitation  was  the  most 
frequently indicated form – these were Malta (82%), Luxembourg (52%) and Belgium (48%). 

262 Age group was recorded as “unknown” in 9% of cases. No data on age group of suspects provided by PT. 
263  In  the  case  of  Sweden,  this  is  possibly  attributable  to  data  issues.  Information  on  suspects’  age  group  is  only 
available for 2015 and is recorded as “unknown” in the remaining years. 
264 Form of exploitation marked as “unknown” in 12% of cases. No data on forms of exploitation and suspects available 
from BG, DK, PT, RO. 

151 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 22: Individuals suspected of THB crimes and underlying form of exploitation in EU27 
(by Member State, 2015-2020) 265 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

AT BE CY CZ DE EE

EL

ES

FI

FR HR HU IE

IT

LT

LU LV MT NL PL

SE

SI

SK

Sexual

Labour

Other

Lastly,  with  respect  to  the  citizenship  of  individuals  suspected  of  THB  crimes,  EU  citizens 
accounted for more than two thirds (70%) of all suspects with known country of citizenship during 
the  2015-2020  period.  However,  as  Figure  23  shows,  the  proportion  of  non-EU  citizens  among 
suspects increased steadily during the reporting period, reaching 41% in 2020. 

265 Note: Data missing for BG, DK, PT, RO. 

152 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 23: Citizenship of individuals suspected of THB crimes (by year, 2015-2020) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

10%

18%

27%

33%

34%

90%

82%

73%

67%

66%

41%

59%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU

Non-EU

EU  Member  States  with  the  highest  number  of  nationals  among  those  suspected  of  THB  crimes 
were Romania (5,685),  Italy (5,545), France (3,914), Hungary (1,882), and Germany (1,219) (see 
Table 3).  

Table 3: Citizenship of individuals suspected of THB crimes (EU citizens, 2015-2020) 

Country 

Number of suspects 

5685 

5545 

3914 

1882 

1219 

1102 

436 

381 

248 

247 

Romania 

Italy 

France 

Hungary 

Germany 

Bulgaria 

Belgium 

Spain 

Greece 

Slovakia 

153 

 
 
 
 
Netherlands 

Latvia 

Poland 

Croatia 

Lithuania 

Czech Republic 

Slovenia 

Austria 

Finland 

Portugal 

Estonia 

Cyprus 

Malta 

Luxembourg 

Denmark 

Sweden 

Ireland 

224 

214 

192 

185 

147 

129 

80 

67 

66 

65 

29 

24 

8 

7 

6 

6 

5 

The most frequent non-EU nationalities among suspects were Nigeria (2,441), China (1,165), and 
Albania (695) (Table 4).  

Table 4: Citizenship of individuals suspected of THB crimes (non-EU citizens, 2015-2020) 266 

Country 

Nigeria 

Number 

2441 

266 Note: “Other” includes all nationalities with fewer than 10 individuals, those marked as “other” and those marked as 
“stateless.” 

154 

 
 
 
                                                 
1165 

695 

490 

456 

237 

234 

222 

194 

179 

145 

143 

140 

138 

123 

111 

97 

89 

86 

86 

82 

72 

65 

64 

58 

57 

China 

Albania 

Pakistan 

Morocco 

Brazil 

Tunisia 

Turkey 

India 

Colombia 

Algeria 

Bangladesh 

Serbia 

Ukraine 

Egypt 

Syria 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 

Venezuela 

Ghana 

Iraq 

Cameroon 

Dominican Republic 

Peru 

Afghanistan 

Russia 

Côte d'Ivoire 

155 

 
 
Senegal 

Moldova 

Philippines 

Thailand 

North Macedonia 

Paraguay 

Vietnam 

Ecuador 

Kosovo 

Eritrea 

Belarus 

Sudan 

Gambia 

Mali 

United Kingdom 

DR Congo 

Iran 

Liberia 

Armenia 

Guinea 

Sri Lanka 

Sierra Leone 

Nicaragua 

Somalia 

Ethiopia 

156 

54 

53 

51 

48 

44 

40 

46 

39 

30 

27 

26 

26 

25 

25 

21 

20 

20 

17 

16 

16 

15 

14 

13 

13 

12 

 
 
Argentina 

Burkina Faso 

Cuba 

Honduras 

Other 

11 

11 

11 

10 

839 

1.4.2.  Individuals prosecuted for THB crimes 

Most individuals prosecuted for THB crimes in 2015-2020 in the EU27 where information on sex 
was  provided  were  male  (74%).267  There  were  no  notable  changes  in  this  indicator  over  the 
reporting period, with the share of males staying between 72% and 76% in individual years (Figure 
24). 

Figure 24: Sex of individuals prosecuted for THB crimes in EU27 (by year, 2015-2020) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

75%

75%

73%

76%

72%

75%

25%

25%

27%

24%

28%

25%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Female Male

Men accounted for the majority of prosecuted individuals in all Member States during the reporting 
period. The Member States with the highest shares of women among those prosecuted were Spain 
(44%), Malta (40%), Latvia (39%), the Czech Republic (38%), and Croatia (37%) (Figure 25). 

267 Information on sex of prosecuted individuals was recorded as “unknown” in 9% of cases in 2015-2020. No sex data 
were available for BG, DE, and PL. 

157 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 25: Sex of individuals prosecuted for THB crimes in EU27 (by Member State, 2015-
2020) 268 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

AT BE CY CZ DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PT RO SE SI SK

Female Male

Other

As Figure 26 shows, the vast majority of prosecuted individuals in 2015-2020 in EU27 were adults 
(95%). This indicator remained stable over the reporting period with the exception of 2016 when 
children accounted for 15% of recorded prosecuted individuals.269 However, this deviation from the 
long-term  average  may  be  a  function  of  available  data  –  only  11  Member  States  provided 
information  on  sex  in  2016  of  which  two  (HU  and  RO)  reported  comparatively  high  numbers  of 
defendants who were children. 

268 Note: Data missing for BG, DE, PL. 
269 Over the reporting period, in 25% of cases the age group of the prosecuted individual was recorded as “unknown”. 
No age group data were available for BG, DE, IE, and PL.  

158 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 26: Age of individuals prosecuted for THB crimes in EU27 (by year, 2015-2020) 

100%

6%

2%

3%

5%

5%

15%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

94%

85%

98%

97%

95%

95%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Adult

Child

Correspondingly,  adults  were  the  vast  majority  of  prosecuted  individuals  in  all  Member  States. 
Hungary stands out as having a relatively higher share of children among those prosecuted for THB 
crimes (20%). The Czech Republic (8%) and Romania (6%) also reported above-average shares of 
children; by contrast, twelve Member States (CY, DK, EE, EL, ES, LT, LU, MT, PT, SE, SI, SK) 
did  not  report  any  prosecuted  children,  although  in  at  least  some  cases  this  may  have  been  a 
function of data reporting (see Figure 27). 

Figure 27: Age of individuals prosecuted for THB crimes in EU27 (by Member State, 2015-
2020) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

AT BE CY CZ DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IT LT LU LV MT NL PT RO SE SI SK

Adult

Child

159 

 
 
 
 
 
Sexual  exploitation  was  the  most  common  reason  for  prosecution,  accounting  for  71%  of  all 
recorded  prosecuted  persons.  270  Its  share  briefly  decreased  in  2017-2018  but  recovered  to  reach 
81% in 2020. Simultaneously, the share of labour exploitation cases increased from 1% in 2015 to 
24% in 2019 and then falling to 16% in 2020%. The share of other forms of exploitation decreased 
steadily to represent only 3% of cases in 2020 (see Figure 28). 

Figure 28: Prosecuted individuals and underlying form of exploitation in EU27 (by year, 
2015-2020) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

22%

1%

24%

2%

21%

18%

17%

22%

5%

24%

3%

16%

76%

74%

61%

61%

71%

81%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Sexual

Labour

Other

As  with  suspects,  sexual  exploitation  was  the  most  frequent  form  recorded  for  prosecuted 
individuals  in  most  Member  States,  where  the  form  was  recorded  as  known,  reaching  100%  in 
Austria  and  Romania,  and  97%  in  Hungary.  Labour  exploitation  was  the  most  common  form  of 
exploitation in Ireland (100% of cases), Denmark (67%), and Malta (60%) (see Figure 29). 

270 Form of exploitation was recorded as “unknown” in 10% of cases. No data on forms of exploitation and prosecuted 
persons available for BE, CZ, DE, PT, SI, SK. 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 29: Prosecuted individuals and underlying form of exploitation in EU27 (by Member 
State, 2015-2020) 271 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

AT BG CY DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR HR HU IE

IT

LT

LU LV MT NL

PL RO SE

Sexual

Labour

Other

Similar to suspects, EU citizens accounted for a clear majority (72%) of individuals prosecuted for 
THB  crimes  with  known  country  of  citizenship.  The  share  of  non-EU  citizens  among  prosecuted 
individuals rose sharply from 9% in 2016 to 36% in 2017 and has gradually decreased since then, 
reaching 27% in 2020 (Figure 30).272  

271 Note: Data missing for BE, CZ, DE, PT, SI, SK. 
272  The  vast  majority  of  prosecutions  were  recorded  while  the  UK  was  a  member  of  the  EU.  Only  16  prosecuted 
individuals were reported in the UK in 2020. 

161 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 30: Citizenship of prosecuted individuals (by year, 2015-2020) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

15%

9%

36%

34%

33%

85%

91%

64%

66%

67%

27%

73%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU

Non-EU

EU  Member  States  with  the  highest  number  of  citizens  among  prosecuted  were  France  (2,934), 
Romania (2,560), Hungary (963), Belgium (759), and the Netherlands (238) (Table 5).  

Table 5: Citizenship of individuals prosecuted for THB crimes (EU citizens, 2015-2020) 

Country 

France 

Romania 

Hungary 

Belgium 

Netherlands 

Bulgaria 

Poland 

Lithuania 

Italy 

Austria 

Czech Republic 

Number 

2934 

2560 

963 

759 

238 

215 

202 

198 

148 

128 

103 

162 

 
 
 
 
Greece 

Portugal 

Spain 

Croatia 

Latvia 

Cyprus 

Slovakia 

Estonia 

Germany 

Malta 

Finland 

Slovenia 

Denmark 

Luxembourg 

Sweden 

89 

69 

60 

49 

43 

38 

24 

23 

20 

12 

11 

9 

8 

7 

2 

The most common non-EU countries  of citizenship among  registered defendants  for THB crimes 
were Nigeria (655), China (368), and the United Kingdom (153) (Table 6).  

Table 6: Citizenship of individuals prosecuted for THB crimes (non-EU citizens, 2015-2020) 
273 

Country 

Nigeria 

China 

United Kingdom 

Number 

655 

368 

153 

273 Note: “Other” includes all nationalities with fewer than 10 individuals, those marked as “other” and those marked as 
“stateless.” 

163 

 
 
 
                                                 
Albania 

Morocco 

Serbia 

Eritrea 

Ukraine 

Pakistan 

Brazil 

Turkey 

India 

Suriname 

Egypt 

Bosnia & Herzegovina 

Russia 

Iraq 

Moldova 

Venezuela 

Iran 

Ethiopia 

Syria 

Afghanistan 

Algeria 

Cameroon 

Bangladesh 

Colombia 

Paraguay 

164 

78 

58 

52 

39 

36 

35 

34 

32 

26 

25 

24 

22 

22 

21 

19 

19 

18 

16 

16 

14 

13 

13 

12 

11 

11 

 
 
Dominican Republic 

North Macedonia 

Sudan 

Vietnam 

Other 

10 

10 

10 

10 

1,610 

1.4.3.  Individuals convicted of THB crimes 

In  line  with  the  preceding  sections,  men  accounted  for  a  clear  majority  (74%)  of  individuals 
convicted of THB crimes in the EU27 in 2015-2020.274 As Figure 31 shows, there was very little 
variation in this indicator over time. 

Figure 31: Sex of individuals convicted of THB crimes in EU27 (by year, 2015-2020) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

70%

73%

78%

74%

75%

74%

30%

27%

22%

26%

25%

26%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Female Male

Correspondingly, men accounted for the majority of convicted individuals in all but one Member 
State.275 Member States with comparatively higher shares of women among those convicted were 
(in descending order) Denmark, Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, and Austria (see Figure 32). However, it is 
plausible  that  the  observed  sex  breakdowns  are  distorted  by  the  relatively  high  prevalence  of  the 
“unknown” sex designation in available data. 

274 Sex was reported as “unknown” in 9% of cases. No sex information data available for IE. 
275 The only exception was Denmark, with women representing 67% of convicted individuals. However, this is likely a 
function of data availability as only 3 cases with known sex were reported in Denmark over the 2015-2020 period. 

165 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 32: Sex of individuals convicted for THB crimes in EU27 (by Member State, 2015-
2020) 276 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK

Female Male

Other

Adults  accounted  for  nearly  all  (98%)  individuals  convicted  for  THB  crimes  in  2015-2020  and 
never in the reporting period did the share of children among those convicted exceed 3%. This is 
reflected in the situation in individual Member States, of which 13 reported no convicted children 
(AT, BE, CY, DK, EL, LT, LU, LV, MT, PT, SE, SI, SK). Croatia was the Member States with by 
far  the  highest  share  of  children  among  convicted  individuals  (22%)  –  though  with  a  very  low 
denominator – followed by the Czech Republic (10%) and Finland (9%). 

Sexual  exploitation  was  consistently  the  most  common  form  of  exploitation  in  connection  with 
convicted individuals, accounting for 68% of cases.277 Its share decreased notably in 2018 but then 
reversed the trend to reach 72% in 2020. The share of labour exploitation grew over time to reach 
approximately 20% in recent years. By contrast, the share of other forms of exploitation decreased 
over the reporting period (Figure 33). 

276 Note: Data missing for IE. 
277  “Unknown”  form  of  exploitation  was  recorded  in  14%  of  cases.  No  data  on  forms  of  exploitation  and  convicted 
individuals available for BG, CZ, DK, HU, IE, IT, PT. 

166 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 33: Convicted individuals and underlying form of exploitation in EU27 (by year, 2015-
2020) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

25%

1%

30%

1%

74%

69%

16%

21%

64%

38%

10%

51%

11%

22%

10%

19%

66%

72%

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Sexual

Labour

Other

Correspondingly,  among  Member  States  reporting  on  forms  of  exploitation  in  relation  to 
conviction, most indicate sexual exploitation as the most common one and in three Member States 
(FI, RO, SE) even the only one reported. No Member State reported labour exploitation as the most 
common form, while other forms of exploitations were most frequently reported in Cyprus, Estonia, 
Croatia, Lithuania, and Slovakia (Figure 34). 

167 

 
 
 
 
Figure 34: Convicted individuals and underlying form of exploitation in EU27 (by Member 
State, 2015-2020) 278 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

AT

BE

CY DE

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR HR

LT

LU LV MT NL

PL

RO SE

SI

SK

Sexual

Labour

Other

278 Note: Data missing for BG, CZ, DK, HU, EI, IT, PT. 

168 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Since  2017,  data  are  also  available  on  the  citizenship  of  convicted  individuals.  In  contrast  with 
suspected  and  prosecuted  persons,  convicted  individuals  were  broadly  evenly  split  between  EU 
citizens (51%) and non-EU citizens (49%). As  

Figure 35 shows, the share of non-EU citizens decreased somewhat overtime from 56% in 2017 to 
41% in 2020.  

Figure 35: Citizenship of convicted individuals (by year, 2017-2020) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

56%

55%

44%

41%

44%

45%

56%

59%

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU

Non-EU

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on ESTAT data 

EU  Member  States  with  the  highest  numbers  of  citizens  among  convicted  individuals  were 
Romania (1,178), France (1,047), Germany (371), Bulgaria (240), and Lithuania (92) (Table 7).  

Table 7: Citizenship of individuals convicted of THB crimes (EU citizens, 2017-2020) 

Country 

Romania 

France 

Germany 

Number 

1178 

1047 

371 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bulgaria 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Belgium 

Hungary 

Netherlands 

Spain 

Slovakia 

Portugal 

Czech Republic 

Italy 

Latvia 

Estonia 

Austria 

Croatia 

Finland 

Malta 

Slovenia 

Greece 

Denmark 

Cyprus 

240 

92 

86 

69 

67 

62 

61 

48 

45 

43 

34 

25 

18 

10 

8 

6 

6 

4 

3 

1 

1 

The  most  frequently  recorded  non-EU  countries  of  citizenship  among  convicted  individuals  were 
Nigeria (273), China (178), and Morocco (107) (Table 8). 

Table 8: Citizenship of individuals convicted of THB crimes (non-EU citizens, 2017-2020) 

Row Labels 

Number 

170 

 
 
 
Nigeria 

China 

Morocco 

United Kingdom 

Turkey 

Albania 

Brazil 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 

Algeria 

Afghanistan 

Syria 

Thailand 

Other279 

273 

178 

107 

75 

39 

25 

23 

18 

15 

14 

12 

11 

724 

1.4.4.  Use of exploited services 

Since 2015, Eurostat has also collected data related to the criminal offence of use of services, which 
are the objects of exploitation of victims. Altogether, during the reporting period of 2015-2020, 331 
individuals  were  reported  as  suspects  in  cases  related  to  the  use  of  services,  343  persons  were 
reported as prosecuted for these offenses and 202 were reported as convicted of such offenses. As 
Figure 36 shows, there is no clear trend in these indicators across the reporting period. Early on, the 
number  of  reported  prosecuted  individuals  vastly  outnumbered  the  other  two  categories,  while  in 
more recent years the number of reported suspects has been notably higher than that for the other 
two  categories.  However,  it  is  necessary  to  acknowledge  that  data  on  the  use  of  services  suffers 
from  serious  data  gaps,  which  affect  the  statistics  presented  above.  Data  on  this  indicator  are 
available only for 18 Member States, of which only 11 reported on all three categories.280 Notably, 
countries  for  which  no  data  are  available  include  some  with  comparatively  high  numbers  of 
recorded victims such as France, Spain and the Netherlands.281 

279 Note: “Other” includes all nationalities with fewer than 10 individuals, those marked as “other” and those marked as 
“stateless.” 
280 Of these 11 Member States, three (IE, SI, SK) positively reported zero individuals (as opposed to not providing any 
data at all). 
281 Some countries do not have any legislation criminalising knowing use of services extracted from victims. This might 
explain some of the data gaps; however, existing data gaps extend beyond this group of countries. 

171 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 36: Individuals involved with the criminal justice system in connection with the use of 
services, which are the objects of exploitation of victims (by criminal justice status, 2015-
2020) 

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

116

104

87

70

90

75

66

63

69

19

16

0

2

2

25

20

26

26

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Suspect

Prosecuted

Convicted

172 

 
 
 
ANNEX 6: TRANSPOSITION OF THE ANTI-TRAFFICKING DIRECTIVE 

This section provides an analysis of if and how the provisions of the Directive have been transposed 
by Member States. The methodology employed for this activity was as follows: 

1)  The external contractor used the analysis in the 2016 conformity assessment conducted for 
the European Commission282 as  a starting point. This assessment resulted in the European 
Commission’s  2016  Report  assessing  the  extent  to  which  Member  States  had  taken  the 
necessary  measures  in  order  to  comply  with  Directive  2011/36/EU  in  accordance  with 
Article  23(1).  In  relation  to  Article  18(4)  the  external  contractor  used  the  analysis  in  the 
2016 report by the Commission assessing the impact of existing national law, establishing 
as a criminal offence the use of services which are the objects of exploitation of trafficking 
in human beings, on the prevention of trafficking in human beings283 as the starting point.  

2)  A network of National Correspondents – one in each Member State except DK – were asked 
to indicate if there had been relevant changes to the national laws transposing the Directive 
since 2016.  

3)  In  addition,  the  external  contractor  analysed  responses  sent  by  Member  States  to  the 

Commission in 2019, as a result of a request for information from the EC.  

4)  The external contractor triangulated the information from the National Correspondents, the 
information 2016 Conformity Assessment and the information provided by MS to the EC in 
2019 in order to update the 2016 Conformity assessments.  

5)  A draft version of the assessment was share with National Rapporteurs for clarification and 

validation.  

This information is displayed visually below, as follows:  

Transpo
sed  

Partially 
transposed 

Not 
transposed 

Not 
transpo
sed 
optiona
l 
provisi
on 

changes 

No 
observed 

Minor 
changes 

Major 
changes 

Change 
since 
2016 
assessm
ent 

  The  dark  blue  cells  indicate  major  changes  to  national  legislation  since  2016,  while  the 

light blue cells indicate minor changes.  

282 These assessments were conducted for the European Commission by TIPIK. 
283 European Commission (2016) REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE  COUNCIL  assessing  the  impact  of  existing  national  law,  establishing  as  a  criminal  offence  the  use  of  services 
which are the objects of exploitation of trafficking in human beings, on the prevention of trafficking in human beings, 
in accordance with Article 23 (2) of the Directive 2011/36/EU. Available at: link 

173 

 
 
 
                                                 
  Green cells indicate full transposition. 

  Orange cells indicate partial transposition. 

  Red cells indicate that the national law has not transposed that article of the Directive.  

  Purple  cells  indicate  that  Member  States  decided  not  to  transpose  optional  articles  of  the 

Directive. 

  Dark  green  cells  indicate  that  the  external  contractor’  analysis  identified  that,  after  the 
changes to national legislation or clarifications, Member States have transposed the Article 
of the Directive, when the conclusion of the 2016 assessment was that they had not.  

Article 1: Subject matter 

Article 1: Subject matter 

This  Directive  establishes  minimum  rules  concerning  the  definition  of  criminal  offences  and 
sanctions in the area of trafficking in human beings. It also introduces common provisions, taking 
into account the gender perspective, to strengthen the prevention of this crime and the protection of 
the victims thereof. 

As  Article  1  presents  the  subject  matter  of  the  Directive,  a  transposition  assessment  is  not 
applicable.  

Article 2: Offences concerning trafficking in human beings 

Article 2 of the Directive provides a common definition of THB and related offences against which 
Member States have to ensure criminalisation measures. The text of this provision is set out below.  

Article 2: Offences concerning trafficking in human beings 

1.  Member States  shall take the necessary measures to  ensure that the  following intentional  acts 

are punishable: 

The  recruitment,  transportation,  transfer,  harbouring  or  reception  of  persons,  including  the 
exchange or transfer of control over those persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other 
forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of 
vulnerability  or  of  the  giving  or  receiving  of  payments  or  benefits  to  achieve  the  consent  of  a 
person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. 

2.  A  position  of  vulnerability  means  a  situation  in  which  the  person  concerned  has  no  real  or 

acceptable alternative but to submit to the abuse involved. 

3.  Exploitation shall include, as a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other 
forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, including begging, slavery or practices 
similar to slavery, servitude, or the exploitation of criminal activities, or the removal of organs. 

4.  The consent of a victim of trafficking in human beings to the exploitation, whether intended or 

actual, shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in paragraph 1 has been used. 

5.  When the conduct referred to in paragraph 1 involves a child, it shall be a punishable offence of 
trafficking in human beings even if none of the means set forth in paragraph 1 has been used. 

174 

 
 
6.  For the purpose of this Directive, ‘child’ shall mean any person below 18 years of age. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below.   

Art. 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

2(1)  1st 
subpar
a. 

2(1) 
2nd 
subpar
a. 

2(2) 

2(3) 

2(4) 

2(5) 

2(6) 

Chang
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were: 

  All these changes have improved the transposition of the Directive, and in some cases mean 

that MS have fully transposed a provision of the Directive for the first time.    

  Regarding Article 2(2): 

o  ES:  the  2016  Assessment  concluded  partial  transposition  because  the  term 
‘abduction’ is not mentioned as one of the means by which the offence is committed 
(in  Article  177a(1)  of  the  Spanish  Criminal  Code).  However,  ES  clarified  that  the 
omission of the term ‘abduction’ was deliberate, since abduction is an offence in its 
own  right  in  Spanish  law,  punishable  by  penalties  up  to  20  years’  imprisonment. 
When  the  means  of  committing  another  offence  constitutes  an  offence  in  its  own 
right  -  a  ‘means  to  an  end’  -  it  is  governed  in  Spanish  law  by  the  concept  of 
concurrent offences, as specified in the general part of the Code, under Article 77. 
For  this  reason  it  would  not  have  been  appropriate  to  insert  the  precise  term  into 
Article 177a without actually implying, on the contrary, less criminal protection or 
that  such  acts  would  not  be  prosecuted  when  committed  in  this  way.  The 

175 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
assessment made in the context of the evaluation finds that ES has transposed 
Article 2(1) of the Directive.  

  Regarding Article 2(3): 

o  EE: This change is being clarified with the national correspondent. 

o  EL:  In  2019  Article  323  A  of  the  Greek  Penal  Code  came  into  force,  this  includes  all 
forms of exploration as foreseen in the Directive. Based on the assessment made in the 
context  of  the  evaluation,  this  change  means  that  EL  has  now  transposed  Article 
2(3) of the Directive.  

o  HU  amended  its  legislation  to  include  “Forced  Labour”  as  a  possible  purpose  of 
trafficking in human beings. The previous system provided a standalone crime for forced 
labour, thus hampering conformity with the transposition of Article 2(3). Moreover, the 
definition of “Forced Labour” was further specified. Based on the assessment made in 
the  context  of  the  evaluation,  this  change  means  that  HU  has  now  transposed 
Article 2(3) of the Directive.  

o  LT: This change is being clarified with the national correspondent.  

o  SE  amended  its  legislation  in  a  way  that  it  now  specifies  some  forms  of  exploitation, 
which  were  previously  covered  by  a  catch-all  provision  transposing  Article  2(3). 
Specifically,  Swedish  law  now  explicitly  refers  to  “forced  labour”,  “labour  under 
clearly unreasonable conditions” and “begging”. 

  Regarding Article 2(4): 

o  EL:  In 2019 an amended Article 323 A of the Greek Penal Code came into force, this 
includes reference to the fact that the consent of the victim is irrelevant, in case this has 
been extracted through means of deception or abuse of power or other. The assessment 
made in the context of the evaluation finds that this change means that EL has now 
transposed Article 2(4) of the Directive.   

  Regarding Article 2(5):  

o  EL: In 2019 Article 323 A of the Greek Penal Code came into force, this includes that 
where  the  victim  is  a  minor,  the  consent  is  irrelevant  regardless  if  means  have  been 
deployed to extract his or her consent or not.  The assessment made in the context of 
the evaluation means that EL has now transposed Article 2(5) of the Directive.  

Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition: 

  Article 2(1): While the use of threat, force, other forms of coercion and the abuse of position 
of  vulnerability  are  covered  by  all  Member  States,  some  Member  States284  still  do  not 
explicitly include other means covered by article 2(1).  

  Article 2(2): Some Member States285 define the position of vulnerability in different ways, 

and they do not always cover all the forms of vulnerability. 

284 In EE, FR, LV, HU and FI, there is no explicit mention of “abduction” and “fraud”. IT does not explicitly include 
“abduction”, SI does not refer to “fraud”, AT does not refer to “abduction”, EE, HU and SI do not refer to “giving or 
receiving of payments or benefits”.  

176 

 
 
                                                 
  Article  2(3):  Several  Member  States286  do  not  include  explicit  references  to  some  of  the 
forms of exploitation referred to in Article 2(3), such as slavery, servitude, begging or the 
exploitation of criminal activities.  

  Article 2(4): Most Member States are compliant with Article 2(4) on the irrelevance of the 
victim’s consent. Although a few Member States287 do not make an explicit refence to this 
element in their national legislation.   

  Article 2(5) and Article 2(6): For DE, a “child” for the purposes of THB is a person under 

the age of 14, thus possibly hampering conformity with both Articles 2(5) and 2(6).  

Article 3: Incitement, aiding and abetting, and attempt 

Article  3  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  “take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that 
inciting,  aiding  and  abetting  or  attempting  to  commit  an  offence  referred  to  in  Article  2  is 
punishable”. The provision is set out below. 

Article 3: Incitement, aiding and abetting, and attempt 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  inciting,  aiding  and  abetting  or 
attempting to commit an offence referred to in Article 2 is punishable. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below.  

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

Art. 

3 

Chang
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were: 

  HU:  Incitement,  aiding  and  abetting,  and  attempt  were  already  punishable  acts  under 
Hungarian law in 2016 and remain to be so. The change relates to the penalty thresholds set 
for these acts. An amendment of Article 192 of the Hungarian Criminal Code set the penalty 
threshold up to one year imprisonment for preparation of the acts set out in Article 192(1), 
up  to  three  years  of  imprisonment  for  preparation  of  the  acts  in  Article  192(2)-(3)  and 
between one to five years of imprisonment for the acts in Article 192(4).  

285 For instance, some national laws only mention the “abuse of a position od dependency” (BG, CZ).  Similar problems 
have been identified in DE, FR, HR and SI.  
286 Forms of exploitation that are not explicitly referred to in national legislations: Begging (HR, LV, SI), slavery and 
practices similar to slavery (BE, IT), exploitation of criminal activities (PL, RO, FI). Although Some Member States 
provide criminal sanctions for these crimes, conformity is affected because these forms of exploitation should be listed 
among the purposes for trafficking in human beings.  
287 For example, there is no reference to the irrelevance of victims’ consent in DE, LV, NL.  

177 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
                                                                                                                                                                  
Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition: 

  All Member States have transposed Article 3 in their national laws. 

Article 4: Penalties 

Article 4 lays down the minimum level of the maximum penalty that should be applicable for the 
offence of THB (Article 4(1)). It also lists aggravating circumstances (Article 4(2)), which should 
lead to the imposition of higher maximum penalties. The provisions are set out below.  

Article 4: Penalties 

1.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that an offence referred to in Article 

2 is punishable by a maximum penalty of at least five years of imprisonment. 

2.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that an offence referred to in Article 
2 is punishable by a maximum penalty of at least 10 years of imprisonment where that offence: 

(a)  was  committed against a victim who was  particularly vulnerable,  which,  in  the context  of 

this Directive, shall include at least child victims; 

(b) was  committed  within  the  framework  of  a  criminal  organisation  within  the  meaning  of 
Council  Framework  Decision  2008/841/JHA  of  24  October  2008  on  the  fight  against 
organised crime (15); 

(c)  deliberately or by gross negligence endangered the life of the victim; or 

(d) was  committed  by  use  of  serious  violence  or  has  caused  particularly  serious  harm  to  the 

victim. 

3.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the fact that an offence referred 
to in Article 2 was committed by public officials in the performance of their duties is regarded 
as an aggravating circumstance. 

4.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that an offence referred to in Article 
3 is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties, which may entail surrender. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below. 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

Art. 

4(1) 

4(2) 
Intro 

4(2)a 

4(2)b 

178 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
4(2)c 

4(2)d 

4(3) 

4(4) 

Chang
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were: 

  All the Member States who made changes were already at least partially compliant in 2016.  
  Regarding Article 4(2): 

o  ES: the 2016 assessment conclude partial transposition of Article 4(2)(d). However, ES 
has clarified that under Article 177a(4) of the criminal code, imprisonment  of between 
eight  years and one day  and twelve  years is imposed where “(a) the life or physical or 
mental  integrity  of  the  persons  subjected  to  the  offence  has  been  endangered;  b)
the  victim  is  particularly  vulnerable  because  of  illness,  pregnancy,  disability  or 
personal  circumstances,  or  is  a  minor.”  “Serious  violence”  (as  stated  in  the  Directive) 
exists  where  the  victim’s  life  or  physical  or  mental  integrity  is  endangered.  The 
assessment made in the context of the evaluation means that ES has now transposed 
Article 4(2) of the Directive. 

o  No changes were identified regarding the non-transposition of Article 4(3) by DE,  LV 

and SI.   

o  CY  amended  its  legislation  so  that  the  maximum  penalty  for  the  offence  of  THB  has 
been  raised.  Specifically,  for  trafficking  in  adult  persons  and  sexual  exploitation  of 
adults  (from  10  to  25  years),  for  labour  exploitation  (from  6  to  15  years),  in  case  the 
victim is a child (from 10 years to lifelong), and for sexual exploitation of children (from 
20 years to lifelong imprisonment).  

o  EL amended its legislation to enhance the maximum penalty for the offence of THB to 
“at  least  10  years  of  imprisonment”,  while  before  it  was  punishable  by  a  “maximum 
penalty of 10 years of imprisonment”.  

o  HU  raised  the  penalty  thresholds  for  the  offence  of  THB.  Among  others,  THB  for  the 
purpose  of  forced  labour  is  now  punished  between  2  and  8  years  (compared  to  the 
previous 1 to  5  years),  and sexual  exploitation  between 5 to  10  years of  imprisonment 
(compared to the previous 2-8 years).  

o  IT  added  two  aggravating  circumstances;  where  the  defendant  is  the  master  of  a  ship 
used for the purposes of human trafficking; where the defendant is a member of the crew 
of a ship used for the purposes of human trafficking.   

o  MT amended its criminal code so that the minimum penalty for the offence of THB was 

increased from 4 to 6 years imprisonment.  

179 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
o  RO also increased the minimum length of the penalty for the offence of THB from 3 to 5 
years, and from 5 to 7 years for its aggravated form. The maximum penalty stayed the 
same, namely 10 years of imprisonment, and 12 years for its aggravated form. Moreover, 
three  new  aggravated  forms  of  trafficking  of  minors  were  introduced,  such  as  if  the 
crime endangered the minor's life, and if the crime was committed by a family member.  

o  SE: This change is being clarified with the national correspondent 

o  SK amended its criminal code so that it introduced the use of a stricter criminal sanction 
(7  to  12  years  of  imprisonment)  where  the  offence  was  committed  by  two  or  more 
persons acting in conjunction.  

Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition: 

  Article  4(1):  The  2016  Conformity  Assessment  found  that  all  MS  had  transposed  this 

Article.   

  Article 4(2): Some MS do not include some of the aggravating circumstances listed in this 
Article in national law (BG, DE, EE). Some Member States do not have provisions applying 
the requirement of at least 10 years of imprisonment for the aggravating circumstances (BG, 
DE,  HU).  

  Article  4(3):  Several  MS  still  do  not  explicitly  provide  for  aggravated  penalties  for  THB 
offences committed by public officials in the performance of their duties (DE, FI, LV, PL, 
SE, SI). 

Article 5: Liability of legal persons 

Article 5 requires Member States to ensure that legal persons may be held liable for the offences 
referred to in Articles 2 and 3 and specifies the position or capacity of the perpetrator in relation to 
the legal person, which will lead to the legal person’s liability. The provisions are shown below.  

Article 5: Liability of legal persons 

1.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that legal persons can be held liable 
for the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3 committed for their benefit by any person, acting 
either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, who has a leading position within 
the legal person, based on: 

(a)  a power of representation of the legal person; 

(b) an authority to take decisions on behalf of the legal person; or 

(c)  an authority to exercise control within the legal person. 

2.  Member  States  shall  also  ensure  that  a  legal  person  can  be  held  liable  where  the  lack  of 
supervision  or  control,  by  a  person  referred  to  in  paragraph  1,  has  made  possible  the 
commission of the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3 for the benefit of that legal person by 
a person under its authority. 

3.  Liability  of  a  legal  person  under  paragraphs  1  and  2  shall  not  exclude  criminal  proceedings 
against natural persons who are perpetrators, inciters or accessories in the offences referred to in 
Articles 2 and 3. 

180 

 
 
4.  For the purpose of this Directive, ‘legal person’ shall mean any entity having legal personality 
under  the  applicable  law,  except  for  States  or  public  bodies  in  the  exercise  of  State  authority 
and for public international organisations. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below.  

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

Art. 

5(1) 
Intro 

5(1)a 

5(1)b 

5(1)c 

5(2) 

5(3) 

5(4) 

Chang
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were: 

  IT:  The liability of legal persons for labour  exploitation was specified. The criminal  code 
now  stipulates  that  also  intermediaries  and  third  parties  can  be  held  responsible,  and  lists 
several “exploitation indices” (e.g. unsustainable working hours, violation of safety, healthy 
and surveillance regulations).  

  LU: Following the 2019 Commission’s request for further information, LU replied that, by 
reading together Article 34 and Article 66 of the Criminal Code, the main participation by 
support  or  assistance  to  a  crime  or  an  offence  committed  on  behalf  or  in  the  interest  of  a 
legal  person  includes  the  lack  of  supervision  or  control  by  one  of  the  legal  person’s  legal 
bodies or by one or several of its  de jure or de facto managers. Based on the assessment 
made  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation,  this  clarification  means  that  LU  can  be 
considered to have transposed Article 5(2) of the Directive. 

  SE:  New  legislation  on  criminal  liability  of  legal  persons  entered  into  force  on  1  January 
2020,  with  the  aim  to  ensure  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the  Swedish  criminal 
regulatory  framework  for  legal  persons.  The  maximum  amount  for  corporate  fines  has 
increased from 10 million SEK to 500 million SEK. In addition, the scope of application of 
corporate fines does not only cover business activities, but also public sector activities that 

181 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
can be equated to business activities and other activities conducted by a legal person, if the 
illegal act was intended to bring the legal person financial benefit.  

Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition: 

  All Member states have introduced criminal or administrative liability of legal persons that 

shall lead to responsibility for the offence.  

  Some  MS  introduced  ad  hoc  provisions  concerning  corporate  liability  for  the  crimes  of 

THB,288 while others transposed Article 5 (1)(a) to (c) literally.289  

Article 6: Sanctions on legal persons 

Article  6  specifies  the  sanctions  for  legal  persons  which  should  be  available  within  MS.  The 
provisions are set out below.  

Article 6: Sanctions on legal persons 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held liable pursuant 
to  Article  5(1)  or  (2)  is  subject  to  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive  sanctions,  which  shall 
include criminal or non-criminal fines and may include other sanctions, such as: 

(a)  exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid; 

(b) temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of commercial activities; 

(c)  placing under judicial supervision; 

(d) judicial winding-up; 

(e)  temporary or permanent closure of establishments which have been used for committing the 

offence. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below. 

Art. 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

6 Intro 

6a 

6b 

6c 

6d 

288 LT, MT. 
289 EL, CY, LT, MT, PL, SK.  

182 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6e 

Chang
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were: 

  BE: The criminal code has been amended and it now specifies that only a guilty verdict may 
be  pronounced  against  certain  bodies  of  the  State  (i.e.  Federal  State,  Regions  and 
communities, municipalities), to the exclusion of any other penalty. Concerning Article 6(a), 
Belgian law previously provided that for public contracts, any candidate or tenderer shall be 
denied  access  to  any  public  contracts  if  he/she  has  been  convicted  by  a  judgment  which 
related  to  the  participation  to  a  criminal  organisation,  corruption,  fraud  or  money 
laundering. However, this did  not correspond to  the crime of trafficking in human beings. 
Therefore,  the  2016  conformity  assessment  concluded  that  the  law  was  not  entirely  in 
conformity  with  the  Directive’s  optional  requirement  set  out  in  Article  6(a).  BE  has  now 
modified  its  national  legislation,  and  the  provisions  concerning  the  exclusion  from  public 
tenders  for persons  and  companies  convicted  for human trafficking have been included in 
the new text. Concerning Article 6(e), the criminal code already specified that, as a specific 
sanction for the crimes of trafficking in human beings, the court may order the temporary or 
permanent,  partial  or  complete  closure  of  the  enterprise  in  which  the  crime  is  committed. 
The  amendment  specified  that  the  partial  or  complete  closure  of  the  enterprise  can  be 
pronounced by a judge for a term of between one and twenty years. However, no changes 
have  been  identified  concerning  the  transposition  of  the  optional  sanction  provided  in 
Article 6(c). 

  EL: Article 6(e) of the Directive has been included in national law (law 4198/2013, article 

3, para 1). 

  LT: Article 43 of the criminal code – defining the types of penalties for legal entities -  was 
amended by including an additional paragraph (n. 5), which now provides that, besides the 
penalty,  legal  persons  may  also  receive  one  or  more  of  the  following  punitive  measures: 
contribution  to  the  victims’  fund,  confiscation  of  property  and  extended  confiscation  of 
property. The sanction related to the contribution to the Victims’ fund may only be imposed 
in addition to the penalty of restriction of operation of the legal entity (provided in Art. 43 
para 2).  

  LV: Article 708 of the KL (Krimināllikums, Criminal Law) was amended. It now provides 
that “in determining the type of a coercive measure, the nature of the criminal offence, the 
harm  caused  shall  be  taken  into  account  and  whether  a  coercive  measure  has  been 
previously  applied  to  a  legal  person”.290  Article  704  of  the  KL,  which  provided  that  “a 
public prosecutor may, in an injunction regarding a coercive measure, apply not more than 
half of the maximum time for restriction of rights provided for in paragraph one291 of this 
article” was abolished from the KL.  

290 The reference to “whether a coercive measure has been previously applied to a legal person” was added.  
291 Paragraph one provides that “Restriction of rights is the deprivation of specific rights or permits or the determination 
of such prohibition,  which prevents a legal person from exercising certain rights, receive  State support or assistance, 

183 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition: 

  All  Member  States  have  at  least  a  fine  for  legal  persons  involved  in  THB  crimes,  in 

accordance with the minimum requirements of the Directive.  

  All Member States except BG, EE, FI, IE and SK have at least one of the optional additional 

sanction among those foreseen by the Directive: 

  Article  6  (a):  Exclusion  from  entitlement  to  public  benefits  or  aid  (BE,  CZ,  CY,  EL,  ES, 

HU, HR, IT, MT, PL, PT).292  

  Article  6  (b):  Temporary  or  permanent  disqualification  from  the  practice  of  commercial 
activities (AT, BE, CZ, CY, CY, EL, ES, FR, HU, HR, IT, LT, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SE, 
SI). 

  Article 6 (c): Placing under judicial supervision (CY, ES, FR, IT, MT, PT, RO). 

  Article 6 (d):  Judicial  winding-up (BE, CY, CZ, EL, ES, FR, HU, HR,  LT,  LU, MT, NL, 

PT, RO, SI) 

  Article 6(e): Temporary  or permanent  closure of  establishments which have been used for 

committing the offence (BE, EL, CY, ES, FR, LT, LU, MT, PT, RO).  

  Some Member States’ legislation also provide for the publication or display of the decision 
or judgement in which the legal person has been found guilty of the crime (BE, CZ, FR, PT, 
RO).  

Article 7: Seizure and confiscation 

Article  7  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  measures  aiming  at  seizing  and 
confiscating proceeds from the offences related to THB. The provisions are set out below: 

Article 7: Seizure and confiscation 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  their  competent  authorities  are 
entitled  to  seize  and  confiscate  instrumentalities  and  proceeds  from  the  offences  referred  to  in 
Articles 2 and 3. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below: 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

Art. 

7 

Chang

participate in a State or local government procurement procedure, to perform a specific type of activity for a term of not 
less than one year and not exceeding ten years.”. 
292 In RO, any economic operator is excluded from any procedure for the award of a public procurement if guilty of 
committing acts related to trafficking in human beings.  

184 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                  
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were:  

  A  few  changes  were  observed  vis-à-vis  the  transposition  of  Art.  7  of  the  Directive. 

However, none of these changes affect the transposition of this article.  

  BE:  Art.  43bis  of  the  Belgian  Criminal  Code  –  which  deals  with  the  special  confiscation 
applicable  to  the  material  benefits  directly  obtained  from  the  crime,  the  goods  and  values 
brought  in  its  place  and  the  income  from  the  invested  benefits  –  states  that  if  the  goods 
cannot  be  found  within  the  property  of  the  convicted  person,  the  judge  shall  estimate  the 
monetary  value  thereof  and  the  confiscation  shall  relate  to  a  corresponding  amount.  This 
was  amended  to  state  that  the  measure  of  special  confiscation  shall  be  imposed  except 
where  this  would  result  in  the  sentenced  person  being  subject  to  an  unreasonably  harsh 
penalty.  In  addition,  since  2018,  Art.  43quater  of  the  Belgian  Criminal  Code  is  explicitly 
linked to article 433quinquies of the Criminal Code, which means that special confiscation 
is possible for crimes relating to human trafficking. 

  BG:  Amendments  to  the  text  of  Art.  53  of  the  Bulgarian  Criminal  Code  brought 
clarifications as to the list of instrumentalities and proceeds subject to confiscation. It is now 
clear that both  direct  indirect  benefits  gained through the crime (if they  are not subject  to 
return  or  restoration)  are  subject  to  confiscation;  where  the  benefit  is  missing  or  is 
expropriated,  its  equivalent  shall  be  awarded.  Furthermore,  several  relevant  provisions 
implementing  parts  of  Art.  7  of  the  Directive  were  moved  to  the  Counter-Corruption  and 
Unlawfully  Acquired  Assets  Forfeiture  Act  that  replaced  the  Act  on  Forfeiture  to  the 
Exchequer of Unlawfully Acquired Assets. 

  LV:  In  Latvia,  Art.  7  of  the  Directive  is  transposed  in  Art.  361  of  its  Criminal  Procedure 
Law  (‘KPL).  This  article  was  amended  several  times  since  2016.  These  amendments 
redacted  the  wording  and  structure  of  the  Article.  For  example,  a  new  Article  361(9)  was 
introduced in 2017 that stated that a copy of the decision shall be sent or issued to a person 
whose property is being seized. 

  RO:  Article  112^1  (Law  286/2009)  regulating  extended  confiscation  was  amended.   
Extended  confiscation  can  be  applied  in  cases  where  the  defendant  was  convicted  for  a 
crime for  which the law stipulates imprisonment of 4  years or more. There is  no longer a 
specific  enumeration  of  crimes  and  only  the  4  years  of  imprisonment  limit  subsists.  The 
court's  appreciation  in  deciding  whether  to  apply  the  extensive  confiscation  may  also  be 
based on the disproportion between the lawful income and the person's wealth. 

Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition:  

  All  Member  States  have  measures  in  place  that  ensure  that  national  competent  authorities 

are entitled to seize and confiscate proceeds related to THB crimes.  

  Most Member States rely on national criminal laws on seizure confiscation that apply to all 
crimes, including THB. Only few Member States (BE, CY, EL, ES, FR, UK) have specific 
provisions aimed at seizing and confiscating proceeds related to THB crimes.  

Article 8: Non prosecution of non-application of penalties to the victim 

The  Directive,  under  Article  8,  protects  THB  victims  from  being  prosecuted  for  the  criminal 
activities they committed as a direct consequence of their exploitation. Article 8 leaves discretion to 
Member  States  on  how  to  regulate  the  non-prosecution  or  non-application  of  penalties  to  the 
victims  involved  in  criminal  activities  which  they  have  been  compelled  to  commit  as  a  direct 
consequence of being subject to such a crime. The provisions are set out below. 

185 

 
 
Article 8: Non-prosecution or non-application of penalties to the victim 

Member  States  shall,  in  accordance  with  the  basic  principles  of  their  legal  systems,  take  the 
necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  competent  national  authorities  are  entitled  not  to  prosecute  or 
impose  penalties  on  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  for  their  involvement  in  criminal 
activities which they have been compelled to commit as a direct consequence of being subjected to 
any of the acts referred to in Article 2. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below: 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

Art. 

8 

Chang
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were:  

  BE:  Article  443  of  the  criminal  code  has  been  amended,  introducing  a  new  paragraph 
(quinquies). It now specifies that a victim of trafficking in human beings who was involved 
in a criminal offence as a direct consequence of his or her exploitation shall not be punished 
for those offences. Article 71 of the criminal code provides that “there is no offense if the 
defendant or the accused, at the time of the facts, […] was forced by a power which he was 
unable to resist”.  As the national law does not define what should be considered as “forced 
by a power” which the person is unable to resist, the 2016 conformity assessment concluded 
that  BE’s  transposition  of  the  Article  was  only  in  partial  conformance  with  the  Directive, 
since  it  does  not  clearly  ensure  that  victims  of  trafficking  involved  in  criminal  activities 
which they have been compelled to commit shall not be prosecuted. Although Article 71 of 
the criminal code has not been amended, the amendment to Article 443quinquies, described 
above,  specifies  the  non-punishment  principle  in  more  detail.  Based  on  the  assessment 
made in the context of the evaluation, this change means that BE has now transposed 
Article 8 of the Directive. 

  EL:  As  of  2019  paragraph  8  of  article  323  A  of  Greek  Penal  Code  provides  for  the 
application  of  the  principle  of  non-punishment  of  the  victim  of  trafficking  for  offenses 
committed in connection with the fact that he or she was exploited (even if the perpetrator 
has been exonerated, but the allegation seems valid). 

  IE: The Second National Action Plan to Prevent and Combat Human Trafficking in Ireland 
provides an ad hoc action (action n. 32), which aims to develop guidelines to assist all State 
authorities  in  addressing  complex  cases  where  persons  who  have  been  found  engaged  in 
criminal activities may be victims of trafficking. Action n. 42 aims to ensure the effective 
investigation of human trafficking where criminal  activities may have been carried out  by 
the  potential  victim  and  the  appropriate  consideration  of  non-punishment  of  victims  of 
trafficking.  Activities  to  implement  this  action  include  regular  training  for  the  police 
authorities,  information  initiatives  with  relevant  bodies  to  address  the  issue  of  non-

186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
punishment,  and  the  decision  to  expunge  the  criminal  records  of  potential  victims  of 
trafficking for sexual exploitation.  

  LT:  Paragraph  3  of  Article  147-1  of  CC(VIII-1968)  was  amended  by  including  the  same 
clause  as  in  Articles  147  and  157,  stating  that  also  the  victim  of  forced  labour  may  be 
relieved from criminal liability for the offence which he/ she was directly forced to commit 
because of the offence done to him/her.  

  SK: Article 215(2) d of Act no 301/2005 now specifies that the prosecutor may discontinue 
the  criminal  proceedings  if  the  person  was  compelled  to  commit  a  crime  as  a  direct 
consequence of being subjected to trafficking in human beings. The previous wording only 
provided  that  “the  prosecutor  may  discontinue  the  criminal  prosecution  if  a  person  was 
compelled  to  commit  a  minor  offence  as  a  direct  consequence  of  being  subjected  to 
trafficking in human beings”.  

Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition: 

  Around  half  Member  States  (BG,  EL,  ES,  CY,  LV,  LT,  LU,  MT,  NL,  RO  and  SK) 
explicitly refer to non-prosecution of THB victims, while others refer to the non-prosecution 
of  a  person  who  was  compelled,  threatened  or  coerced  to  commit  a  criminal  act  (HU,  IT, 
PL, PT, SE and SI). 

  Concerning  HR,  Article  22(1)  and  (2)  of  the  criminal  code  (KZ)  state  that  a  criminal 
offence does  not  exist in case a perpetrator has committed such act  in order to  avert from 
himself or from another an imminent danger which could not have been averted in any other 
way, and a lesser harm was done than that which had been threatened. However, the 2016 
conformity  assessment  concluded  that  this  article  sets  out  a  general  provision  of  criminal 
law on endangerment  and lawful defence and does not  as such correspond to  the scenario 
foreseen in Article 8 of the Directive. There have been no changes to HR law on this matter 
since the 2016 assessment.   
Article 9: Investigation and prosecution 

Article 9 of the Directive provides that the investigation and prosecution of THB crimes (i) shall 
not be subject to victims’ reporting or accusation; (ii) prosecution shall be enabled for a sufficient 
period of time after the victim has reached the age of majority; (iii) investigators and prosecutors 
are properly trained and  (iv) granted with  effective investigative tools.  The provisions are set  out 
below: 

Article 9: Investigation and prosecution 

1.  Member  States  shall  ensure  that  investigation  into  or  prosecution  of  offences  referred  to  in 
Articles  2  and  3  is  not  dependent  on  reporting  or  accusation  by  a  victim  and  that  criminal 
proceedings may continue even if the victim has withdrawn his or her statement. 

2.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to enable, where the nature of the act calls for 
it, the prosecution of an offence referred to in Articles 2 and 3 for a sufficient period of time 
after the victim has reached the age of majority. 

3.  Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  persons,  units  or  services 
responsible  for  investigating  or  prosecuting  the  offences  referred  to  in  Articles  2  and  3  are 
trained accordingly. 

4.  Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  effective  investigative  tools, 
such as those which are  used in  organised  crime  or other serious crime  cases are available to 

187 

 
 
persons, units or services responsible for investigating or prosecuting the offences referred to in 
Articles 2 and 3.  

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below. 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

Art. 

9(1) 

9(2) 

9(3) 

9(4) 

Chang
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were293: 

  BE: An amendment was made to Article 21 Vt. W, transposing Article 9(2) of the Directive. 
The  amendment  extended  the  right  to  prosecute  crimes  committed  against  minors  to  20 
years (instead of 15 years), and to 15 years for crimes committed against adults (instead of 
10 years). Moreover, Article 21bis (1) has been amended so that it now states that there is 
no time limitation on prosecution for crimes regarding genocide, crimes against humanity, 
and  war  crimes.  Article  21bis  (2)  now  states  that  there  is  no  limitation  of  prosecution  for 
crimes such as voyeurism, rape, and spreading sexual images, human trafficking, begging, 
forced labour, and removal of organs. The 2016 conformity assessment concluded that BE 
national law (Article 21bis (2)) was partially in conform to Article 9(2) of the Directive as it 
referred solely to sexual exploitation and did not cover all types of exploitation foreseen in 
the  Directive.  Based  on  the  assessment  made  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation,  this 
change means that BE has now transposed Article 9(2) of the Directive. 

  BG:  the  2016  assessment  concluded  partial  conformity.  BG  clarified  that  Art.  80  of  the 
Penal Code, the statute of limitations sufficiently covers the period for instituting criminal 
proceedings after reaching the age of 18 by victims of trafficking. Based on the assessment 
made in the context of the evaluation, BG has transposed Article 9(2) of the Directive. 
  EL:  There  has  been  an  extension  of  the  time  limit  for  commencing  prosecution,  after 

reaching majority.    

  ES: Article 132 CC, which transposed Article 9(2) of the Directive, has  been modified. It 
now establishes that for victims of trafficking in human beings who are minors, the term for 

293 The adoption of an updated National Plan for combatting trafficking in human beings [which frequently covers the 
need to provide trainings for relevant actors – Article 9(3)] was not included in the “minor/major changes” category.   

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the prosecution of the offence will not be computed from the time the victim reaches the age 
of majority, but  from  the time he/she has 35  years old,  or, if he/she dies before,  from  the 
date of their death. 

  FR:  Article  7  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  proceedings  transposing  Article  9(2)  has  been 
updated. The amendment extended the period of time for the right to prosecute the offence 
of trafficking in human beings against minors to 30 years (instead of 20 years), which only 
starts to run when the victim reaches the age of majority.   

  HU:  the  amendment  of  Article  28(1a)  of  the  Btk  transposing  Article  9(2)  amended  the 
limitation  period  regarding  trafficking  in  human  being  cases  against  victims  who  were 
minors  when  the  offence  occurred.  The  limitation  period  now  starts  to  run  only  when  the 
victim comes to the age of 21 years old (instead of 18). Moreover, the national legislation 
transposing Article 9(4) has also been amended. The relevant provisions regulate the covert 
information gathering procedure: the amendments made the data information sharing among 
police  authorities  more  transparent  and  with  stronger  rule  of  law  safeguards.  Some  covert 
instruments  are  not  subject  to  prior  authorisation  (e.g.  the  surveillance  of  a  premise  or  a 
vehicle), while others require the prior authorisation of the court (e.g. interception).  

  LT: The national law transposing Article 9(4) of the Directive was modified. Specifically, 
Article 93 paragraph 2 and Article 94 paragraph 1 of XI-1482 extend the trainings organised 
by the National Courts Administration to court civil servants and employees (and not only 
to judges).   

  PT:  The  Framework  Law  on  Criminal  policy  (n.55/2020)  states  that  trafficking  in  human 
beings is  a crime of priority  (including in  terms of prevention and criminal  investigation). 
This piece of legislation is updated every two years.  

  SI: the 2016 assessment conclude partial transposition of 9(2). SI clarified that Article 90(3) 
of  the  Criminal  Code  determines  that  notwithstanding  paragraph  one  of  that    Article 
(limitation of criminal prosecution), the time limit for the statute of limitations in criminal 
offences  against  sexual  inviolability  and  criminal  offences  against  marriage,  family  or 
youth, committed against a minor, shall begin  when the injured person reaches adulthood. 
Based  on  the  assessment  made  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation,  SI  has  transposed 
Article 9(2) of the Directive. 

Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition: 

  Article  9(1):  All  Member  States  have  transposed  the  provision  and  are  compliant;  all  MS 
provide that the submission of a complaint is not required to open the investigation, and the 
withdrawal  of  a  victim's  statement  does  not  have  influence  on  the  continuation  of  the 
investigation or prosecution.  

  Article  9(2):  The  2016  assessment  concluded  that  HR  and  IE  had  not  transposed  Article 
9(2). No relevant changes were identified to legislation in HU and IE since 2016.The 2016 
identified  some  MS  as  having  partially  transposed  on  the  grounds  that:  that  national 
legislation  referred  solely  to  the  sexual  exploitation  and  do  not  cover  all  the  types  of 
exploitation  foreseen  in  the Directive (SI,  LV, EE);  the national  legislation did  not  ensure 
that  young  victims  would  be  given  a  sufficient  period  of  time  to  initiate  criminal 
proceedings  after  reaching  the  age  of  18  (PT,  SE).  With  regard  to  child  victims  of 
trafficking, DE legislation does not stay the limitation period up until the age of majority of 
the child victim.  

  Article 9(3): All Member States provide measures for the training of actors responsible for 
the  investigation  and  prosecution  of  trafficking  in  human  beings,  either  in  soft-law 
instruments (e.g. national action plans) or in legal provisions.  

189 

 
 
  Article  9(4):  All  Member  States  have  foreseen  measures  to  ensure  the  availability  of 
effective  investigative  tools  to  persons,  units  or  services  responsible  for  investigating  or 
prosecuting trafficking in human beings.  

Article 10: Jurisdiction 

Article  10  requires  MS  laws  to  provide  for  jurisdiction  over  THB  offences  committed  not  just 
within their territory, but also where the offender is a national of that country (regardless of whether 
the act  was  an offence in the jurisdiction where  it was committed and regardless  of whether it is 
reported by a victim). Article 10 also requires MS to inform the EC about any wider jurisdiction. 
The provisions are set out below: 

Article 10: Jurisdiction 

1.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to establish their jurisdiction over the offences 

referred to in Articles 2 and 3 where: 

(a)  the offence is committed in whole or in part within their territory; or 

(b) the offender is one of their nationals. 

2.  A Member State shall inform the Commission where it decides to establish further jurisdiction 
over  the  offences  referred  to  in  Articles  2  and  3  committed  outside  its  territory,  inter  alia, 
where: 

(a)  the offence is committed against one of its nationals or a person who is an habitual resident 

in its territory; 

(b) the offence is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in its territory; or 

(c)  the offender is an habitual resident in its territory. 

3.  For  the  prosecution  of  the  offences  referred  to  in  Articles  2  and  3  committed  outside  the 
territory of the Member State concerned, each Member State shall, in those cases referred to in 
point (b) of paragraph 1, and may, in those cases referred to in paragraph 2, take the necessary 
measures to ensure that its jurisdiction is not subject to either of the following conditions: 

(a)  the acts are a criminal offence at the place where they were performed; or 

(b) the  prosecution  can  be  initiated  only  following  a  report  made  by  the  victim  in  the  place 
where the offence was committed, or a denunciation from the State of the place where the 
offence was committed. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below.   

Art. 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

10(1) 
Intro 

10(1)a 

190 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10(1)b 

10(2) 
Intro 

10(2)a 

10(2)b 

10(2)c 

10(3) 
Intro 

10(3)a 

10(3)b 

Chang
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were:  

  BE: Articles 10ter, of Vt. W. Sv, which transposes Article 10(1)(b) and Article 10(2)(a) and 
Article  10(2)(c)  and  Article  10(3)(a)  of  the  Directive,  has  been  updated.  Any  person  can 
now be prosecuted if he commits (outside the territory of the State) any of the crimes set in 
Articles 433 quinquies to 433 octies of the Criminal Code. The new Article 10ter  refers to 
all  transposing  provisions  of  the  offences  referred  to  in  Articles  2  and  3  of  the  Directive. 
The 2016 conformity assessment concluded that the national law was partially conform to 
Articles  10(2)(a)  ,  10(2)(c)  and  10(3)(a),  since  it  did  not  cross-refer  to  all  transposition 
provisions  of  the  offences  referred  to  in  Articles  2  and  4  of  the  Directive.  Based  on  the 
assessment made in the context of the evaluation, this change means that BE has now 
transposed Article 10(2)(a) Article 10(2)(c) and Article 10(3)(a) of the Directive. 

  SE:  In  2022,  legislative  amendments  entered  into  force,  giving  to  Swedish  courts 
jurisdiction to adjudicate offences committee outside Sweden if those are directed against a 
Swedish  citizen, an alien who habitually resides in  Sweden, or to  a Swedish  legal  person. 
Based on the assessment made in the context of the evaluation, this change means that 
SE has now transposed Article 10(2)(a).  

  SI: The 2016 assessment conclude partial conformity with Article 10(2)c. SI clarified that: 
Article 10(1) of the Criminal Code determines that the Criminal Code applies to any person 
who  commits  a  criminal  offense  in  Slovenia's  territory.  Article  12  of  Criminal  Code 
determines that it is applicable to any citizen of the Republic of Slovenia who commits any 
criminal  offence  abroad.  The  Criminal  Code  applies  to  any  foreign  citizen  who  has,  in  a 
foreign country, committed a criminal offence against the Republic of Slovenia or any of its 
citizens  (Article  13(1)  of  the  Criminal  Code)  and  is  also  applicable  to  any  foreign  citizen 
who has, in a foreign country, committed a criminal offence against a third country or any 

191 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of its citizens if he has been apprehended in  the territory of the Republic of Slovenia, but 
was  not  extradited  to  the  foreign  country.  In  such  cases,  the  court  shall  not  impose  a 
sentence on the perpetrator heavier than the sentence prescribed by the law of the country, 
in  which  the  offence  was  committed  (Article  13(2)  of  the  Criminal  Code).  Under  Article 
13(3)  the  Criminal  Code  of  the  Republic  of  Slovenia  is  applicable  also  to  anyone  who 
commits  any  criminal  offence  abroad  which,  under  relevant  international  agreements  or 
general  legal  rules  recognised  by  the  international  community,  is  subject  to  prosecution, 
regardless of the location where it was committed. Based on the assessment made in the 
context of the evaluation, SI has transposed Article 10(2)c of the Directive. 

Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition: 

  Article 10(1): All Member States took necessary measures to ensure jurisdiction when the 
offence is committed within their national territory or the offender is one of their nationals. 
In  IT,  conformity  is  affected  because,  for  crimes  committed  outside  the  Italian  territory 
against the EU, a foreign State or a foreign citizen, the Italian jurisdiction is established only 
upon request of the Ministry of Justice, and unless extradition has been conceded.  

  Article 10(2): All Member States - except BG, DE and FR - had at least one of the optional 

jurisdictional grounds provided in Article 10(2) (a) (b) and (c).  

  Article 10(3):  most Member States transposed Article 10(3)(a) in  their national  legislation 
and  have  not  introduced  such  a  requirement  when  determining  jurisdiction  under  Article 
10(1). Nevertheless, in EE, NL, PT and RO, jurisdiction for cases in which the offender is 
one of their nationals is only established when the offence is criminalised in the place where 
it is committed. Concerning ES, the 2016 conformity assessment concluded that the national 
law was not in conformity with the Directive, as it provided that the jurisdiction shall not be 
granted to Spanish Courts in the event such jurisdiction is being granted to an international 
court  or  another  State  whereby  proceedings  are  already  initiated.  The  reply  to  the  2019 
Commission’s  request  for  further  information  explained  that,  in  accordance  with  the 
principle  of  universal  jurisdiction,  acts  committed  by  Spanish  nationals  or  non-nationals 
outside  the  national  territory  that  can  be  classified  according  to  Spanish  law  as  human 
trafficking offences are subject to Spanish jurisdiction where any of the conditions set out in 
Article  23(4)(m)  of  the  OLJP  exist.  As  none  of  these  conditions  refer  to  the  double 
criminality  requirement,  the  Spanish  authorities  consider  that  the  national  law  transposing 
the  Directive  is  in  conformity.  Based  on  the  assessment  made  in  the  context  of  the 
evaluation,  this  clarification  means  that  ES  can  be  considered  to  have  transposed 
Article 10(3) of the Directive.  
Article 11: Assistance and support for victims 

Pursuant  to  Article  11  of  the  Directive,  Member  States  shall  provide  adequate  assistance  and 
support  to  victims  of  THB  as  soon  as  competent  authorities  have  an  indication  or  reasonable 
grounds to believe that the person might have been subject to THB offences. The provisions are set 
out below. 

Article 11: Assistance and support for victims of trafficking in human beings 

1.  Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  assistance  and  support  are 
provided to victims before, during and for an appropriate period of time after the conclusion of 
criminal  proceedings  in  order  to  enable  them  to  exercise  the  rights  set  out  in  Framework 
Decision 2001/220/JHA, and in this Directive. 

2.  Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  a  person  is  provided  with 

192 

 
 
assistance  and  support  as  soon  as  the  competent  authorities  have  a  reasonable-grounds 
indication  for  believing  that  the  person  might  have  been  subjected  to  any  of  the  offences 
referred to in Articles 2 and 3. 

3.  Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  assistance  and  support  for  a 
victim  are  not  made  conditional  on  the  victim’s  willingness  to  cooperate  in  the  criminal 
investigation, prosecution or trial, without prejudice to Directive 2004/81/EC or similar national 
rules. 

4.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to establish appropriate mechanisms aimed at 
the  early  identification  of,  assistance  to  and  support  for  victims,  in  cooperation  with  relevant 
support organisations. 

5.  The assistance and support measures referred to  in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be provided on a 
consensual and informed basis, and shall include at least standards of living capable of ensuring 
victims’  subsistence  through  measures  such  as  the  provision  of  appropriate  and  safe 
accommodation  and  material  assistance,  as  well  as  necessary  medical  treatment  including 
psychological  assistance,  counselling  and  information,  and  translation  and  interpretation 
services where appropriate. 

6.  The  information  referred  to  in  paragraph  5  shall  cover,  where  relevant,  information  on  a 
reflection  and  recovery  period  pursuant  to  Directive  2004/81/EC,  and  information  on  the 
possibility of granting international protection pursuant to Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 
April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or 
stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the 
content of the protection granted (16) and Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 
on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee 
status (17) or pursuant to other international instruments or other similar national rules. 

7.  Member  States  shall  attend  to  victims  with  special  needs,  where  those  needs  derive,  in 
particular, from whether they are pregnant, their health, a disability, a mental or psychological 
disorder  they  have,  or  a  serious  form  of  psychological,  physical  or  sexual  violence  they  have 
suffered. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below. 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

Art. 

11(1) 

11(2) 

11(3) 

11(4) 

11(5) 

193 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11(6) 

11(7) 

Chang
es 

n
c 

n
c 

The main identified changes since 2016 were294:  

  AT: The following identified changes strengthened national measures to provide assistance 
and  support,  relevant  to  Article  11  of  the  Directive.  Section  56(1)  point  3  SPG  has  been 
amended and it now specifies that police authorities may convey information (personal data) 
to intervention facilities and counselling centres for violence prevention if this is necessary 
for  the  protection  of  people  at  risk.  Section  25(1)  SPG  was  expanded  to  include  the 
following  sentence:  “To  this  end295,  security  authorities  may  establish  platforms  at  the 
regional level  with the participation  of  people involved in  the performance of  tasks in  the 
public  interest,  in  the  framework  of  which  necessary  measures  are  developed  and 
coordinated (so called 'safety forums')”. Section 66a(2) point 1 StPO currently provides that 
vulnerable victims have the right to demand that they be questioned by a person of the same 
sex  in  the  preliminary  proceedings.  Particularly  vulnerable  victims  also  have  the  right  to 
demand that interpretation services be provided  by  a person of the same sex.  In case of  a 
minor victim who has been violated in his or her sexual sphere, he or she will be heard by 
an expert. The provisions on psychosocial and legal assistance are now regulated in greater 
detail in Section 66b StPO (formerly regulated under Section 66(2) and (4) StPO). In 2017, 
the decree of the Labour Inspectorate on the topic of trafficking in human beings and labour 
exploitation,  which  had  been  in  place  since  2011,  was  updated.  Among  other  things,  the 
decree was expanded to include the list of indicators for assisting inspection authorities in 
identifying those possibly affected.  

  BG:  The  following  identified  changes  have  strengthened  national  measures  to  provide 
information to victims. Article 6 of LAFCCV establishes an obligation of the authorities of 
the  Ministry  of  Interior,  investigative  authorities,  and  victim  support  organisations,  to 
provide  specific  information  to  victims  (relevant  to  Article  11(5)  and  11(6)  of  the 
Directive).  The  provision  no  longer  specifies  that  the  information  is  to  be  provided  in 
writing  or  orally,  nor  that  the  notification  is  stored  in  a  record  in  the  premises  of  the 
competent  authority.  The  amendment  also  foresees  an  obligation  for  the  monitoring 
prosecutor  during  the  pre-trial  proceedings  to  monitor  performance  of  the  investigating 
authorities’  duties  concerning  the  provision  of  the  information.  Article  11  LAFCCV 
currently provides that practical help ensured by victim support organizations also includes 

294 The adoption of an updated National Plan for combatting trafficking in human beings [which frequently lay down 
measures related to the assistance and support for victims of trafficking in human beings provided for in Article 11(1))] 
was not included in the “minor/major changes” category.    
295 The article provides that “In order to prevent dangerous actions against life, health and property of people, security 
authorities shall promote the willingness and ability of everyone to inform him/her about threats of legal goods and to 
prevent  such  actions  accordingly”.  This  include  information  of  persons  who  have  been  subject  to  the  crime  of 
trafficking in human beings to be provided with assistance and support.  

194 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
providing  information  about  the  risk  of  secondary  and  repeated  victimisation,  of 
intimidation or revenge, as well as providing advice on preventing the latter. Victim support 
organisations  now  also  have  the  obligation  to  provide  shelter  or  any  other  suitable 
temporary accommodation to the victims of crimes for which there is an imminent risk of 
secondary victimisation, intimidation, and revenge. 

  EL: The 2016 assessment conclude that EL had partially transposed 11(2). EL clarified that 
presidential decree 233/2003 provides for the assistance measures outlined in Article 11(2). 
Based on the assessment made in the context of the evaluation, this clarification means 
that EL can be considered to have transposed Article 11(2) of the Directive.  

  HR: A 2019 Protocol on the integration and reintegration of victims of trafficking in human 
beings was adopted, which specified several victims’ rights to be ensured before, during and 
after the criminal proceedings. 

  HU: According to the amended Article 17(6) of Government Decree 354/2012, voluntarily 
cooperating organisations may conclude identification conversations with presumed victims 
of  trafficking  in  human  beings.  In  case  the  victim  status  is  confirmed,  the  organisation 
informs the regional victim aid service without delay (relevant to Article 11(2).  

  LT: Paragraph 5 of Article 8 of CCP (IX-785) was amended by including the victim’s right 
to request a translation of the criminal proceeding’s documents in cases where a translation 
of  these  documents  or  parts  thereof  is  necessary  for  them  to  take  an  active  part  in  the 
criminal proceedings. 

  LV:  Regulation  No.  344  (2019)  regarding  the  procedures  by  which  victims  of  trafficking 
receive  social  rehabilitation  service,  and  the  criteria  for  the  recognition  of  a  person  as  a 
victim of trafficking in human beings clarifies the regulatory framework on assistance and 
support to victims of trafficking. Regulation No 388 (2017) on the requirements for social 
service providers was also adopted.  

  MT:  Two  new  services  have  been  added  to  the  list  of  minimum  services  for  victims  of 
crimes  (Article  12  VCA),  namely  medical  treatment  and  protection  measures  against  the 
risks of intimidation and retaliation. The amendments also clarified that these services are to 
be provided to victims even when the offence was committed in another EU Member State. 
  PT: Order No-138-E/2021 approved a new model regarding the status of vulnerable victims, 
including  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings.  The  aim  is  to  ensure  that  relevant 
documents  for  victims  are  clear  and  easy  to  understand,  especially  the  information  about 
their rights. To this end, documents were revised by specialised services to convert legal and 
procedural  technical  language  into  a  more  accessible  language.  The  rights  provided  to 
victims of trafficking include, inter alia, the right to file a criminal complaint, the right to be 
accompanied,  the  right  to  legal  assistance,  right  to  receive  compensation,  the  right  to  the 
reflection period, the right to non-punishment of victims of trafficking their involvement in 
criminal activities if they were compelled to do so.   

  RO: New services to support and protect victims of trafficking have been added, such as the 
provision of day care centres that mainly provide information, emotional and social support 
for the purposes of reintegration, and social, psychological, legal and financial counselling. 
The national legislation further specifies that the legal provisions on assistance and support 
apply  in  cases  of  crimes  committed  on  the  Romanian  territory  and  for  crimes  committed 
outside the territory of Romania but against a Romanian citizen or legal resident. Moreover, 
Article  43  of  the  CPE  was  amended.  This  article  regulates  the  tasks  and  purposes  of  the 
Fund for Victims' Aid and Post-Penitentiary Aid. The amendments introduced by the Act of 
12  July  2017  clarify  what  the  Fund's  resources  may  be  used  for.  Among  other  things, 

195 

 
 
paragraph 8, item 4, subsection (e) was added to this provision, which states that the Fund's 
resources shall be used to promote the system of assistance to persons wronged by crime 
  SE: Section 1 of Chapter 4 of the Social Services Acts has been amended. It now specifies 
that anyone who is unable to meet their own needs or can have them met in another way is 
entitled to assistance from the social welfare board for their support and for their living in 
general.  Those  who  are  unable  to  support  themselves  but  who  can  work  are  entitled  to 
maintenance support according to the first paragraph if he or she is available on the labour 
market, which includes, if necessary, participating in municipal adult education in Swedish 
for immigrants  or equivalent education at folk high schools. The individual might  also  be 
entitled to maintenance support even if he or she is not available on the labour market. The 
individual  must  be  ensured  a  reasonable  standard  of  living  through  the  assistance.  The 
assistance  must  be  designed  so  that  it  strengthens  his  or  her  opportunities  to  live  an 
independent  life.  It  must  be  noted  that  the  2016  conformity  assessment  specified  that, 
previously to this amendment, it was unclear whether victims of trafficking who do not have 
a  right  to  reside  in  Sweden  would  get  support  that  include  at  least  standards  of  living 
capable of ensuring victims subsistence. The assessment of the Evaluation Team is that 
this change means that SE has now transposed Article 11(5) of the Directive. 

  SI: Article 50 of the Aliens Act has been amended. It now provides for a new reason on the 
basis of which the police may allow a victim of trafficking in human beings to stary for 90 
days in the territory of Slovenia on the basis of the existence of personal circumstances. The 
2016 assessment concluded partial and non transposition of parts of Article 11. SI clarified 
that: in the process of implementation of so-called Victims’ Rights Directive, the Criminal 
Procedure Act  and Social Assistance Act  have been amdended.  Following these changes, 
each  victim  is  entitled  to  help  and  support,  regardless  of  his  or  her  status  in  the  eventual 
(pre)criminal procedure and also, if (s)he didn’t report the criminal offence. The centers for 
social  work  provide  general  support  and  help  to  victims  of  all  criminal  offences  (free  of 
charge), while NGOs provide special services (also for victims of human trafficking). Based 
on the assessment made in the context of the evaluation, SI has transposed Article 11 
of the Directive. 

  SK: According to article 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act (301/2005), victims are informed 
about (both orally and in a written form), inter alia, the specialized programmes offered, for 
free, to victims of trafficking. Since 2020, the contracted NGO for assistance to victims of 
trafficking (namely Caritas Slovakia) has been enabled to speak to victims of trafficking and 
inform them about the specialised programmes and the available services.  

Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition: 

  Article 11(1):  Almost  all Member State legislation specifies that victims of trafficking are 
provided with the assistance and protection measures before, during and after the criminal 
proceedings.  The  2016  conformity  assessment  identified  partial  transposition  in  some 
national  legislation,  namely  LV,  FI,  PL  and  HU296,  as  their  national  legislation  does  not 
explicitly state that the protection measures shall be provided to victims before, during and 
after the criminal proceedings.  

296 For example, in HU, the national law does not ensure ‘aid and support’ to third-country national victims before the 
commencement of the criminal proceedings. Third-country national victims are only entitled to receive  care after the 
issuance  of  the  third  country  national  victims’  residence  permit  which  is  issued  depending  on  their  willingness  to 
cooperate in the criminal investigation.  

196 

 
 
                                                 
  Article 11(2): Several  Member States do not  explicitly require that  assistance and support 
should  be  provided  as  soon  as  the  competent  authorities  have  an  indication  or  reasonable 
grounds to believe that the person is a victim of trafficking (PL, HR, LV, IT, PT, SE). Other 
national  legislation  seem  to  make  a  distinction  between  victims  who  are  third-country 
nationals and EU citizens (BE, DE, HU).  

  Article  11(3):  Almost  all  Member  States  have  transposed  the  requirement  to  ensure  that 
assistance and support for victims are not  made conditional on the victim’s willingness  to 
cooperate  in  the  criminal  investigation.  However,  in  IE,  the  provision  of  temporary 
residence  for  victims  of  trafficking  is  governed  by  the  Administrative  Immigration 
Arrangements  (AIA).  The  provision  of  temporary  residence  remains  contingent  upon 
cooperation  with  law  enforcement  authorities.  In  BE,  the  national  legislation  transposing 
Article 11(3) only applies to aliens, and not to nationals. In SK, the duration of the so called 
“emergency treatment” is conditional to the victim’s cooperation with the law enforcement 
authorities.297 

  Article  11(4):  All  Member  States  established  different  types  of  mechanisms  aimed  at  the 
early  identification  of,  assistance  to  and  support  for  victims  of  trafficking,  in  cooperation 
with relevant support organisations. However, in BE although the Belgian provisions seem 
to create appropriate mechanisms, those only apply to non-Belgian victims.  

  Article 11(5): All Member States transposed the minimum requirements of article 11(5) in 
different ways that range from the transposition in national law (CY, MT), the inclusion of 
the  provisions  in  different  acts  (BE,  BG,  EL,  ES,  FR,  HU,  IT,  LV,  LT,  NL,  AT,  PL,  PT, 
RO, SI and SK) or via catch-all provisions aimed at ensuring other form of assistance (BG, 
ES, HR, RO). In BE provisions create appropriate mechanisms, but these only apply to non-
Belgian victims. In IT no provision provides that victims must be informed on their rights 
and on the availability of assistance programmes. 

  Article 11(6): In most Member States compliance with article 11(6) can be derived from a 
set  of  national  provisions  on  the  necessary  procedure  to  gain  residence  permits  for  third-
country nationals. However, some Member State legislation does not explicitly provide that 
the  person  concerned  shall  be  informed  about  the  reflection  period  (BE,  LV,  IT),  or  the 
possibility of granting international protection (BE, HU, IE, LV, SE, NL).298  

  Article 11(7): Some Member States include the  reference to  victims with special needs in 
soft law instruments (BG, HR), while in other cases the national laws do not clearly set out 
a special assistance tailored for victims of trafficking with special needs (BE, DE, EL, FR, 
SI, LV, NL).  

Article 12: Protection of victims in criminal investigation and proceedings 

297  In  addition,  Article  9(2)  of  Decree  No  180/2013  provides  that  if  the  victim’s  presence  is  not  necessary  for  the 
purposes of criminal proceedings in the Slovak Republic, the victim can be discarded from the program.  
298 In LV, the national law transposing Article 11(6) does not specifically ensure the provision of information on the 
possibility to be granted a reflection period or international protection to a victim of trafficking. Specifically, the victim 
can  only  submit  to  the  investigative  institution  an  application  for  the  granting  of  the  reflection  period  within  3  days 
after he or she has been granted the status of victim of trafficking, and the national law does not impose an obligation 
on the authorities to grant a reflection period. The 2016 Commission’s report also noted that information in LV might 
need  closer  examination.  In  NL,  the  national  legislation  ensures  that  an  informational  meeting  in  the  form  of  an 
interview  shall take place prior to a victim  filing any report. This  meeting aims to provide  the  victim an explanation 
concerning the criminal procedure, but the law does not explicitly state that the victim is given the information on the 
possibility of being granted international protection and it does not mention the principle of non-refoulement.  

197 

 
 
                                                 
Article 12 of the Directive obliges Member States to provide THB victims with protection measures 
in criminal investigations and prosecutions. The provisions are as follows: 

Article 12: Protection of victims of trafficking in human beings in criminal investigation and 
proceedings 

1.  The protection measures referred to in this Article shall apply in addition to the rights set out in 

Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA. 

2.  Member  States  shall  ensure  that  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  have  access  without 
delay  to  legal  counselling,  and,  in  accordance  with  the  role  of  victims  in  the  relevant  justice 
system,  to  legal  representation,  including  for  the  purpose  of  claiming  compensation.  Legal 
counselling  and  legal  representation  shall  be  free  of  charge  where  the  victim  does  not  have 
sufficient financial resources. 

3.  Member  States  shall  ensure  that  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  receive  appropriate 
protection on the basis of an individual risk assessment, inter alia, by having access to witness 
protection  programmes  or  other  similar  measures,  if  appropriate  and  in  accordance  with  the 
grounds defined by national law or procedures. 

4.  Without prejudice to the rights of the defence, and according to an individual assessment by the 
competent authorities of the personal circumstances of the victim, Member States shall ensure 
that  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  receive  specific  treatment  aimed  at  preventing 
secondary  victimisation  by  avoiding,  as  far  as  possible  and  in  accordance  with  the  grounds 
defined  by  national  law  as  well  as  with  rules  of  judicial  discretion,  practice  or  guidance,  the 
following: 

(a)  unnecessary repetition of interviews during investigation, prosecution or trial; 

(b) visual contact between victims and defendants including during the giving of evidence such 
as interviews and cross-examination, by appropriate means including the use of appropriate 
communication technologies; 

(c)  the giving of evidence in open court; and 

(d) unnecessary questioning concerning the victim’s private life. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below. 

Art. 

12(1) 

12(2) 

12(3) 

12(4) 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

n
c 

198 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Intro 

12(4)a 

12(4)b 

12(4)c 

12(4)d 

Chang
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were: 

  ES: The 2016 assessment concluded Article 12(4)(a) had not been transposed. ES clarified 
that,  in  order  to  ensure  the  correct  interpretation  of  these  measures  by  the  various  actors 
involved  in  the  procedure  for  detecting  and  protecting  the  persons  concerned,  different 
guides  and  protocols  have  been  agreed  and  published  which,  in  implementation  of  the 
legislation in question, are intended to standardise these measures. They include the Guide 
on  criteria  for  judicial  action  in  response  to  trafficking  in  human  beings.  Based  on  the 
assessment made in the context of the evaluation, ES has transposed Article 12(4)a of 
the Directive. 

  EL:  the  2016  assessment  concluded  that  Article  12(4)(d)  had  not  been  transposed.  EL 
clarified that there is a general principle in court hearings, that only relevant questions are 
posed. Based on the assessment made in the context of the evaluation, this clarification 
means that EL can be considered to have transposed Article 12(4)(d) of the Directive.  
  HR: The following identified changes strengthened national measures to provide assistance 
and  support,  including  special  protection  measures  to  victims  of  trafficking.  In  2017, 
amendments  were  made  to  the  Croatian  CPA  (ZKP)  which,  inter  alia,  established  a 
mandatory  procedure  to  undertake  an  individual  needs  assessment  for  every  victim  of 
trafficking (Article 43.a). The purpose of this procedure is to apply ad hoc mechanisms that 
protect vulnerable victims and ensure that they are not exposed to secondary victimization 
through  their  participation  in  criminal  proceedings.  The  assessment  must  be  made  by  the 
criminal prosecution bodies of the pre-court and court proceedings in co-operation with the 
authorities,  services  and  institutions  of  the  victim  support  system,  before  the  victim  is 
interviewed. The aim is to determine whether there is a need for special protection measures 
and,  if  so,  which  specific  protection  measures  should  be  applied.  A  Minister  of  Justice 
decree,  issued  in  2017,  defines  the  roles  and  responsibilities  of  different  actors  (including 
NGOs) in the procedure of the individual needs’ assessment of the victim. Article 44 of the 
ZKP  outlines  specific  rights  of  trafficked  persons  and  victims  of  crimes  against  sexual 
freedom including the provision of a free legal advisor, the right to choose to be interviewed 
by a person of the same sex, and, if possible, to be examined by the same person in the case 
of re-examination; examination by means of an audio-video device; and the right to request 
the exclusion of the public from the hearing. According to Article 12 of the 2019 Protocol 
on  integration  /  reintegration,  victims  are  entitled  to  primary  and  secondary  legal  aid. 
Primary  legal  aid  covers  all  legal  services  for  the  victim  related  to  the  victim/injured 

199 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
person's status in criminal court proceedings. The 2019 Protocol specified several victims’ 
rights  both  before,  during  and  after  the  criminal  proceedings.  From  the  moment  of 
establishing  contact  with  the  competent  authorities,  victims  are  entitled  to  access  to 
information on relevant court and administrative proceedings in a language they understand.  
Victims should be familiar with their rights and should be provided with free legal aid at the 
earliest possible stage.   

  HU: Article 3 of the Government Decree 420/2017 regulates the procedural rules to certify 
the victim status. In accordance with this decree, in case legal aid is needed, and the client is 
considered as a victim eligible for victim aid compensation, the regional victim aid service 
sends  the  certification  of  victim  status  and  related  documents  to  the  legal  aid  services 
chosen  by  the  victim  without  delay.  The  detailed  rules  on  granting  legal  aid  are  now 
contained in the New Be., the Act on Legal Aid, as well in Government Decree 421/2017. 
For the purposes of the transposition of the Directive, there were no material changes in this 
matter compared to the 2016 assessment. The 2016 conformity assessment observed that it 
was unclear when, exactly, the victim will have access to legal counselling after the decision 
of the legal assistance service. However, Act LXXX of 2003 on Legal Aid aims to establish 
institutions for socially disadvantaged people in order to enhance their access to justice by 
providing professional legal advice and representation  in  courts in case of asserting rights 
and  resolving  legal  disputes.  According  to  the  Act,  the  National  Legal  Aid  Service  may 
grant legal aid in extrajudicial cases, both in civil and criminal procedures. According to the 
Act, among others, victims of trafficking in human beings may also be provided legal aid in 
both  extrajudicial  cases  (legal  advice,  drafting  a  document)  and  criminal  procedures. 
Victims of trafficking in human beings can get immediate legal advice from the employees 
of either the victim support services or the legal aid services for free, in simple legal cases, 
without a separate application. Otherwise, after the application has been processed, victims 
can benefit from legal aid in both extrajudicial and litigation cases. Eligibility is facilitated if 
the applicant has a certificate of victim status. The victim status is declared by the Victim 
Support Service. Legal aid in extrajudicial cases provided for the applicants can be granted 
in  two  basic  forms:  as  free  assistance,  or  by  advancing  the  fees  of  the  assistance.  The 
granting  legal  aid  is  based  on  the  financial  situation  of  the  applicant.  Therefore,  the 
assessment concluded that HU transposed Article 12(2) of the Directive. In addition, Points 
1 and 8 of Article 1 of the Act on the Protection Programme were amended. Pursuant to the 
current  rules,  the  Protection  Programme  is  now  extended  to  every  -  past  or  present  - 
participant  to  the  criminal  procedure.  Furthermore,  the  New  Be.  restructured  the  rules 
concerning  the  protection  -  including  data  protection  -  of  participants  to  the  criminal 
procedure.  While  the  Be.  regulated  the  confidential  handling  of  personal  data  only  with 
regards to witnesses, the New Be. extends these provisions to all participants of the criminal 
procedure.  The  personal  data  of  persons  participating  in  Protection  Programme  and  the 
related documents shall be handled with confidentiality. The provisions regarding witnesses 
of  special  protection  were  amended  with  more  detailed  procedural  rules.  Chapter  XIV.  of 
the New Be. included numerous provisions on the protection of persons with special needs 
during the criminal procedure. Specifically, it is important to point out that Article 85(1)(c) 
of  the  New  Be  clearly  states  that  the  court  shall  exercise  due  care  in  the  conduct  of  the 
criminal  proceeding  in  order  to  respect  the  privacy  of  the  person  concerned.  The  2016 
conformity  assessment  concluded  that  Hungarian  law  transposing  Article  12(4)  was 
partially in conformity because the unnecessary questioning concerning the victim’s private 
life was only prohibited in the national strategy 2013-2016, which is a soft law instrument. 

200 

 
 
Therefore, based on the assessment made in the context of the evaluation, this change 
means that HU has now transposed Article 12(4)(d) of the Directive. 

  LT:  Paragraph  1  of  Article  185  of  CCP  (IX-785)  was  amended  by  stating  that,  where 
necessary to meet the special protection needs of the victim, one or more of the provisions 
of  Article  186  of  the  Code  may  apply.  Article  186  regulates  the  questioning  of  minors. 
Paragraph 2 of Article 185 was added including a right of a victim of trafficking of human 
beings to request that the questioning is conducted by a person of the same sex. Paragraph 3 
of Article 186 of CCP (IX-785) was amended to include additional provisions regarding the 
questioning of a minor, namely the mandatory participation of a psychologist. 

  LV:  the  national  law  transposing  Article  12(2)  has  been  replaced  with  Regulation  338 
(2017)  providing  for  the  requirements  for  social  service  providers.  However,  no  specific 
substantial changes have been identified.   

  RO:  Act  of  11  March  2016  introduced  article  148a  of  the  CPP,  which  ensured  better 

protection of victims’ personal data.  

  SI:  the  2016  assessment  concluded  SI  partially  transposed  Article  11.  Since  then,  the 
process of implementing the so-called Victims Directive, in SI the needs of each victim with 
regard  to  the  protective  measures  in  the  criminal  procedure  are  individually  assessed. 
Various  protective  measures  can  be  used  given  the  aforementioned  assessment.  Based  on 
the assessment made in the context of the evaluation, SI has transposed Article 11 of 
the Directive. 

Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition:   

  Article  12(1):  All  Member  States  provide  that  the  protection  measures  enshrined  in  their 
national  legislation  apply  in  addition  to  the  rights  set  out  in  the  Framework  Decision 
2001/220/JHA, currently Directive 2012/29/EU. 

  Article 12(2): Most Member States (BG, CY, CZ,  EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, LV, LT, MT, 
PT, SI, SK, FI, SE) have legislation in place that provides THB victims with access without 
delay  to  legal  counsel  and  representation,  including  for  the  purpose  of  claiming 
compensation,  and  free  of  charge  where  the  victim  does  not  have  sufficient  financial 
resources. More precisely, most Member States included the possibility of legal aid, free of 
charge, where a person does not have sufficient financial resources. In some Member States 
(EL,  HR,  LV  and  SE)  such  aid  is  granted  for  free,  regardless  of  victims’  resources. 
However,  some  national  legislation  does  not  specify  that  access  to  legal  counselling  and 
legal  representation  should  occur without  delay (BE, DE, HU,  IE,  IT, PL, RO), and some 
Member  States  have  different  procedures  for  third  country  nationals  (LU,  IT)  or  do  not 
cover all kinds of exploitation, thus different “types” of victims (NL).   

  Article  12(3):  All  Member  States  are  compliant  with  paragraph  3  which  obliges  them  to 
provide assistance protection to victims on the basis of an individual risk assessment. The 
assistance  protection  measures  envisaged  by  the  Directive  and  transposed  by  all  Member 
States include the access to a witness protection process or to other similar measures.   

  Article 12(4): Most Member States have transposed this provision. However, some Member 
States  do  not  explicitly  provide  that  the  practices  listed  in  Article  12(4)  (a-d)  shall  be 
avoided.  

Article 13: General provisions on assistance, support and protection 

Article  13  requires  that  Member  States  ensure  assistance  measures  to  child  victims  following  the 
child’s best interests. The provisions are below: 

201 

 
 
Article  13:  General  provisions  on  assistance,  support  and  protection  measures  for  child 
victims of trafficking in human beings 

1.  Child  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  shall  be  provided  with  assistance,  support  and 
protection.  In  the  application  of  this  Directive  the  child’s  best  interests  shall  be  a  primary 
consideration. 

2.  Member  States  shall  ensure  that,  where  the  age  of  a  person  subject  to  trafficking  in  human 
beings  is  uncertain  and  there  are  reasons  to  believe  that  the  person  is  a  child,  that  person  is 
presumed  to  be  a  child  in  order  to  receive  immediate  access  to  assistance,  support  and 
protection in accordance with Articles 14 and 15. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below. 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

Art. 

13(1) 

13(2) 

Chang
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were:299 

  BE:  The  circular  of  26  December  2016  provides  that  in  case  of  child  victims  of  human 
trafficking, the police will take into account the specificity of the minor's vulnerability. The 
understanding  is  that  this  circular  does  not  change  legislation,  so  does  not  change  the 
Transposition Assessment.  

  ES:  Amendments  ensure  that  if  the  age  of  a  victim  cannot  be  established,  they  will  be 
considered  a  minor  and  be  guaranteed  all  other  rights  provided  for  by  transposition  of 
Article 15.  

  HU: Article 43(2) of the Act on the Support of Crime Victims was amended in a way that it 
no longer requires the severe threat to be directed against the life or the physical integrity of 
the child represent a prerequisite for the starting of a procedure. Other articles of the Gyvt. 
Have been amended. The aim was to specify some children’s rights, such as the access to 
special care, rehabilitation, as well as a procedure through which the police can immediately 
place  a  presumed  child  victim  of  trafficking  (who  either  lives  in  his/her  family  or  in 
temporary  care)  under  the  care  of  a  special  children's  home.  In  addition,  Article  84(1)  of 
Gyvt. was amended in such way that a child protection guardian shall be appointed in cases 
where  the  child’s  parents  are  unknown.  Concerning  Article  13(2)  of  the  Directive,  article 

299  Soft  law  instruments  (such  as  circulars  or  an  updated  National  Action  Plan)  which  frequently  cover  general 
provisions  on  assistance  and  protection  to  victims  of  trafficking  was  not  included  in  the  “minor/major  changes” 
category.   

202 

 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
72(1)  of  the  Harmvhr  was  amended.  It  now  provides  that  a  medical  examination  shall  be 
carried out to clarify the person’s age in case the age is uncertain.  

  IE: The Second National Action Plan to Prevent and Combat Human Trafficking in Ireland 
specifies that where the age of a person is uncertain and they claim to be a child, Tusla (the 
Child  and  Family  Agency)  considers  them  as  such  initially  and  provides  them  with 
assistance, support and protection as if they are a child.  

  IT:  The  so-called  Zampa  Law  (47/2017)  introduced  a  series  of  changes  to  the  national 
legislation  on  unaccompanied  minors.  Among  the  most  relevant  changes,  it  established  a 
prohibition  on rejecting  unaccompanied minors at  the border and it ensured that reception 
facilities  meet  minimum  standards  in  terms  of  assistance  and  support  services.  When 
choosing where to place a minor, the needs and characteristics of the minor (resulting from 
an interview) shall be taken into account, in relation to the type of services offered by the 
facility.  Concerning  the  age  assessment  of  the  child,  the  amendment  specified  that  in  the 
event  that  there  are  well-founded  doubts  as  to  the  age  declared  by  the  minor,  the  public 
security authority shall proceed to the identification with the help of cultural mediators and 
in the presence of the guardian or temporary guardian, if already appointed, and only after 
ensuring immediate humanitarian assistance. This law already provided that the minor age is 
presumed in the case where the disciplinary procedure performed does not allow to establish 
with certainty the age of the person. 

  LT: In all cases where the victim of trafficking is a minor, the State Child Rights Protection 
and  Adoption  Service  under  the  Ministry  of  Social  Security  and  Labour  shall  now  be 
informed. The national law also specified that assistance to victims of trafficking (including 
minors) can also be offered by non-governmental institutions.  

  LU: According to Article 3-7 para 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code (amended by Law 8 
Mars 2017), when the age of the victim is uncertain, and there are reasons to believe that the 
victim is a minor, the victims is presumed to be a minor. Based on the assessment made in 
the context of the evaluation, this change  means  that LU has now transposed Article 
13(2) of the Directive.   

  NL: While not a change to national legislation, it was noted that the 2021 tender procedure 
for appointing and organisation to provide the Categorical Reception of Victims of Human 
Trafficking  (COSM)  service  has  started,  adopted  on  behalf  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and 
Security and the Ministry of Health. Compared to the previous COSM, there is a reduction 
in  the  number  of  available  places  in  reception  centres  for  children.  This  reduction  was 
probably caused by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.  

  RO: the Annex to the Order of the Minister of Labour and Social Protection no. 1335/2020 
approving the minimum quality for social services specifies the minimum quality standards 
for social services with accommodation and assistance services for child victims of human 
trafficking.  

  SI:  The  2016  assessment  conclude  SI  had  not  transposed  13(2).  SI  clarified  that  Article 
64(2)  of  the  CPA  transposes  this  Article.  Legislation  says  that  each  victim  is  individually 
assessed,  and  the  law  stipulates  that  a  minor  always  has  special  needs  for  protection 
(therefore,  no  need  to  argue  for  special  needs  in  the  process  of  individual  assessment); 
Article 143.č of CPA.  The assessment  made in the context of the evaluation is that SI 
has transposed Article 13 of the Directive. 

Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition:  

203 

 
 
  Article 13(1): This provision has been transposed by all Member States. Concerning BE, the 
2016 conformity assessment found that the specific measures of assistance and support for 
all child victims of trafficking in human beings is only contained in a soft law instrument.300 
  Article  13(2):  Several  Member  States  have  not  transposed  Article  13(2),  as  their  national 
legislation does not explicitly provide for a specific measure ensuring that, where the age of 
a  person  is  uncertain,  the  person  is  presumed  to  be  a  child.  Specifically,  some  Member 
States  do  not  refer  to  the  principle  (BE,  DE,  FI,  FR,  HU301,  LV,  PL,  SI),302  IE  does  not 
include  it  in  non-binding  instruments,303  while  others  limit  the  scope  of  the  principles  to 
unaccompanied minors or to third-country nationals (IT, LT, NL).  

Article 14: Assistance and support to child victims 

Article 14 requires tailored assistance measures for child victims of THB. The provisions are set out 
below: 

Article 14: Assistance and support to child victims 

1.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the specific actions to assist and 
support  child  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings,  in  the  short  and  long  term,  in  their 
physical and psycho-social recovery, are undertaken following an individual assessment of the 
special circumstances of each particular child victim, taking due account of the child’s views, 
needs and concerns with a view to finding a durable solution for the child. Within a reasonable 
time,  Member  States  shall  provide  access  to  education  for  child  victims  and  the  children  of 
victims who are given assistance and support in accordance with Article 11, in accordance with 
their national law. 

2.  Members States shall appoint a guardian or a representative for a child victim of trafficking in 
human beings from the moment the child is identified by the authorities where, by national law, 
the holders of parental responsibility are, as a result of a conflict of interest between them and 
the child victim, precluded from ensuring the child’s best interest and/or from representing the 
child. 

3.  Member States shall take measures, where appropriate and possible, to provide assistance and 
support to the family of a child victim of trafficking in human beings when the family is in the 

300  2016  Circular  on  the  introduction  of  multidisciplinary  cooperation  regarding  the  victims  of  trafficking  in  human 
beings and/or certain more serious forms of smuggling of human beings need to be clarified.  
301  Although  the  amended  provision  states  that  a  medical  examination  shall  be  carried  out  to  clarify  his/her  age,  the 
articles does not ensure that if the age of the minor is uncertain and there are no reasons to believe that the person is a 
child, that person is presumed to be a child. 
302  Similarly,  in  SE,  if  an  asylum  applicant  claims  that  he  or  she  is  an  unaccompanied  minor,  the  Migration  Agency 
shall, providing there are reasons to question that the applicant is under the age of 18, promptly assess the age and issue 
a temporary decision. According to chapter 13, section 17 of the Swedish Aliens Act, a final judgement about the age 
of  the  applicant  shall  be  made  in  the  final  decision  on  the  application.  The  Migration  Agency´s  temporary  decision 
about  the  age  may  be  appealed  to  a  migration  court.  However,  the  national  law  does  not  specifically  provide  the 
presumption of minority.  
303 It should be noted that the 2016 conformity assessment stated that Ireland did not transpose Article 13(2) because 
the  SCEP  (Statement  of  Good  Practice  –  which  was  identified  as  the  national  law  transposing  Article  13(2))  only 
applied to third country nationals and not to all victims of trafficking. Moreover, as the SCEP was adopted by a non-
governmental entity, it does not have binding force. As the National Plan has no binding nature either, the assessment 
concludes that Ireland did not transpose Article 13(2).  

204 

 
 
                                                 
territory  of  the  Member  States.  In  particular,  Member  States  shall,  where  appropriate  and 
possible, apply Article 4 of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA to the family. 

4.  This Article shall apply without prejudice to Article 11. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below. 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

Art. 

14(1) 

14(2) 

14(3) 

14(4) 

Chang
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were:304  

  AT:  Legislation  regarding  child  and  youth  welfare  tasks  which  transposed  Article  14(1) 
expired  in  2019.  However,  other  existing  requirements  for  child  protection  and  access  to 
education make the necessary provisions for this Article and the Austrian authorities have 
provided more description to demonstrate this. The legislation requiring the appointment of 
a  guardian  (Article  14(2))  has  been  replaced  and  the  new  legislation  now  specifies  the 
guardian  (or  ‘curator’)  might  be  distinct  from  the  legal  representative  and  should  be 
different for each affected minor, if their best interests are in conflict.      

  BG: The relevant regulation now stipulates that an action plan be agreed upon with the child 
(depending  on  age  and  stage  of  development).  Additionally,  periodic  meetings  to  monitor 
the child now must include ‘all interested parties’.  

  EL:  The  2016  assessment  concluded  that  EL  had  partially  transposed  Article  14(1).  EL 
clarified  that  Presidential  Degree  233/2003  and  other  legal  instruments  concerning  child 
protection  ensure  that  access  to  education  is  guaranteed  for  all  minors  irrespective  of 
nationality,  legal  status,  or  vulnerability.  Needs  assessment  and  best  interests  assessment 
take place in all cases where a child is under the care of an agency, actor, NGO, etc. (Civil 
code, law 4554/2018, 4538/2018, law 4636/2019, as amended).  Based on the assessment 
made  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation,  this  clarification  means  that  EL  can  be 
considered to have transposed Article 14(1) of the Directive. 

304 The  adoption of an  updated National Plan for combatting trafficking in  human beings  (IE, PL) [which  frequently 
covers Article 13] was not included in the “minor/major changes” category.  

205 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
  EE: The Child Protection Act (2016) provides a comprehensive definition of “child in need 
of  assistance”,  urging  all  persons  who  have  knowledge  of  a  child  in  need  of  assistance  to 
notify  their  situation  to  the  local  authority  (or  to  a  helpline  service),  which  is  required  to 
immediately  assess  the  child’s  need  for  assistance  and  provide  the  relevant  assistance 
measures.  The  same  act  provides  for  other  rights  related  to  child’s  assistance  and  victim 
support services.  

  HR: A section of a new Protocol on unaccompanied minors specifies actions to be taken in 
the  case  of  suspected  THB.  The  Protocol  requires  immediate  notification  of  a  specialised 
police officer and subsequent information-sharing with the Coordinator for the Suppression 
of  THB  and  the  National  and  Regional  Coordinators  for  Combatting  THB.  The  Regional 
Officer or a centre for social care is authorised to make decisions on safe accommodation 
for  the  child  without  delay  and  the  child  should  be  accompanied  there  by  the  regional 
coordinator and a special guardian.   

  HU: Changes reported in regard to the transposition of Article 13 are reported to also apply 
for  Article  14.  Beyond  this,  amendments  have  stated  that  it  is  no  longer  necessary  that  a 
child be in danger of direct risk to life or physical integrity for intervention by the relevant 
authorities to begin. Legislation providing for access to education has been replaced, but this 
has  not  resulted  in  any  material  changes  to  the  provisions  transposing  Article  14(1). 
Legislation has also been amended to state that an unaccompanied minor will be provided 
with a guardian if their parents are unknown and/or if available, where information shows 
them to be unaccompanied (Article 14(2)). 

  IT: A 2017 law changed existing legislation on unaccompanied foreign minors so that the 
national  system  of  protection  and  reception  is  strengthened.  It  also  states  that  educational 
institutions  of  all  levels  must  promote  the  completion  of  compulsory  schooling  for  these 
minors, including those who are child victims of THB.  

  LV:  Amendments  have  been  made  to  increase  the  tasks  assigned  to  the  Orphan’s  Court. 
These  now  include  the  responsibility  to  evaluate  abuse  of  parental  rights,  carrying  out 
necessary  activities  to  ensure  appropriate  care  of  a  child  and  that  their  best  interests  are 
represented, informing the State Inspectorate for the Protection of the Rights of the Child of 
cases  of  repeated  termination  of  parental  custody.  These  are  all  reported  to  apply  to  child 
victims of THB and to transpose Articles 14(1) and 14(2).   

  MT:  In  2019,  legislation  transposing  Article  14  was  replaced  with  a  new  act  on  child 
protection.  This  includes  a  review  of  the  childcare  system,  protection  of  children  during 
judicial procedures and the availability of child advocates. These are all applicable to child 
victims of THB and are reported to transpose Articles 14(1) and 14(2).  

  PL:  Legislation  providing  access  to  education  for  child  victims  of  THB  was  revoked  in 
2017  (Article  14(1)).  In  the  same  year,  a  new  regulation  was  issued  on  the  education  of 
children without Polish citizenship or children with Polish citizenship who have previously 
been  education  abroad.  This  provides  for  access  to  education  for  any  child  arriving  from 
abroad but does not specify provisions for child victims of THB.  

  RO: In 2019, amendments were made to Law 211/2004 on measures to ensure information, 
support and protection of victims of crime. Article 1 currently provides that everyone who is 
a  victim  has  the  right  to  be  recognised  as  such  from  the  moment  of  identification,  to  be 
treated with respect, professionalism, to benefit from individualised protection and support, 
financial  compensation  and  restoration  for  rights,  and  the  victim’s  family  members  enjoy 
the  same  rights.  Based  on  the  assessment  made  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation,  this 
change means that RO has now transposed Article 14(3) of the Directive.   

206 

 
 
  SK: Legislation has been amended to state that if the legal representative of the child victim 
cannot exercise the rights of the child or if there is danger of omission, the prosecutor can 
request a judge to appoint a guardian (Article 14(2)).  

Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition: 

  Article 14(1):  

o  Most Member States (BG, EL, CZ, EE, ES, FR, CY, HU, LT, PT, RO, SK) refer to 
general  assistance  and  support  measures  tailored  to  children  such  as  counselling, 
social  support,  healthcare  services  and  an  appropriate  form  of  accommodation.  In 
some Member States (IE, FI, SE) support and assistance measures are only available 
to a limited group of minors.  

o  Only few Member States developed psychological and medical assistance measures 
for child victims providing them with enrolment in the social welfare system (HR), a 
temporary residence permit (SI) and the establishment of child protection groups in 
hospitals (AT). 

o  The assistance and support measures offered by some Member States (BE, LV and 
PL)  are  applicable  to  all  victims.  Article  14(1)  also  provides  that  these  measures 
should assist and support the child "in the short and long term": only France makes 
explicit reference to the time period of the duration of the assistance measures, while 
the  other  Member  States  seem  to  provide  such  measures  for  a  “reasonable  time” 
without specifying the precise time frame. 

  Article 14(2): All Member States have made provisions to conform to Article 14(2): a few 
Member  States  (CY,  NL)  adopted  specific  provisions  to  that  purpose,  while  the  others 
ensure the appointment through their general rules. 

  Article  14(3).  The  2016  assessment  found  that  only  half  of  Member  States  (BG,  ES,  CY, 
LT, LU,305 MT, PL, PT, SI, SK, FI, SE) had adopted specific measures for the family of the 
child victim. Other Member States (CZ, DE, LV) partially transposed Article 14(3), as their 
national legislations are very general in terms of assistance and support measures offered to 
the family of the child victim.  

 Article 15: Protection of child victims of trafficking in human beings in criminal investigations 
and proceedings 

Article 15 sets out a number of measures to protect child victims during the process of a criminal 
investigation proceedings. The provisions are set out below: 

Article  15:  Protection  of  child  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  in  criminal 
investigations and proceedings 

1.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in criminal investigations and 
proceedings,  in  accordance  with  the  role  of  victims  in  the  relevant  justice  system,  competent 
authorities appoint a representative for a child victim of trafficking in human beings where, by 
national law, the holders of parental responsibility are precluded from representing the child as 

305 In LU, a bill of law on the rights of child victims will soon be submitted for approval to the Council of Government 
and  to  the  Parliament.  This  bill  will  gather  the  (already  existing)  procedural  rights  of  child  victims  in  one  piece  of 
legislation.  

207 

 
 
                                                 
a result of a conflict of interest between them and the child victim. 

2.  Member  States  shall,  in  accordance  with  the  role  of  victims  in  the  relevant  justice  system, 
ensure that child victims  have access  without delay to  free legal  counselling and to  free legal 
representation, including for the purpose of claiming compensation, unless they have sufficient 
financial resources. 

3.  Without prejudice to the rights of the defence, Member States shall take the necessary measures 
to  ensure  that  in  criminal  investigations  and  proceedings  in  respect  of  any  of  the  offences 
referred to in Articles 2 and 3: 

(a)  interviews  with  the  child  victim  take  place  without  unjustified  delay  after  the  facts  have 

been reported to the competent authorities; 

(b) interviews  with  the  child  victim  take  place,  where  necessary,  in  premises  designed  or 

adapted for that purpose; 

(c)  interviews  with  the  child  victim  are  carried  out,  where  necessary,  by  or  through 

professionals trained for that purpose; 

(d) the  same  persons,  if  possible  and  where  appropriate,  conduct  all  the  interviews  with  the 

child victim; 

(e)  the number of interviews is as limited as possible and interviews are carried out only where 

strictly necessary for the purposes of criminal investigations and proceedings; 

(f)  the child victim may be accompanied by a representative or, where appropriate, an adult of 
the child’s choice, unless  a reasoned decision has  been made  to  the contrary in  respect  of 
that person. 

4.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in criminal investigations of any 
of  the  offences  referred  to  in  Articles  2  and  3  all  interviews  with  a  child  victim  or,  where 
appropriate,  with  a  child  witness,  may  be  video  recorded  and  that  such  video  recorded 
interviews may be used as evidence in criminal court proceedings, in accordance with the rules 
under their national law. 

5.  Member States  shall take the necessary measures to  ensure that in  criminal  court proceedings 

relating to any of the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3, it may be ordered that: 

(a)  the hearing take place without the presence of the public; and 

(b) the child victim be heard in the courtroom without being present, in particular, through the 

use of appropriate communication technologies. 

6.  This Article shall apply without prejudice to Article 12. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

Art. 

15(1) 

208 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n
c 

15(2) 

15(3) 

15(3)a 

15(3)b 

15(3)c 

15(3)d 

15(3)e 

15(3)f 

15(4) 

15(5) 
Intro 

15(5)a 

15(5)b 

15(6) 

Chang
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were:306 

  AT: Amendments have been made to expand the definition of victim (any person subject to 
violence or threat or whose personal dependency has been exploited) and to provide victims 
with the right to have a person of their confidence present during examination.  

  BE:  Provisions  have  been  made  so  that  minor’s  vulnerabilities  are  taken  into  account  by 

police, including the choice of a specialised shelter. 

  BG:  New  legislation  and  amendments  define  legal  aid  and  oblige  investigators  to  notify 
victims  of  their  right  to  legal  support.  They  also  require  relevant  training  for  judges, 

306 The adoption of an updated National Plan for combatting trafficking in human beings (IE) [which frequently covers 
Article 15] was not included in the “minor/major changes” category.  

209 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
prosecutors  and  investigators  and  state  that  minors  can  give  testimony  if  contact  with  the 
accused can be avoided (Article 15(5b).  

  EL:  the  2016  assessment  concluded  EL  had  not  transposed  Article  15(3)(d).  EL  clarified 
that this is implemented in practice following standard operating procedures. Based on the 
assessment made in the context of the evaluation, this clarification means that EL can 
be considered to have transposed Article 15(3)(d) of the Directive. 

  HU: Changes to legislation are reported but these do not appear to change the conclusions 
of  the  2016  assessment  that  there  is  only  partial  transposition  of  Article  15(2),  15(3a), 
15(3b),  15(4)  and  15(5b)  for  the  following  reasons:  the  legislation  does  not  specify  that 
protection should be provided without delay (Article 15(2)), the crime of human trafficking 
is not sufficiently covered by the provisions quoted as transposing Article 15(3a), provisions 
transposing  Article  15(3b),    15(4)  and  15(5b)  only  refer  to  minors  under  14  or  refer  to 
minors under 18 without foreseeing an obligation.  

  IE:  The  2017  Victims’  Crime  Act  currently  includes  victims’  rights  enshrined  in  Article 
15(3)(a-f). Based on the assessment made in the context of the evaluation, this change 
means that IE has now transposed Article 15(3).    

  LT: Legislation on the timing and number of interviews of child victims has been amended 
to  state that such proceedings with  minors may  not  be performed between 10pm  and 6am 
unless urgent. Other provisions have been moved between legal articles but are unchanged. 
  LV:    Legislative  amendments  require  that  a  minor  is  questioned  by  an  interviewer  with 
knowledge  of  communication  with  a  minor  during  criminal  proceedings  and  that  a  child 
victim’s representative is permitted to participate in the interview.  

  MT: New legislation allows for the appointment of a trained expert support person for child 
victims  throughout  court  proceedings  and  for  the  appointment  of  a  family  law  child’s 
advocate to represent the child victim’s interests in civil proceedings.  

  SI:  The  2016  assessment  concluded  some  articles  had  not  been  transposed.  Since  then  SI 
has significantly changed its CPA in order to implement so-called Victims Directive. Based 
on the assessment made in the context of the evaluation, ES has transposed Article 15 
of the Directive. 

Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition: 

  Article  15(1):  All  Member  States  provide  the  appointment  of  a  guardian  or  a  legal 
representative  in  case  parents  cannot  represent  a  child’s  interest  due  to  a  conflict  of 
responsibility, or for unaccompanied children (please refer to Article 16 below).  

  Article  15(2)  and  (3):  the  2016  Assessment  noted  that  these  were  implemented  through 
general provisions of criminal law, thus specific measures are sometimes lacking and there 
is some variability in terms of the age of child for whom such measures are available (the 
Directive specifies under 18, but some Member States apply to under 15 or under 15).  
  Article 15(4):  Four states have partially transposed this article (FI, HU, LV, PL), with the 
remainder  fully  transposing.  Finland’s  amendments  do  not  cover  minors  of  all  ages, 
Hungary’s and Latvia’s only cover minors under 14 and Poland’s only cover minors under 
15.  

  Article 15(5a): Two Member States have only partially transposed this article. In Belgium, 
provisions transposing this article have not been consistently applied across the legislation 
reported  on,  while  the  Polish  provision  to  exclude  the  public  from  court  proceedings  is 
aimed solely at the protection of minors under 15.  

  Article 15(5b): Some Member State laws only apply to children under 15 (FI) and 14 (HU, 
LV).  The  Directive  categorises  child  victims  as  under  18.  In  addition,  Polish  legislation 

210 

 
 
refers to the rights of the accused to be present (with exceptions) rather than the rights of the 
child  victim.  Therefore,  these  five  Member  States  are  considered  to  have  only  partially 
transposed this article. 

  Article 15(6): All Member States have transposed this article without prejudice to Article 12 

(Protection of victims in criminal investigation and proceedings).  

 Article 16: Assistance, support and protection for unaccompanied child victims of trafficking in 
human beings 

Article 16 sets out the measures that MS must provide to protect children who are unaccompanied. 
The provisions are set out below: 

Article 16: Assistance, support and protection for unaccompanied child victims of trafficking 
in human beings 

1.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the specific actions to assist and 
support  child  victims  of trafficking  in  human  beings,  as  referred  to  in  Article  14(1),  take  due 
account of the personal and special circumstances of the unaccompanied child victim. 

2.  Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  with  a  view  to  finding  a  durable  solution 

based on an individual assessment of the best interests of the child. 

3.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, where appropriate, a guardian 

is appointed to unaccompanied child victims of trafficking in human beings. 

4.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, in criminal investigations and 
proceedings,  in  accordance  with  the  role  of  victims  in  the  relevant  justice  system,  competent 
authorities  appoint  a  representative  where  the  child  is  unaccompanied  or  separated  from  its 
family. 

5.  This Article shall apply without prejudice to Articles 14 and 15. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below.   

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

Art. 

16(1) 

16(2) 

16(3) 

16(4) 

16(5) 

Chang
es 

211 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The main identified changes since 2016 were: 

  AT: Legislation has been updated to re-name the national youth agency, which is entrusted 

with the custody and care of unaccompanied minors, to ‘child and youth’ agency.  

  BG:  Amendments  to  national  law  oblige  the  relevant  authorities  to  take  measures  for  the 
protection of child victims, ensure access to public education and the appointment of legal 
representation with necessary knowledge, make provisions for an assessment of the child’s 
best  interests  and  a  subsequent  action  plan  as  well  as  residential  care  for  child  victims  of 
trafficking. The mandatory notification of victims about their rights now specifies the need 
to take the age of victims into account.  

  EL:  The  2016  assessment  concluded  that  EL  had  partially  transposed  Articles  16(1)  and 
16(2). However, law 4554/2018 and 4636/2019 now provide that unaccompanied minors are 
accorded  special  protection  measures,  including  appropriate  for  their  age  and  needs 
accommodation,  interpretation,  representation,  access  to  healthcare  and  to  education.  A 
risk/vulnerability assessment and a best interest assessment take place in view of identifying 
durable solutions. These measures apply to all unaccompanied minors in the country. Under 
Presidential  Decrees  18/2020,  106/2020,  law  4636/2019  and  Presidential  Decree  70/2021, 
the  Special  Secretariat  for  the  Protection  of  Unaccompanied  Minors  has  been  established 
within  the  Ministry  of  Migration  and  Asylum  as  the  competent  authority  for  all  matters 
concerning the protection of unaccompanied minors  and in particular their accommodation, 
the quality of service provision, their integration, support, representation/guardianship and 
institutional protection. Based on the assessment made in the context of the evaluation, 
EL has transposed Article 16(1) and (2) of the Directive. 

  HR:  A  new  Protocol  was  adopted  in  2019  which  outlines  actions  to  be  taken  in  case  of 
suspected TBH: upon identification of a potential child victim, the relevant  authority is to 
notify officers specialising in trafficking or juvenile delinquency and the coordinator for the 
suppression of THB (Article 16(1) and 16(2)). A special guardian will be proposed (Article 
16(3)),  and appropriate  accommodation should  be decided on for the  child victim without 
delay.   

  IT:  New  (2017)  legislation  establishes  a  national  system  of  protection  and  reception  for 
unaccompanied  foreign  minors,  ensuring  homogeneity  of  provisions  across  the  national 
territory.  It  also  aims  to  strengthen  existing  protection  tools  and  requires  that  educational 
institutions  of  all  levels  activate  measures  to  promote  the  completion  of  compulsory 
schooling for unaccompanied minors (Article 16(1) and 16(2).   

  LT:  Legislative  amendments  now  require  the  participation  of  a  psychologist  in  any 
questioning of a minor and mandate that the Migration Department must issue a foreigner’s 
registration  certificate  within  2  days  of  receiving 
identified 
unaccompanied minor, rather than within 2 working days.  

information  on  an 

  LV:  Relevant  laws  have  been  amended  to  empower  an  Orphans  and  Custody  Court  to 
evaluate cases of abuse or failures in custody and act to secure appropriate alternative care 
in  the  best  interests  of  the  child.  These  provisions  would  also  be  applicable  to 
(unaccompanied) child victims of trafficking (Articles 16(1) and 16(2). Other amendments 
replaced  ‘interim  guardian’  with  ‘a  guardian  for  a  time  period’  to  reflect  the  nature  of 
appointing  a  guardian  for  unaccompanied  children  without  specifying  if  temporary  or 
otherwise (Article 16(3)). 

  RO:  Amendments  specify  that  the  procedures  of  identification  and  assignment  of  support 
are considered complete only if the minor is safely reunited with family or handed over to 
authorities in the country of origin, if there is non-identification of family or if the State of 

212 

 
 
origin  will  not  accept  the  minor.  In  the  latter  two  cases,  long-term  stay  permits  can  be 
granted  and  now,  international  protection  in  Romania  is  granted  rather  than  ‘a  form  of 
protection’. Conditions for these provisions were also added to state that no serious doubts 
over the minority of the victim may exist.  

  SI:  Legislation  previously  transposing  Article  16(3)  is  no  longer  in  use,  having  been 
replaced  by  the  Family  Code.  However,  the  provisions  required  by  Article  16(3)  can  be 
inferred from other national provisions on victims of all nationalities.  

Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition:  

  All MS have at least partially implemented all parts of Article 16.  In some MS, measures 
specify provisions for unaccompanied child victims (HU, IE, CY, AT, SK, FI, FR, LU, NL) 
while, in  others,  general rules  and regulations  on assistance and  care  for children  also  are 
also suitable to cover unaccompanied child victims (BG, EE, HR, LV, PT, SI).  

  Latvia’s  legislation  only  partially  conforms  to  Article  16(2)  as  provisions  to  ensure  a 
rehabilitation plan and the receipt of social services apply to both adult and child victims, 
therefore not accounting for the specialised assistance required for minors. 

  Regarding  Sweden,  the  unclear  scope  of  support  and  assistance  provided  to  child  victims 
who  do  not  have  a  right  to  reside  in  Sweden  (or  are  ‘paperless’)  means  that  legislation 
specifying  assistance,  support  and  durable  solutions  for  child  victims  only  partially 
transposes both Article 16(1) and Article 16(2). 

 Article 17: Compensation 

Article  17  requires  Member  States  to  provide  compensation  measures  to  THB  victims.  The 
provision is set out below: 

Article 17: Compensation to victims 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  victims  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  have  access  to  existing 
schemes of compensation to victims of violent crimes of intent. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below: 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

Art. 

17 

Chang
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were:  

  BE: Legislation has been amended to specify that exceptional damage caused by the identity 
and motives of the perpetrator remaining unknown is now basis for compensation. Another 
amendment states that aid will be granted per intentional act of violence, per applicant, for 
damages above 500€ to a limit of 125,000€.  

  BG: Amendments to existing laws transposing Article 17 now specify that victims of crimes 
can  receive  assistance  for  both  pecuniary  and  non-pecuniary  damages  whereas  financial 

213 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
compensation can be granted to victims who have suffered pecuniary damages as a result of 
THB. The loss of support to  dependents  has  been added to  the list  of damages which can 
result in a claim for compensation while expenses covered by the National Health Insurance 
fund have been excluded from the medical costs which can be compensated.   

  EE:  The  wording  of  relevant  legislation  has  changed,  now  stating  that  ‘compensation  is 
payable  for  economically  assessable  damage’,  including  for  costs  arising  from  incapacity 
for  work,  damage  to  health,  death  and/or  funeral  of  the  victim,  damage  to  spectacles, 
dentures and other similar appliances for bodily function.  

  HU:  Legislation  regarding  the  support  of  crime  victims  was  amended  in  2020  to  make 
compensation available to all victims regardless of their deprivation status, with the amount 
of compensation victims can receive clarified: the rate is at most fifteen times the basic sum.  
  NL:  One  section  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  transposing  Article  17  has  been 
abolished. However, it is claimed that another section sufficiently establishes victims’ rights 
to compensation.  

  SK: A piece of legislation which transposed Article 17 was repealed. It has been replaced 
with a new legislative act which defines the category of ‘victim’ and ‘vulnerable victim’ and 
stipulates rights to compensation for victims of violent criminal offences of any nationality, 
provided  the  injury  or  damages  occurred  in  the  Slovak  Republic.  It  also  describes  the 
circumstances in  which compensation cannot  be  granted, including scenarios in  which the 
alleged perpetrator is acquitted.  

Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition: 

 

  All Member States provide compensation measures to THB victims. Such measures include 
compensation for non-material damages, such as physical and psychological suffering (AT, 
FI, SK, UK), dual  system  of compensation (BG, CZ, ES,  LT, MT,  NL,  PT, SE), fund for 
victims  of  violent  crimes  (BE,  FR  and  HR)  or  other  special  compensation  measures  (EE, 
EL, HU, LV, PL, RO, SK and UK). 
In  the  case  of  SI,  the  2016  assessment  found  that  compensation  appeared  to  be  provided 
only to victims who are Slovenian or EU citizens. No relevant changes have been identified 
in  national  legislation  since  that  assessment  was  made.  In  IE,  the  existing  scheme  for 
compensation  to  victims  of  violent  crimes  (namely  the  Criminal  Injury  Compensation 
Schemes)  only  recovers  verifiable  expenses,  and  not  pain  and  suffering.  Although  the 
possibility to start a legal action is open, in practice, victims of trafficking’ eligibility to free 
legal aid is not guaranteed.  

Article 18: Prevention  

Article  18  requires  that  Member  States  take  steps  to  prevent  THB.  This  includes  actions  for 
awareness-raising campaigns but also education and training measures for their officials involved in 
the fight against THB. Article 18.4 states that Member States shall consider measures to   establish 
as a criminal offence the use of services related to the object of exploitation.  The provisions are set 
out below: 

Article 18: Prevention 

1.  Member States  shall take appropriate measures,  such as education and training, to  discourage 
and  reduce  the  demand  that  fosters  all  forms  of  exploitation  related  to  trafficking  in  human 
beings. 

2.  Member States shall take appropriate action, including through the Internet, such as information 

214 

 
 
and  awareness-raising  campaigns,  research  and  education  programmes,  where  appropriate  in 
cooperation  with  relevant  civil  society  organisations  and  other  stakeholders,  aimed  at  raising 
awareness and reducing the risk of people, especially children, becoming victims of trafficking 
in human beings. 

3.  Member  States  shall  promote  regular  training  for  officials  likely  to  come  into  contact  with 
victims or potential victims of trafficking in human beings, including front-line police officers, 
aimed at enabling them to identify and deal with victims and potential victims of trafficking in 
human beings. 

4.  In order to make the preventing and combating of trafficking in human beings more effective by 
discouraging demand, Member States shall consider taking measures to establish as a criminal 
offence the use of services which are the objects of exploitation as referred to in Article 2, with 
the knowledge that the person is a victim of an offence referred to in Article 2. 

The results of the analysis are set out in the figure below.   

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

Art. 

18(1) 

18(2) 

18(3) 

18(4) 

Chang
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were:307 

  EL:  The  legislation  transposing  Article  18(1)  was  annulled  but  a  Ministerial  Decision 
provides  for  the  establishment  and  operation  of  the  National  System  for  the  Identification 
and  Referral  of  Victims  of  Human  Trafficking  and  the  rest  of  the  measures  brought  in  to 
conform to this Article of the Directive remain in place.  

  HU: A new provision transposes Article 18(4) and criminalises the knowing use of the work 
or services of a trafficked person with a penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment. In the 
case of knowing use of sexual services of a trafficked person, the penalty is up to five years’ 
imprisonment  with  a  minimum  sentence  of  one  year’s  imprisonment.  Based  on  the 
assessment made in the context of the evaluation, this change means that HU has now 
transposed the optional Article 18(4) of the Directive. 

307 The adoption of an updated National Plan for combatting trafficking in human beings (BE) [which covers the type of 
actions required by Article 18] was not included in the “minor/major changes” category. 

215 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  LU: The 2016 conformity assessment was unable to locate measures on education, training, 
and  raising  awareness.  Therefore,  this  meant  that  the  actions  taken  have  only  partially 
transposed  Article  18(1)  and  18(2).  Several  initiatives  were  set  up  after  2017,  including 
Stoptrate.lu,  trainings,  and  other  initiatives  implemented  through  the  Benelux  framework. 
Based on the assessment made in the context of the evaluation, this change means that 
LU has now transposed Article 18(1) and Article 18(2) of the Directive.   

  LV:  A  new  Trafficking  Prevention  Plan  for  2021-2023  was  developed,  including  a  list  of 
actions  to  be  taken  in  this  time  period.  These  actions  are:  raising  public  awareness, 
improving  the  identification  of  victims,  stepping  up  efforts  to  prosecute  perpetrators  with 
the  aim  of  providing  a  deterrent  and,  finally,  strengthening  coordination  and  information-
exchange within Latvia and with partners abroad and in international institutions.  

  RO: Relevant legislation was amended to clarify the responsibilities of the National Agency 
Against  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  (previously  in  Persons).  These  responsibilities  are 
developing  campaigns  to  prevent  THB,  programs  to  facilitate  assistance  to  victims  and 
collaboration with public, private and non-governmental organisations for joint campaigns.  
  NL:  The  Dutch  Parliament  passed  a  law  criminalising  the  use  of  services  exploited  from 
victims of trafficking (linked to sexual exploitation).308 Based on the assessment made in 
the context of the evaluation, this change means that HU has now partially transposed 
the optional Article 18(4) of the Directive.   
Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition 

  Article 18(1) and 18(2): Most Member States (BE, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, CY, LT, 
MT,  NL,  AT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SI,  SK,  SE)  have  developed  general  training  and  educational 
measures. All Member States have put in place campaigns to raise awareness and enable the 
reduction of the demand of THB, such as awareness-raising campaigns and lectures among 
students (FR, LT, SK), round tables and debates (HR, LU), TV and radio campaigns (CY, 
LU,  MT),  festivals  and  annual  events  (AT,  HU,  PL,  SK)309.  Some  Member  States  also 
introduced activities for foreign victims to prevent THB in their country of origin (AT, BE, 
BG).  

  The 2016 conformity assessment concluded that Italy’s provisions only partially conform to 
Article  18(1)  and  18(2)  due  to  a  missing  article  in  the  relevant  Decree  and  the  large 
discretion  given  to  the  Department  for  Equal  Opportunities  in  carrying  out  prevention 
measures.  

  Article  18(3):  All  Member  States  included  training  activities  for  competent  authorities  in 
their strategy against THB310. All Member States reported measures aimed at ensuring that 
their  officials  who  are  likely  to  engage  with  victims  or  potential  victims  of  THB  are 
adequately  trained.    Some  Member  States  focused  more  on  training  of  their  immigration 
officers (BE, FR and LU) and border control staff (HU, LT and PT). Others focused on the 
training  of  health-care  professionals  (BE,  FR  and  LU),  staff  of  social  assistance  services 
(BG,  HU,  IT,  LT,  LU,  MT,  PT,  SI  and  SK)  or  labour  inspectors  (CZ,  FR  and  SI).  The 

308 Kamerbrief over initiatiefwetsvoorstel strafbaarstelling misbruik van prostitué(e)s die slachtoffer van mensenhandel 
zijn 34091" Available here.  
309 Website of the European Commission, Together Against Trafficking in Human Beings – Member States. Available 
at: link. 
310 Website of the European Commission, Together Against Trafficking in Human Beings – Member States. Available 
at: link. 

216 

 
 
                                                 
majority of Member States made reference to training measures for public officials involved 
in investigations and prosecutions such as judges (AT, BE, BG, CZ, HU, LT, MT, PL, PT, 
SE and SI), prosecutors (BG, CZ, EE, ES, HU, IT, LT, MT, NL, AT, PL, SI and SE), law 
enforcement bodies (EE, NL and PL) and judicial police (ES).  

  Article 18(4): Article 18(4) sets out an option for the Member States to criminalise the use 

of services which are the object of exploitation.  

  Ten Member States311 have legislation that criminalise the knowing use of services extracted 
from victims of any form of exploitation. One Member State (CY) has such a standard – the 
law  states  that,  in  the  case  of  the  use  of  sexual  exploitation  services,  a  person  can  be 
prosecuted  for  the  demand,  reception  or  use  of  sexual  exploitation  service,  regardless  of 
whether  they  had  a  reasonable  suspicion  that  the  person  was  a  VoT.  CY  therefore  uses  a 
‘strict liability’ standard.312  

  Ten  Member  States313  have  legislation  that  criminalise  the  knowing  use  of  services  by 
victims  of  sexual  exploitation.  To  this  extent,  the  assessment  concludes  that  these 
Member  States  have  partially  transposed  the  optional  Article  18(4).  Additionally,  PL 
reported  that  there  is  discussion  underway  about  whether  to  criminalise  knowing  use  and 
SK reported that the process is ongoing to criminalise knowing use of the services by VoT.  

  Four Member States314 in effect criminalise the knowing use of services exacted from VoT 
for  sexual  exploitation  because  they  follow  the  ‘Nordic  Model’,  which  criminalises 
consumers  of  prostitution  (including  those  who  use  the  sexual  services  of  victims  of 
trafficking in human beings). 315  This approach is adopted by Sweden, Finland, Ireland and 
France. Spain is reported to be considering adopting the Nordic Model.316 To this extent the 
assessment concludes that these Member States have partially transposed the optional 
Article 18(4). 

  Seven Member States317 do not have any legislation criminalising knowing use of services 

exacted from victims.  

  Some  Member  States  have  legislation  that  may  create  criminal  liabilities  for  users  of 

exploited services, but which does not transpose the Directive. For example: 

o  AT has legislation that criminalises labour exploitation by third country nationals  

o  CZ makes it an offence not to report trafficking, where a person becomes aware. 

311 BG; CY; EL; HR; HU; LT; MT; PT; RO; SI.  
312  OSCE  Office  of  the  Special  Representative  and  Co-ordinator  for  Combating  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings, 
Discouraging the demand that fosters trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation (2021). Available at: link. 
313 EE; DE; EL; FI; FR; IE; LU; LV; NL; SE.  
314 FI; FR; IE; SE. 
315  Some  countries  have  outlawed  sex  buying  on  the  grounds  that  any  purchase  of  sex  is  a  form  of  exploitation  and 
related  to  gender-based  violence,  regardless  of  the  status  of  any  person  in  prostitution.  This  is  the  so-called  Nordic 
model,  which  bases  the  criminalisation  of  the  purchase  of  sex  on  the  grounds  that  most  sex  purchasers  are  taking 
advantage of the difficult situation of prostitutes. Because of this analysis, the Nordic model does not criminalise the 
selling  of  sex.  OSCE  Office  of  the  Special  Representative  and  Co-ordinator  for  Combating  Trafficking  in  Human 
Beings,  Discouraging the demand that fosters trafficking  for the purpose of sexual exploitation (2021). Available at: 
link. 
316 Comment from ES National Rapporteur, Workshop 2.  
317 AT; BE; CZ; ES; IT; PL; SK. 

217 

 
 
                                                 
o  IT has legislation making unlawful brokering and exploitation of labour an offence 

(in the Criminal Code).  

o  PL  (According  to  Article  10(1)  of  the  AREIF)  it  is  a  criminal  offence  for  an 
employer  to  employ  an  illegally  residing  foreigner,  accompanied  by  particularly 
exploitative working conditions. However, the 2016 assessment found that this law 
does  not  refer  to  the  condition  requiring  that  the  employer  has  the  knowledge  that 
the  employee  is  a  victim  of  trafficking  in  human  beings.  In  addition,  the  national 
provisions  are  only  addressed  to  third-country  nationals.  Overall,  based  on  the 
assessment made in the context of the evaluation, PL has not transposed the optional 
18(4).  

 Article 19: National Rapporteurs or equivalent mechanisms (NREMs) 

According  to  Article  19,  Member  States  shall  appoint  a  national  rapporteur  or  equivalent 
mechanism  with  the  aim  to  report  periodic  national  assessment  of  trends,  measures  and  issues 
related to the fight against THB. The provision is set out below: 

Article 19: National rapporteurs or equivalent mechanisms 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  establish  national  rapporteurs  or  equivalent 
mechanisms. The tasks of such mechanisms shall include the carrying out of assessments of trends 
in  trafficking  in  human  beings,  the  measuring  of  results  of  anti-trafficking  actions,  including  the 
gathering  of  statistics  in  close  cooperation  with  relevant  civil  society  organisations  active  in  this 
field, and reporting. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below. 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

Art. 

19 

Chang
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were: 

  BG:  2019  legislation  establishes  the  National  Commission  for  Combatting  Trafficking  in 
Human  Beings  (NCCTHB)  as  national  rapporteur  with  authority  to  request  and  receive 
information from all relevant actors and to report to the Council of Ministers.  

  CZ:  The  National  Strategy  for  2020-2023  improves  the  rapporteur  mechanisms.  These 
improvements  include  revisions  to  the  NRM  to  improve  functionality  and  increased  data 
collection on THB, especially information on victims’ demographics and country of origin.  
  HU: The relevant legislation (Order of the Minister of the Interior) was replaced with new 

legislation on the same subject.  

  IE:  In  October  2020,  IE  adopted  a  law  appointing  an  independent  national  rapporteur  on 
Trafficking  in  Human  Beings,  namely  the  Irish  Human  Rights  and  Equality  Commission 
(IHREC)   

218 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  LT: The relevant legislation was abolished and replaced with a new order of the minister of 
the  interior  in  2017  which  appoints  a  national  rapporteur.  The  order  also  regulates 
procedures for the rapporteur’s collection of statistical data and other information on THB.  
  PL:  The  Committee  for  Combating  and  Preventing  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings  was 
replaced  by  the  Team  for  Counteracting  Human  Trafficking  in  2019.  The  team  is  tasked 
with  drafting  National  Action  Plans,  initiating  actions  against  THB  and  evaluating  the 
implementation of programmes. The Inter-Ministerial Team for Combatting and Preventing 
Human Trafficking was abolished in 2018. However, the Head of the Office for Foreigners 
is a member of the Team for Counteracting Human Trafficking.  

  RO:  Legislative  amendments  removed  the  coordination  of  the  implementation  of  human 
trafficking  policies  from  the  responsibilities  of  the  National  Agency  against  Trafficking 
Human Beings.  

Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition  

  All  Member  States  have  identified  a  specific  person,  a  body  or  equivalent  mechanism  to 

carry out the tasks envisaged by article 19 of the Directive.  

Article 20: Coordination 

Article  20  requires  Member  States  to  report  the  information  required  in  Article  19  to  the  Anti-
Trafficking coordinator at the EU level. 

Article 20: Coordination of the Union strategy against trafficking in human beings 

In order to contribute to a coordinated and consolidated Union strategy against trafficking in human 
beings,  Member  States  shall  facilitate  the  tasks  of  an  anti-trafficking  coordinator  (ATC).  In 
particular, Member States shall transmit to the ATC the information referred to in Article 19, on the 
basis of which the ATC shall contribute to reporting carried out by the Commission every two years 
on the progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings. 

The results of the analysis of transposition are set out in the figure below. 

A
T 

B
E 

B
G 

C
Y 

C
Z 

D
E 

E
E 

E
L 

E
S 

F
I 

F
R 

H
R 

H
U 

I
E 

I
T 

L
T 

L
U 

L
V 

M
T 

N
L 

P
L 

P
T 

R
O 

S
E 

S
I 

S
K 

Art. 

20 

Chang
es 

The main identified changes since 2016 were318: 

318 The adoption of an updated National Plan for combatting trafficking in human beings (FR) [which covers the type of 
actions required by Article 20] was not included in the “minor/major changes” category. 

219 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  All Member States had transposed Art. 20 of the Directive as at 2016. A few organisational 
changes  were  implemented  since,  but  these  had  no  impact  on  the  transposition  of  the 
Directive: 
o  IE: The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (INHREC) recently made its first 
submission, to contribute to the fourth progress report on the progress made in the fight 
against trafficking in human beings.    

o  LT: Order of 6 September 2013 of the Minister of Interior of the Republic of Lithuania 
No 1V – 750 on the implementation of Articles 19 and 20 of Directive 2011/36/EU was 
abolished  and  replaced  by  the  order  of  the  minister  of  the  interior  of  the  Republic  of 
Lithuania of 31 March 2017 on the appointment of the national reporter of the republic 
of  Lithuania  on  the  situation  of  the  fight  against  trafficking  in  human  beings  and 
statistical data and other information about the situation of trafficking in the protection 
of  human  resources  No  1V-245.  The  order  regulates  the  procedure  for  collecting  and 
providing statistical data and other information on the situation regarding trafficking in 
human  beings  to  the  National  Rapporteur  on  Combating  Trafficking  in  Human  Beings 
and publishing this information. 

o  PL:  The  2016  Assessment  concluded  that  the  Polish  legislation  does  not  include  a 
provision corresponding explicitly to Art. 20 of the Directive, but that its requirements 
can  be  inferred  from  several  national  instruments,  including  the  Committee  for 
Combating and Preventing Trafficking in Human Beings. This committee was replaced 
in  2019  by  the  Team  for  Counteracting  Human  Trafficking  (established  by  Ordinance 
No. 6 of the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration of 15 February 2019), which 
now fulfils that role in implementing Art. 20. 

o  SI:  Previously,  Slovenian  national  law  did  not  include  a  provision  corresponding 
explicitly to  Article 20 of the Directive. However, the 2016 assessment concluded that 
Slovenia  seemed  to  contribute  to  the  work  of  the  ATC  through  information  provided 
from  the  national  contact  point.  In  2020,  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Slovenia 
adopted Resolution  no.  01203-9/2020/4 amending the decision on the establishment of 
the Inter-Ministerial Working Group on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, which 
appointed a new national coordinator for combatting trafficking in human beings and an 
updated membership of the working group. Similar to the situation in 2016, this working 
group fulfils the role of ATC.  

Overall status of transposition/ gaps in transposition:  

  All Member States have implemented to Article 20.  

220